The Great Global Warming/Cooling Thread Part 2

[qualia]

This isn't climate change, it's environmental pollution by manmade actions, let's not confuse or compare this.

the authors never said it was. read the article again.

[whitewind]

Hi Safez,

Here are some links to research on CO2's affect on plants. Page 3 of this thread.

You may appreciate that a lot of the studies apply specifically to food crops, as that is potentially the biggest impact on global population, but one can surmise that many if not all plants are affected in different ways (there are also studies on these that we discussed earlier, possibly in the previous global warming thread). I would do a quick search online yourself as I don't have all the data to hand, and also head over to Skeptical Science to read up on the conclusions of the massive amounts of scientific data on the subject, which I also don't have the time to go into here. It is sufficient to say that CO2 acts not only as a pollutant that has specific effects on plants, coral, and animals, but also acts as a regulator for the climate. There is a lot of research on the subject and it would be a mistake to ignore it before going off on what we know here.

However, if you think about my comment a little, and see the different types of vegetation that grow along the coast of Australia, one can see that there are many species which tend to grow in specific locations; the further north or south you go, the less likely they appear. This suggests that they are better adapted to those locations, and while they will grow outside of their territory, they don't grow as well and they may have difficulty flowering, setting fruit and seedlings survive to adulthood. If most plants were as adaptable as Lantana, for example, and plants found it easy to make incursions into neighbouring ecosystems, all ecosystems would be much more chaotic than they are and we would find that plants that grow well in Katherine readily growing in Melbourne. Which we don't. Even when we move them there ourselves.

[Safez]

I am not questioning your examples here folks, and I feel your getting defensive because in your opinion, climate change is fact. Sure it may be fact, however is it going to cause a man made extinction event or be the cause of massive irreparable damage to the planet?

the authors never said it was. read the article again.

. I am aware of that. It was yourself that formulated that opinion hence why I mentioned to not get taken off topic .

I question the science behind the examples being quoted here. When they use phrases like "conservative assumptions", "generalised linear models" "observed regional warming" I raise my eyebrow.

Again it comes down to time frames, even this climate modelling

IPCC A2 and B1 climate scenarios for the years 2030, 2060, and 2090

This trends data that, on a scale such as the history of the earth, is less than the blink of an eye? Not to mention, this is based on "best and worst case scenarios" that are modelled; meaning they are based on a persons interpretation of data based on someone elses interpretations.

So this group says that 13.54% will be saved out a 99.97% loss in habitat if their CO2 emission scenario is implemented.

That would leave 86.43% habitat loss. So they managed to save 13% of a species habitat. That's not exactly big numbers... Why do they not provide modelling for any longer periods of time? It's simple, because there are too many variables to quantify, there is too many variables to be trying to make scientific opinions and fact from a study over the period of 100 years.

I think humans are causing a huge disparity in the food chain and causing a lot of environmental stress, I just think we need to have less focus on global warming causing chaos and "mass extinctions" and focus more on protection of our natural resources and a reduction in environmental pollution. Which yes, will cause a drop in emissions for all of those worried about climate change.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Safez

[qualia]

I question the science behind the examples being quoted here.

until you prove it's wrong then your opinion is just that.

[Safez]

Considering the report copypasta you obviously feel is fact as your provoking me to "prove it wrong", as if I had indeed dismissed the report(which I hadnt, as I'm questioning science not the observations made, which may be true); they technically haven't been proven either, as they are simply "observations" and "models". Therefore your response is rather ignorant considering the high level of respect that members have had for each others opinion to this point.

I wish no further debate with you on this subject. I will not post here again.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Safez

[qualia]

just as i thought. you can't prove it's wrong.

[Halcyon Daze]

Trying to prove climate change is a myth based on dodgy science is ridiculous.

You only have to think about how much carbon we have added to the atmosphere (and altered the planet in general) and look at the effects happening around you.

The issue is no longer about weather it's real or not, the issue is what can we do about it.

