- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #51
Which is why the leftist media is dying a slow death and FOX are going from strength to strength.
Absolutely saturated with leftist propaganda.
Earth Sciences Today is hot
- Thread starter Kildonan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Absolutely saturated with leftist propaganda.
No. You must realise that even right leaning media organisations appear left leaning from the viewpoint of the most extreme right wing commentators. If you are willing to ignore the overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change and believe in non-scientific conspiracy theories, it is likely that you have extremist political views.
And from someone on the extreme left, everyone would appear to be right wing.
Neither are true.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #53
Can you please post the link to the graph that you posted on post #39?
I would love to address it, but can’t find the original.
I assumed it would be in the IPCC report, based on your attack on scientific consensus, but can’t find it as yet.
If a newspaper, tv media, Wikipedia entry or scientific journal publishes something which you don’t agree with, do you always decide they have a leftist bias, or do you sometimes reconsider your own views?
Frankly I find the bias on FOX/Sky to be every bit as stark as some leftist stuff.
Here's a good example of what you're referring to.
I'd be staggered if many lefties believed The Age to be centrist. This chart was very obviously prepared by a lefty, with a lefty bias.
Quite a few there that I'm not familiar with, and I'd contest some of the rest.
Probably best to read a range of sources to understand that there is more than one perspective, and go from there.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #56
I have my own views, which are more often than not on the left.
There are key points of leftist fundamentalism that disgust me, such as the notion that everyone else is on the far right.
You do not need to know which specific graph had that projection arc. They all look that way.
That’s not what I said at all. This is the Science forum. Try and read what I’ve said, and make a considered reply.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #58
I read what you said, and that was the gist.
Frankly I find the bias on FOX/Sky to be every bit as stark as some leftist stuff.
Here's a good example of what you're referring to.
I'd be staggered if many lefties believed The Age to be centrist. This chart was very obviously prepared by a lefty, with a lefty bias.
Quite a few there that I'm not familiar with, and I'd contest some of the rest.
Probably best to read a range of sources to understand that there is more than one perspective, and go from there.
The graphic comes from Reddit:
I would have thought Reddit is more known for making cool pictures than accurate charts.
Would you agree with the order shown in the graphic, though? Perhaps having what is characterised as centre region over a little.
I am not familiar with most of the media names in the left section (except The Guardian opinion), but am very familiar with most of the names on the right section (except the Quadrant and the Spectator). I suspect most Australians would also be more exposed to (according to this graphic) right biased media than left biased media.
By the way I think some organisations have a history of being pro-opposition, no matter who the opposition is.
Any chance of posting your source for that graph? Genuinely interested.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #61
So you can add it to your pre-debunk chart and pretend you have knowledge?
Doesnt want the thread moved to the politics board - bangs on about the far right.
Werewolf
Underminer
Veteran
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs Board Tipping Champion
Western Bulldogs - Josh Prudden Player Sponsor 2016
Western Bulldogs - Zaine Cordy Player Sponsor 2016
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2016
Western Bulldogs - Mitch Honeychurch Player Sponsor 2016
SuperCoach Club Board Championship League Member
I'd prefer if this left/right nonsense stayed on the SRP/GD boards. We people of science should rise above it!
What pre-debunk chart? I clearly don’t know where the chart you posted comes from, otherwise I wouldn’t ask. It looks like an attempt to synthesise a whole load of sources. It also looks like the scales change on the narrow snippet you posted.
I also think you should post your source if you bring up something new. Feels appropriate for the Science board.
The discussion about media bias arose from a suggestion that Wikipedia is politically biased, after I suggested that, as long as care is taken Wikipedia can be very useful. I suggested this in response to your bluster that Wikipedia is not a valid source. But you refuse to post the source of the graphic you insisted showed that the consensus showed an incredibly broad range of predictions.
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #64
As I have already stated...
You do not need to know which chart it is, because all of the predictive charts have the same pattern.
I can imagine that attitude going down well at the editors of a scientific journal.
I’ll attempt to have a look at this pattern then.
Apparently you have no problems with the historical data.
HadCrut4 is one of a number of available datasets.
This was on the uk met office site. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/monitoring/index.html
There are three separate predictions on your graph, based on three scenarios about the success of international action. This probably equates with the IPCC’s scenarios, or RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways) which clearly show the effects of reducing or increasing carbon dioxide emissions. There are 5 such scenarios outline by the IPCC, not 3.
The brown scenario appears to equate with increasing emissions - increased deforestation, more coal mines, more coal fired power stations etc. by 2200, the average temperature rise is likely to be 8 degrees from now (not preindustrial levels) which is frankly end of the world stuff, even at the low end of their range.
The light blue scenario appears to equate with stopping the carbon dioxide levels from going above 1000ppm, while the dark blue scenario keeps levels from going above 500ppm. I am guessing because you won’t supply the source, but it broadly matches with the predictions of the IPCC and covers a range of carbon dioxide levels in each scenario, so showsa range of outcomes.
