You never hear anything in the popular press regarding all of the research showing that Global Warming is not anthropogenic. All you hear is that some political group or some group of "scientists" have signed some decree saying that GW is real. You never hear about the science that is trying to unravel the truth.
The following article is a good example:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0
Why hasn't this been reported in the popular press?
2007-10-14 04:13:52 · 18 answers · asked by Traxm 2 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
As has been illustrated here, there are 2 possible explanations:
1) There is almost no science showing that the current global warming is not primarily anthropogenic.
2) The media is so liberally biased that they won't report when such studies are done.
In response to #2 I ask do you really think that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are so liberally biased that they would ignore scientific studies disproving anthropogenic global warming? I think not. That's an absurd argument.
The correct answer is #1, as studies have shown.
"The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus."
2007-10-14 11:04:08 · answer #1 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The simple reason the media don't report it is because it basically doesn't exist.
Despite what some skeptics think, scientists do not set out to prove or disprove a point. They set out to examine all aspects and then draw conclusions based on their findings.
You're asking a question here about my line of work, for 24 years now I've been studying global warming. Neither myself or any of my colleagues have ever set out with an objective in mind. We take on board everything that everyone has to say and leave behind our own opinions when conducting research, if we failed to do that we would very quickly be struck off.
Bear in mind that for several years the likes of Exxon employed teams of top scientists who were specifically tasked with disproving anthropogenic global warming. Years or research and millions of dollars later and the scientists conceded there was nothing.
2007-10-14 07:13:55 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
For the same reason that the debates about the flat earth, creationism, and cold fusion are so one sided.
It's because all the evidence is on one side.
And, as "proof" that your beliefs are not reported in the popular press, you cite -- an article from the popular press. That's just too cute for words. One of these days, I hope that GW denialists will grow up and start citing peer-reviewed science. Then you'll have my respect. Until then, you won't.
2007-10-14 06:06:48 · answer #3 · answered by Keith P 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
The popular press is only representative of the science. You couldn't give equal coverage to such a minority view, people would laugh at you. If you want the 'true' story you'll just have to keep on grubbing around in the crevices of the internet.
2007-10-14 05:59:00 · answer #4 · answered by John Sol 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The debate is one-sided because the real science is one-sided.
Almost all of the anti-AWG "science" is actually fake or pseudo-science or anti-science or simply wishful hypothesizing without much evidence. It has become a difficult thing in recent years for the public to distinguish "real" science from fake science, because discrediting the scientific enterprise and the scientific method has become a useful political and legal tool. But there is a difference, and the GW debate is a near-perfect example. There is an enormous amount of fake science being manufactured and put out on the internet in support of the anti-AWG hypothesis.
It is a credit to the popular press that it no longer pays much attention to this internet propaganda.
2007-10-14 05:33:02 · answer #5 · answered by cosmo 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Because most of the meida is slanted slightly to the left. When I say slightly I man a lot. They would not discuss the other side of the story becasue it will make them look bad. I know the liberals are going to say somthing like "becasue there are not facts to support the other side, 99% of the worlds scientist agree". The thing is though if you look in the right places you can find evidence to suggest that it is a natural cycle.
2007-10-14 06:48:41 · answer #6 · answered by Rocketman 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
ill furnish you the jist of the two aspects a million. liberals who attempt to persuade each and each physique that the components is changing so as that they purchase "eco-friendly" products that illedgedly shop the earth inspite of the actuality that it takes better ability to steer them to love that then they shop and that they choose so which you would be waiting to purchase them so as that they might get money and larger administration over people applying international warming. 2. is the conservative area that the earth is going by potential of potential of organic and organic heating and cooling cycles (thats why there are ice a at the same time as and spots between ige a at the same time as till now people existed) the earth is getting warmer statistically yet its no longer being extra approximately by potential of guy its a organic and organic cycle, i cant undergo in techniques which volcano they say it grew to grow to be yet at the same time because it eruoted it shot better pollutents into the eair once you think approximately that guy invented hearth. so as that would desire to prefer to make it easier to be attentive to its no longer extra approximately by potential of guy. So somewhat the eco-friendly homestead effect seems stable in thought yet there is not any records that it exists. the earth gets of direction warmer and cooler. additionally the "records" of it comes from experimetns that have been replaced so as that people might desire to get what they choose for to take heed to out of it and what they had to take heed to grew to grow to be that international warming is genuinely.
2016-10-09 05:12:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here are some other articles in the media indicating that global warming is not the problem some think.
The articles feature the work of two scientists, Stephen McIntyre and Anthony Watts. McIntyre audits climate research and ALWAYS finds problems in their papers. He found errors in Michael Mann's research. He also found an error in NASA's temp record. I provided a radio interview with the BBC in a link below.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/eaclimate116.xml
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/news/bbc.aug07.MP3
Anthony Watts is leading an all volunteer effort to document the quality of weather stations. Some of them are positioned on top of parking lots! Obviously, this introduces a warm bias. The work by Watts indicates that the global surface temperatures have not warmed as much as thought. Watts has been in the news quite a bit.
http://surfacestations.org
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html
Sometimes even liberal media publish articles critical of global warming. Check out the article published in The Nation. http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070528&s=cockburn
-------
Bob, regarding your comment on McIntyre - you have to realize that the US surface station network is among the best on the planet. If GISTEMP has errors, the rest of the world probably does as well. Pielke has provided some photos of surface stations in Africa and other places on his website that showed an obvious warm bias. Because of this Anthony Watts started http://surfacestations.org McIntyre has reconstructed US temps based on CRNl-2 level surface stations and the warmest years in the US are now 1934, 1921, 1998 and 2006 in that order. The better the data gets, the less global warming looks like a problem. BTW, Watts is taking http://surfacestations.org global to evaluate GHCN. When it is all over, we will know a lot more about how little the Earth has warmed.
2007-10-14 04:55:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
For the same reason that most every world leader accepts global warming as real and mostly caused by us. That's not something they want to do, it causes them big problems. George Bush changed his mind about it, something that doesn't come easily to him.
And the same reason EVERY major scientific organization agrees also.
Because there's an overwhelming amount of data that proves that. A very small sample:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
All the "skeptics" arguments are clearly refuted by the data. Take the one you cite, Mars. Look here.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642
Even strong conservatives accept the science:
"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"
The bottom line. Not based on opinion.
"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”
Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command
Ron C - McIntyre, while just an amateur, has made some contributions to identifying details that could use some refinement. He has never come up with anything major that changes the game. The NASA temperature thing is the ultimate example. Worldwide, the correction was just about a thousandth of a degree, and only changed the rate of heating during the interval between two specific years.
EDIT2 Ron C - It's still unimportant, because it only changes the warming rate for one instant. Using (properly) the five year average, the rate doesn't change any significant amount, even if the same problem was present elsewhere (and not even McIntyre claims that, it was a situation unique to the US).
Most all the "skeptics" are nibbling at details, not saying or doing anything that affects the basic conclusion that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.
2007-10-14 05:00:09 · answer #9 · answered by Bob 7 · 6⤊ 6⤋
It's the same reasoning for the gw crowd trying to make us believe that 90% of the world is buying into this theory. If that number were correct,than why has the Green Party in Canada fallen in popularity from 10% to 8%?
2007-10-14 04:47:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