I suspect most climate deniers think there's absolutely nothing we can do about it...

[Dolos]

Considering the report copypasta you obviously feel is fact as your provoking me to "prove it wrong", as if I had indeed dismissed the report(which I hadnt, as I'm questioning science not the observations made, which may be true); they technically haven't been proven either, as they are simply "observations" and "models". Therefore your response is rather ignorant considering the high level of respect that members have had for each others opinion to this point.

I wish no further debate with you on this subject. I will not post here again.

 

Well that is some what of an over the top reaction and some what disappointing. May I remind you of your first post..

Such a heated debate here! I like!

If you think you’ve been treated harshly I would recommend you read the first thread on this subject from front to back and then make a comparison. It's great reading. A university educated fellow (much like yourself by the sounds of things) but with a fetish for catastrophic climate change, carbon dioxide, alarmism and an unwavering belief in the IPCC and himself led an attack on a once respected member (of whom I am still a close and personal friend) because that member refused to be persuaded to his way of thinking by intimidation and group think. The thread got very ugly at times with insults flying thick and fast back and forward. The majority though had learned a new strategy. 'Insult and edit' and boy they were good at it. The foolish member in the minority left all his post's there for all to read. What most didn't know at the time was he was also being bombarded with personnel messages of hate for holding his opinions by many members still here today. (they know who they are) Foolishly he figured his shoulders were broad enough and he just copped it and that was his big mistake. He should have outed them! The dickhead!!!...He said he wasn't going to be intimidated and bullied into silence. He got booted and funnily enough he was the only one. You won't read the whole sorry saga as it was as it has been edited to suit the owner of this sites beliefs. He controls the narrative on this unfortunately. What it does show is how this subject within this forum has for too long been skewed the one way. You had the latest gang of 3 cutting and pasting furiously in response, and they were poor responses and now you are going to just spit the dummy and walk away. These guys like to use big words from big books but mostly they mean nothing. Lets look at eatfoos recent contribution to the debate. LOL @ Dolos..wow..I'm convinced. But least he feels better.

Please reconsider your hasty decision. Otherwise it is just another example of intimidation being used to silence the debate. The debate these guys say is over. They have been getting away with this for far too long. I know of other members here who hold the same beliefs as me but they won't post here for fear of the same bash up Hutch got. May he RIP....I was hoping that University fellow would pop back over from A&E and rejoin the debate. You I felt would have been up to the task. Would have been a debate worth watching....

[whitewind]

Dolos you run the risk of being asked to leave if you can't respect other members here. Your post is ridiculous in the extreme and could simply be removed for being very far off topic. This thread is to discuss the impacts of man-made climate change, not to talk conspiracy theories and abuse other members.

I have quoted your tirade below so that any editing you might make shall be not be lost, and I will be happy to remove it if you retract your comments.

Well that is some what of an over the top reaction and some what disappointing. May I remind you of your first post..

Such a heated debate here! I like!

If you think you’ve been treated harshly I would recommend you read the first thread on this subject from front to back and then make a comparison. It's great reading. A university educated fellow (much like yourself by the sounds of things) but with a fetish for catastrophic climate change, carbon dioxide, alarmism and an unwavering belief in the IPCC and himself led an attack on a once respected member (of whom I am still a close and personal friend) because that member refused to be persuaded to his way of thinking by intimidation and group think. The thread got very ugly at times with insults flying thick and fast back and forward. The majority though had learned a new strategy. 'Insult and edit' and boy they were good at it. The foolish member in the minority left all his post's there for all to read. What most didn't know at the time was he was also being bombarded with personnel messages of hate for holding his opinions by many members still here today. (they know who they are) Foolishly he figured his shoulders were broad enough and he just copped it and that was his big mistake. He should have outed them! The dickhead!!!...He said he wasn't going to be intimidated and bullied into silence. He got booted and funnily enough he was the only one. You won't read the whole sorry saga as it was as it has been edited to suit the owner of this sites beliefs. He controls the narrative on this unfortunately. What it does show is how this subject within this forum has for too long been skewed the one way. You had the latest gang of 3 cutting and pasting furiously in response, and they were poor responses and now you are going to just spit the dummy and walk away. These guys like to use big words from big books but mostly they mean nothing. Lets look at eatfoos recent contribution to the debate. LOL @ Dolos..wow..I'm convinced. But least he feels better.

