Comments on: Journalists Examine Teapot Tempests as Real Glaciers Melt http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/02/02/journalists-examine-teapot-tempests-as-real-glaciers-melt/ The national media watch group Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:27:06 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: February 2010 « Questionable Content http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/02/02/journalists-examine-teapot-tempests-as-real-glaciers-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-39224 February 2010 « Questionable Content Sun, 05 Sep 2010 02:14:01 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13620#comment-39224 [...] http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/02/02/journalists-examine-teapot-tempests-as-real-glaciers-melt/commen... . [...] [...] http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/02/02/journalists-examine-teapot-tempests-as-real-glaciers-melt/commen... . [...]

]]> By: FAIR Blog » Blog Archive » OJ and Global Warming: Fossil Fuels Have Their Own Dream Team http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/02/02/journalists-examine-teapot-tempests-as-real-glaciers-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-13243 FAIR Blog » Blog Archive » OJ and Global Warming: Fossil Fuels Have Their Own Dream Team Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:25:05 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13620#comment-13243 [...] McKibben (TheNation.com, 2/25/10)  has a good analogy that explains the success of global warming deniers: The campaign against climate science has been enormously clever, and enormously effective. [...] [...] McKibben (TheNation.com, 2/25/10)  has a good analogy that explains the success of global warming deniers: The campaign against climate science has been enormously clever, and enormously effective. [...]

]]> By: Doug Latimer http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/02/02/journalists-examine-teapot-tempests-as-real-glaciers-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-12671 Doug Latimer Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:21:57 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13620#comment-12671 Related piece: Climate Change Scientists Losing 'PR War' to Vested Interests A Nobel peace prize-winning Welsh physicist says climate change scientists are losing "a PR war" against sceptics with vested interests. by BBC News http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/12-1 Related piece:

Climate Change Scientists Losing 'PR War' to Vested Interests
A Nobel peace prize-winning Welsh physicist says climate change scientists are losing "a PR war" against sceptics with vested interests.
by BBC News

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/12-1

]]> By: BrianF http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/02/02/journalists-examine-teapot-tempests-as-real-glaciers-melt/comment-page-1/#comment-12493 BrianF Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:58:37 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13620#comment-12493 A very important point that almost nobody mentions is that the only mistake the IPCC made, and the only thing they apoligized for, was not applying the same high standards to checking into this prediction as they usually do. That does not make the conclusion that the glaciers could melt as soon as 2035 false, it just means there is not yet enough evidence to say with confidence that is true. It still could very well be true. In general the IPCC has been too conservative and cautious in its predictions, so much so that many things have already proven to be worse than even their worst case scenarios, and it's less than 3 years from the time the reports were published! If the news media was really being fair, they would mention this in their accounts, so that people would know that in general things are more urgent than the IPCC reports indicate. And I'm talking about things that have actually happened, not predictions that we won't know the accuracy of until another 25 years have passed. A very important point that almost nobody mentions is that the only mistake the IPCC made, and the only thing they apoligized for, was not applying the same high standards to checking into this prediction as they usually do. That does not make the conclusion that the glaciers could melt as soon as 2035 false, it just means there is not yet enough evidence to say with confidence that is true. It still could very well be true.

In general the IPCC has been too conservative and cautious in its predictions, so much so that many things have already proven to be worse than even their worst case scenarios, and it's less than 3 years from the time the reports were published! If the news media was really being fair, they would mention this in their accounts, so that people would know that in general things are more urgent than the IPCC reports indicate. And I'm talking about things that have actually happened, not predictions that we won't know the accuracy of until another 25 years have passed.

]]>