Friday
Sep272013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Science Media Centre hits new lows
Read this from the Science Media Centre.
...the slowdown has risked becoming the bête noire of climate science. It has been unfairly framed as (another) nail in the coffin for global warming – ‘You said it would get warmer and it hasn’t!’ – as though the failure of the temperature record to conform each year blows the whole evidence base out of the water. Triumphant claims are made – erroneously – that the failure to warm has finally been revealed and that scientists (part of the conspiracy, naturally) have been keeping quiet about it.
"..conform each year"?! "Conform at any point since the turn of the millennium" is the criticism.
Reader Comments (16)
I thought this was hysterical:
"Climate science is uncharted territory."
I thought it was 'settled science', n'est pas?
It's very difficult to follow the logic in the Science Media Centre's post. As far as I can make out it runs something like this:
We are one hundred percent sure of global warming. But it's more complicated than that. But anyone who points out the complexities is evil. Unless it's as. We are a hundred percent sure. Apart from the complexities. Which don't detract from us being a hundred percent sure.
Why would the SMC want to spoil the propaganda message by telling the truth?
BBC on the Today programme discussed a 'slowdown' in warming as does this announcement . I've been led to believe that there has been no warming since 1998. Should we assume that the terminology is a subtle way of
avoiding stating the truth?
Is it really to much ask that a prediction of ever increasing temperatures be matched by an actual increase in temperatures?
Is it really too much to ask the proponents of those predictions account for the discrepency, or temper their "certainty" until they do?
And by whom, exactly? Why, by those on the AGWist side, on the whole; most sceptics are, erm, sceptical because they have yet to be convinced about the argument. Being sceptical does not mean that the AGWistas are wrong; it just means that they have not presented a good enough argument. As most of those on the AGWist side seem to be ignoring evidence that is staring them in the face, the case of the sceptics is rapidly coalescing to that of utter refutation of the theory. If –IF – the IPCC and its cohorts could present reliable evidence to support their theory, or amend their theory to fit the facts, not force the facts to fit their models, there would be no polarisation.
Err... should not the Science Media Centre's press officer be a little more even handed and neutral. This is campaigning. Sheldon is not a press officer - he is a campaigner.
Here are the briefing notes that SMC issued in July regarding the slowdown in global temperatures. These briefing notes are "produced in consultation with top scientists in the field, as well as specialist media professionals. Aimed at broadcasters and new desks, briefing notes are designed to be rapidly read and fit on a single page which can be kept around a studio or newsroom."
RR
I'm with you and have been since the very beginning.
Show me the evidence. That's all I ask. Don't call me a denier or a flat-earther or anti-science or a shill for Someone-Or-Other just because I ask you to provide evidence for your hypotheses.
The minute you attack me for not being totally convinced you lose your argument — in whatever field we are discussing. Why is that so difficult for them to understand? They must have learnt that in their Sixth Form debating societies, or if not then, first year university, surely?
MIke Jackson
learning? are you kidding me! These people are stubbornly stupid. They are wilfully stupid. Stupidity is the only thing they understand. They will not enter into any sort of rational discussion because that would require them not being stupid.
''... as though the failure of the temperature record to conform each year blows the whole evidence base out of the water. ''
Er, what 'evidence base'?
Dolphinhead
The Church tells us that invincible ignorance is not sinful and those who suffer from it will be treated generously in the next world.
Culpable ignorance on the other hand ......................
These Global Warming extremists are the real deniers.
What a blasted cheek these people have. Remind them of a fraction of their statements regarding warming moving monatonically with increasing CO2emissions. Also how they claimed natural causes were tiny compared with warming due to GHG. They have bastardised their science to satisfy the politicians, and take more taxpayers money.
Lets not forget that this outfit is just an arrogant left leaning media filterbed with a MO of trashing sceptic views as standard policy. I read this piece, between the lines, as for them a surprisingly humble admission (beneath the bluster) that the climate agenda is in deep trouble.
My nose is cold? Must be the weather.
My nose often feels cold, is it the climate, or is it just me?
Think I'll put a jumper on.
:-/