Please reconsider your hasty decision. Otherwise it is just another example of intimidation being used to silence the debate. The debate these guys say is over. They have been getting away with this for far too long. I know of other members here who hold the same beliefs as me but they won't post here for fear of the same bash up Hutch got. May he RIP....I was hoping that University fellow would pop back over from A&E and rejoin the debate. You I felt would have been up to the task. Would have been a debate worth watching....

 

[Dolos]

Dolos you run the risk of being asked to leave if you can't respect other members here. Your post is ridiculous in the extreme and could simply be removed for being very far off topic. This thread is to discuss the impacts of man-made climate change, not to talk conspiracy theories and abuse other members.

I have quoted your tirade below so that any editing you might make shall be not be lost, and I will be happy to remove it if you retract your comments.

 

Asked by whom? You? The post may seem ridiculous to you but to those whom were around at the time it is far from it and a very accurate reflection of the times. Much of it can be reproduced. Hutch kept page impressions and copies of PM's as well. He just never used them. Hutch can show what was changed at the time of his expulsion. So...Which of my comments were you expecting a retraction of and for what reasons? Which member have I abused?

[Dolos]

I don't think Hutch would mind me calling him a dick head...Sure your not just being a bit precious?

[Halcyon Daze]

Calm down, you're losing the plot mate...

[in_spirit]

Dolos you run the risk of being asked to leave if you can't respect other members here. Your post is ridiculous in the extreme and could simply be removed for being very far off topic. This thread is to discuss the impacts of man-made climate change, not to talk conspiracy theories and abuse other members.

I have quoted your tirade below so that any editing you might make shall be not be lost, and I will be happy to remove it if you retract your comments.

 

Ridiculous!!! Lol.

[whitewind]

Ridiculous!!! Lol.

 

Actually, not. I have spent years on mainstream media "discussing" climate change and the whole debate has devolved into ridiculous arguments and nonsense claims like, and I quote:

You won't read the whole sorry saga as it was as it has been edited to suit the owner of this sites beliefs. He controls the narrative on this unfortunately.

As if Torsten will be bothered to even read this thread, he has a whole lot of other stuff on his plate which is far more interesting to him. Yet, over and over, everywhere you go, the same claims erupt "the moderators are closing me down because of a secret agenda" - probably the post has been removed because of remarks like that and this:

I don't think Hutch would mind me calling him a dick head...Sure your not just being a bit precious?

 

How unnecessary in a thread devoted to discussing the effects of climate change on plants. Imagine trying to discuss hybridizing cacti and having a young-earth creationist come along every 5 minutes and start screaming that humans can't genetically alter plants, and claiming that any offensive posts removed are because the site's owner has a secret agenda to shut down creationism.

You'd never get anything done, which is exactly what has happened to the climate change debate. This thread has helped me find more information than you will find on any mainstream "debate" about climate change, and it's a gem for that reason. We can't let the conspiracy theorists continue to obscure and shut down debate with their wild ramblings and random abuse.

[in_spirit]

Actually, not. I have spent years on mainstream media "discussing" climate change and the whole debate has devolved into ridiculous arguments and nonsense claims like, and I quote:

As if Torsten will be bothered to even read this thread, he has a whole lot of other stuff on his plate which is far more interesting to him. Yet, over and over, everywhere you go, the same claims erupt "the moderators are closing me down because of a secret agenda" - probably the post has been removed because of remarks like that and this:

How unnecessary in a thread devoted to discussing the effects of climate change on plants. Imagine trying to discuss hybridizing cacti and having a young-earth creationist come along every 5 minutes and start screaming that humans can't genetically alter plants, and claiming that any offensive posts removed are because the site's owner has a secret agenda to shut down creationism.

