Comments on: TV3 needs to take stock http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tv3-needs-to-take-stock Global warming and the future of New Zealand Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:41:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: TV3 on track this time — Hot Topic http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/comment-page-1/#comment-5902 TV3 on track this time — Hot Topic Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:49:40 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=2310#comment-5902 [...] was quick to condemn TV3 news for its gratuitous introduction of denialist claims into its item last week on the [...] [...] was quick to condemn TV3 news for its gratuitous introduction of denialist claims into its item last week on the [...]

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: nicol design http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/comment-page-1/#comment-5868 nicol design Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:34:14 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=2310#comment-5868 How distracting from the real issues. How silly to continue to argue against science when it is clear to so many that we humans actually have an effect on the world, that that effect is often deleterious, and that there are actually many quite simple things that we can do to prevent ill effects. The real debate is what next. We humans are very clever at analysis of what is happening, not so clever at what to do about it. R2, you are continuing a line of argument that you must find at least a little boring by now, unless you are actually getting paid by the word. Surely you could dedicate some of your verbosity to the area of solutions, so that we can get along without pooping in each other's nests quite so much... How distracting from the real issues. How silly to continue to argue against science when it is clear to so many that we humans actually have an effect on the world, that that effect is often deleterious, and that there are actually many quite simple things that we can do to prevent ill effects.

The real debate is what next. We humans are very clever at analysis of what is happening, not so clever at what to do about it. R2, you are continuing a line of argument that you must find at least a little boring by now, unless you are actually getting paid by the word. Surely you could dedicate some of your verbosity to the area of solutions, so that we can get along without pooping in each other’s nests quite so much…

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Bryan Walker http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/comment-page-1/#comment-5865 Bryan Walker Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:34:37 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=2310#comment-5865 "it is obvious to TV3 news and the rest of the country the science is 'far from settled'. " R2D2, all that is obvious to TV3 is that some groups deny the science of global warming. From this they draw the conclusion that the science is far from settled. They have offered me no indication that anyone in their news team has acquainted themselves with the science. You sneer at my Wikipedia link. I don't know why. It was there to indicate the enormous weight of scientific opinion, against which TV3 are apparently happy to set denialist views which have simply not been able to establish themselves in the scientific mainstream. Some of your comments express surprise that we should be angry about the matter. It's simple really. I said in my reply to John Hale: "This is much more than a matter of opinion so far as I am concerned. It is a life-and-death sort of question. Certainly well beyond an interesting debate." By the way, is it necessary to your arguments that my honesty should be so frequently impugned? I can assure you there is no knowing dishonesty in what I write. “it is obvious to TV3 news and the rest of the country the science is ‘far from settled’. ”

R2D2, all that is obvious to TV3 is that some groups deny the science of global warming. From this they draw the conclusion that the science is far from settled. They have offered me no indication that anyone in their news team has acquainted themselves with the science. You sneer at my Wikipedia link. I don’t know why. It was there to indicate the enormous weight of scientific opinion, against which TV3 are apparently happy to set denialist views which have simply not been able to establish themselves in the scientific mainstream.

Some of your comments express surprise that we should be angry about the matter. It’s simple really. I said in my reply to John Hale: “This is much more than a matter of opinion so far as I am concerned. It is a life-and-death sort of question. Certainly well beyond an interesting debate.”

By the way, is it necessary to your arguments that my honesty should be so frequently impugned? I can assure you there is no knowing dishonesty in what I write.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: R2D2 http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/comment-page-1/#comment-5860 R2D2 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:32:10 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=2310#comment-5860 Marco: Am I being pedantic? This post is criticising journalists who say the science is not settled. Maybe this post is padantic and I am simply trying to keep the author honest? This post is justified by a link to Wikipedia. Settled does not mean "we know enough to act", as Gareth put it in his comment. And "Given the weight of opinion building up around the IPCC" as Gareth quotes the BBC - sorry science and opinion are not the same. Sorry if I am being pedantic. But there is a big difference to me. I am not trying to say the whole thing is fake, but it is obvious to TV3 news and the rest of the country the science is "far from settled". Steve Bloom: You are confused like usual. The quotes was from a) radio interview Macro directed me to with Robert Watson (DEFRA, former IPCC chairman) b) Gareths comments from this post. Not Wall Street Journal. Which according to you is a wingnut paper? I guess you justify your world view by disregarding everyone who disagrees with you as a wingnut (Gareth prefers the term Crank). What ever helps you sleep. Marco: Am I being pedantic? This post is criticising journalists who say the science is not settled. Maybe this post is padantic and I am simply trying to keep the author honest? This post is justified by a link to Wikipedia. Settled does not mean “we know enough to act”, as Gareth put it in his comment. And “Given the weight of opinion building up around the IPCC” as Gareth quotes the BBC – sorry science and opinion are not the same.

Sorry if I am being pedantic. But there is a big difference to me.

I am not trying to say the whole thing is fake, but it is obvious to TV3 news and the rest of the country the science is “far from settled”.

Steve Bloom: You are confused like usual. The quotes was from
a) radio interview Macro directed me to with Robert Watson (DEFRA, former IPCC chairman)
b) Gareths comments from this post.