The Paris agreement was to try and limit global warming to an average of 1.5 degrees. That will have a far less serious effect than a 2 degree increase. The difference will be a loss of 60% of corals, for example, compared to 95% of corals dying and not being replaced.
IPCC have released a report on what will be needed to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. This graph is if everything goes right.
Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —
- Apr 2, 2012
- 8,315
- 9,641
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Green Bay Packers, Manchester UTD
- Banned
- #66
Dont spin too hard, you might puke.I can imagine that attitude going down well at the editors of a scientific journal.
I’ll attempt to have a look at this pattern then.
Apparently you have no problems with the historical data.
HadCrut4 is one of a number of available datasets.
View attachment 806986
This was on the uk met office site. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/monitoring/index.html
There are three separate predictions on your graph, based on three scenarios about the success of international action. This probably equates with the IPCC’s scenarios, or RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways) which clearly show the effects of reducing or increasing carbon dioxide emissions. There are 5 such scenarios outline by the IPCC, not 3.
The brown scenario appears to equate with increasing emissions - increased deforestation, more coal mines, more coal fired power stations etc. by 2200, the average temperature rise is likely to be 8 degrees from now (not preindustrial levels) which is frankly end of the world stuff, even at the low end of their range.
The light blue scenario appears to equate with stopping the carbon dioxide levels from going above 1000ppm, while the dark blue scenario keeps levels from going above 500ppm. I am guessing because you won’t supply the source, but it broadly matches with the predictions of the IPCC and covers a range of carbon dioxide levels in each scenario, so showsa range of outcomes.
The Paris agreement was to try and limit global warming to an average of 1.5 degrees. That will have a far less serious effect than a 2 degree increase. The difference will be a loss of 60% of corals, for example, compared to 95% of corals dying and not being replaced.
IPCC have released a report on what will be needed to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. This graph is if everything goes right.
View attachment 806988
Global Warming of 1.5 ºC —
www.ipcc.ch
That chart doesn't show the post-1998 global warming hiatus referenced by the IPCC in 2013. What happened to it?
Global warming pause 'central' to IPCC climate report
The BBC article you referenced was from 2013. After their meeting that year the IPCC released this report:
I think the BBC reporter was conflating weather with climate. A few cold days doesn’t mean that the climate is getting cooler, just as a few hot days doesn’t mean it’s getting warmer. To be fair, global climate is a complex system and there are daily cycles, seasonal cycles, El Niño weather cycles etc to take into account.
But the long term trends were there to be seen at the time, and have only been exacerbated since.
Here is a BBC article from 2020, to drive the point home.
Climate change: Where we are in seven charts and what you can do to help
We look at how hot the world has got and what can we can all do to tackle global warming.
The 20 warmest years on record have been in the last 22 years. 2019 was the hottest on record, but as that is only one year, it could be a weather event rather than evidence of climate change. All those warm years together make the evidence very compelling.
Yeah, but I'm asking about the IPCC chart that has retrospectively erased the 15-year hiatus.
People know when they are being bullshitted, and a lot of "deniers" object on that ground alone.
They got better information. By better, I mean more accurate, and from more places. That’s not bullshit.
This article reviews this quite well.
ShieldSquare Captcha
iopscience.iop.org
Yes, the claim is that polar and sea surface temperatures weren't being factored in. Yet the (truly global) satellite record did cover those things and showed the same hiatus as the IPCC.
It's a fudge like the 1940-60 cooling fudge, performed because the models can't replicate these shorter-term trends.
Yes, the claim is that polar and sea surface temperatures weren't being factored in. Yet the (truly global) satellite record did cover those things and showed the same hiatus as the IPCC.
It's a fudge like the 1940-60 cooling fudge, performed because the models can't replicate these shorter-term trends.
No, it’s not a fudge.
There were 90 papers that could be called pause papers, but they didn’t agree on the time period of the pause. A 15 year hiatus is a fiction, based even on those papers.
The review of the papers using both current knowledge and data available at the time, show that the hiatus wasn’t real, and shouldn’t have been so accepted.
To quote the last sentence of the abstract: “The results show that there is little or no statistical evidence for a lack of trend or slower trend in GMST using either the historical data or the current data. The perception that there was a 'pause' in GMST was bolstered by earlier biases in the data in combination with incomplete statistical testing.”
So faulty science gets superceded. That is the way science should work.
Can you please reference the graphic you posted. This is the Science board, not the Conspiracy Theories board.
Who would have thought the weather would be so political
It never used to be
Going back to the first post which was a few years back,it doesnt seem to have got any cooler
It's the UAH satellite dataset. I'm very surprised that anyone conversant on the climate debate isn't familiar with it.
Spencer being a favourite target of warmists, here is their preferred RSS satellite dataset showing the same hiatus.
It's the UAH satellite dataset. I'm very surprised that anyone conversant on the climate debate isn't familiar with it.
Spencer being a favourite target of warmists, here is their preferred RSS satellite dataset showing the same hiatus.
Thank you for quoting the reference. It’s good policy to give people the chance to look at your sources, and make opinions about their veracity and context.
To be fair, the graphic mentioned UAH satellite observations. I will comment in a more considered way later.