Not Wall Street Journal. Which according to you is a wingnut paper? I guess you justify your world view by disregarding everyone who disagrees with you as a wingnut (Gareth prefers the term Crank). What ever helps you sleep.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: samv http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/comment-page-1/#comment-5848 samv Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:34:39 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=2310#comment-5848 R2, there is no point you are making which I am missing. The scientific consensus has long been achieved - the major peer reviewed science journals in the world are unanimous on this. I used to think that style of argument could hold weight, too - then I read Spencer Weart's book <a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/" rel="nofollow">The Discovery of Global Warming</a> and saw just how robust the AGW science really is. And no, I've never heard of that person. R2, there is no point you are making which I am missing. The scientific consensus has long been achieved – the major peer reviewed science journals in the world are unanimous on this. I used to think that style of argument could hold weight, too – then I read Spencer Weart’s book The Discovery of Global Warming and saw just how robust the AGW science really is.

And no, I’ve never heard of that person.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Macro http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/comment-page-1/#comment-5847 Macro Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:58:20 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=2310#comment-5847 Robert Watson puts a figure of greater than 90% confidence on the climate system science. I think this is where R2 is making his point. (ie it's not yet at the 95% confidence level!) I'm sure Robert Watson didn't pull that figure out of his hat R2. So yes the climate system is maybe not settled to the "almost certain" that R2 demands, but it is stretching a very long bow to say that it is "far from settled" - "Highly likely" does not equal "far from settled". Your argument that this certainty is beyond the point stands. Robert Watson puts a figure of greater than 90% confidence on the climate system science. I think this is where R2 is making his point. (ie it’s not yet at the 95% confidence level!) I’m sure Robert Watson didn’t pull that figure out of his hat R2. So yes the climate system is maybe not settled to the “almost certain” that R2 demands, but it is stretching a very long bow to say that it is “far from settled” – “Highly likely” does not equal “far from settled”.
Your argument that this certainty is beyond the point stands.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Macro http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/comment-page-1/#comment-5846 Macro Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:43:53 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=2310#comment-5846 I think you are being more than a little pedantic R2! Seems to me you just don't want to accept the inevitable. I think you are being more than a little pedantic R2! Seems to me you just don’t want to accept the inevitable.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Steve Bloom http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/comment-page-1/#comment-5845 Steve Bloom Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:23:48 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=2310#comment-5845 R2, you lack a sufficient grasp of the science to back that up. You are in any event wrong. nd, just to note that the piece you quoted was not a news article. It was an op-ed, and isn't anything to worry about since it's clear to U.S. opinion leaders that the WSJ editorial page just preaches to the wingnut faithful. R2, you lack a sufficient grasp of the science to back that up. You are in any event wrong.

nd, just to note that the piece you quoted was not a news article. It was an op-ed, and isn’t anything to worry about since it’s clear to U.S. opinion leaders that the WSJ editorial page just preaches to the wingnut faithful.

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: R2D2 http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/comment-page-1/#comment-5844 R2D2 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:12:38 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=2310#comment-5844 Gareth, Macro, Stephen, (again for the nth time also) Listened to the interview, also saw him speak on Friday in Wellington. He says no doubt CO2 has been influenced, no doubt temperature has changed, and "the scientists would now would say it is greater than 90% confidence" (former leader of the IPCC). I agree but would add, 'some' before the word scientists. This thread is not about more or less likely, this issue is the phrase "the science is settled" (or "while the science is far from settled"). In essence Gareth and others are claiming here that the science is proven beyond 95%. This is out of line with Robert Watson. Robert Watson's comments are also an opinion. Although he is a prominent person he can not settle the science by making statements on Radio NZ. Studies need to be done to prove this before this comment can be made. And like Gareth says, "“The science” in the sense of having a perfect understanding of the climate system is not “settled” and never will be, because perfect knowledge of such a complex system is neither obtainable on reasonable timescales, or even necessary." I agree. The debate to act / not act is separate. But don't rubbish others for saying the science is "far from settled" when you have in essence agreed with that opinion Gareth! Gareth, Macro, Stephen, (again for the nth time also)

Listened to the interview, also saw him speak on Friday in Wellington.

He says no doubt CO2 has been influenced, no doubt temperature has changed, and “the scientists would now would say it is greater than 90% confidence” (former leader of the IPCC). I agree but would add, ‘some’ before the word scientists.

This thread is not about more or less likely, this issue is the phrase “the science is settled” (or “while the science is far from settled”).

In essence Gareth and others are claiming here that the science is proven beyond 95%. This is out of line with Robert Watson. Robert Watson’s comments are also an opinion. Although he is a prominent person he can not settle the science by making statements on Radio NZ. Studies need to be done to prove this before this comment can be made.

And like Gareth says, ““The science” in the sense of having a perfect understanding of the climate system is not “settled” and never will be, because perfect knowledge of such a complex system is neither obtainable on reasonable timescales, or even necessary.”

I agree. The debate to act / not act is separate. But don’t rubbish others for saying the science is “far from settled” when you have in essence agreed with that opinion Gareth!

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: R2D2 http://hot-topic.co.nz/tv3-needs-to-take-stock/comment-page-1/#comment-5843 R2D2 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:01:49 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=2310#comment-5843 Nice. You miss the point. "Best available evidence" does not equal "Science is settled". Read the thread again. Never do I say AGW is false. I say it isn't proven. And the science is not settled. I feel the channel 3 comment was justified. Whether one or the other is better is irrelevant. Random question: is that Carl Schortz in that photo? Nice. You miss the point.

“Best available evidence” does not equal “Science is settled”.

Read the thread again. Never do I say AGW is false. I say it isn’t proven. And the science is not settled. I feel the channel 3 comment was justified. Whether one or the other is better is irrelevant.

Random question: is that Carl Schortz in that photo?

Rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>