You'd never get anything done, which is exactly what has happened to the climate change debate. This thread has helped me find more information than you will find on any mainstream "debate" about climate change, and it's a gem for that reason. We can't let the conspiracy theorists continue to obscure and shut down debate with their wild ramblings and random abuse.

 

Sorry,, it is just my own opinion but, when i read these types of threads, i see two types of people ;n two sides of thought, the is the sayers and the naysayers ( the argument is irrelevant), they look jst like religious arguments, no-one is gonna give an inch from either side. Now surely being mature adults with 'yes our own ideas' instead of pick one argument to peices or building up parties of a particular thought as in global warming vs anti global warming, the two parties could collaborate and find common ground in the middle somewhere?? I think i see attempts at this but not successful because collaboration is by a twofold path.Surely through collaboration on the middle path (there has to be a middle path of two sides of argument) it would be far more productive than this what you call a debate?

Look at religious arguments no-one ever wins creation v's science, Islam v's christianity, no winners ever and the war still is with us as to which is right.

So i re-iterate my comment 'ridiculous, lol.

[whitewind]

The debate has been derailed. No-one is discussing the topic at hand. Let's get back to discussing the effects of climate change on our world.

Mississippi River Faces Shipping Freeze as Water Levels Drop

The Mississippi as seen from Ed Drager's tug boat is a river in retreat: a giant beached barge is stranded where the water dropped, with sand bars springing into view. The floating barge office where the tugboat captain reports for duty is tilted like a funhouse. One side now rests on the exposed shore. "I've never seen the river this low," Drager said. "It's weird."

The worst drought in half a century has brought water levels in the Mississippi close to historic lows and could shut down all shipping in a matter of weeks – unless Barack Obama takes extraordinary measures.

It's the second extreme event on the river in 18 months, after flooding in the spring of 2011 forced thousands to flee their homes. Without rain, water levels on the Mississippi are projected to reach historic lows this month, the national weather service said in its latest four-week forecast.

"All the ingredients for us getting to an all-time record low are certainly in place," said Mark Fuchs, a hydrologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) in St Louis. "I would be very surprised if we didn't set a record this winter."

The drought has created a low-water choke point south of St Louis, near the town of Thebes, where pinnacles of rock extend upwards from the river bottom making passage treacherous.

Shipping companies are hauling 15 barges at a time instead of a typical string of 25, because the bigger runs are too big for the operating conditions.

Barges are carrying lighter loads, making for more traffic, with more delays and back-ups. Stretches of the river are now reduced to one-way traffic. A long cold spell could make navigation even trickier: shallow, slow-moving water is more likely to get clogged up with ice.

Current projections suggest water levels could drop too low to send barges through Thebes before the new year – unless there is heavy rainfall.

Local television in St Louis is dispensing doom-laden warnings about rusting metal and hazardous materials exposed by the receding waters.

Shipping companies say the economic consequences of a shutdown on the Mississippi would be devastating. About $7bn (£4.3bn) in vital commodities – typically grain, coal, heating oil, and cement – moves on the river at this time of year. Cutting off the transport route would have an impact across the mid-west and beyond.

The potential closure of the Mississippi river due to low water levels has raised concern for barge companies and others who use the river for shipping. Photograph: James West/Climate Desk

"There are so many issues at stake here," said George Foster, owner of JB Marine Services. "There is so much that moves on the river, not just coal and grain products, but you've got cement, steel for construction, chemicals for manufacturing plants, petroleum plants, heating oil. All those things move on the waterways, so if it shuts down you've got a huge stop of commerce."

Companies which ship their goods on the river are talking about lay-offs, if the Mississippi closes to navigation. Those would be just the first casualties, Foster said. "It is going to affect the people at the grocery store, at the gas pump, with home construction and so forth."

And it's going to fall especially hard on farmers, who took a heavy hit from the drought and who rely on the Mississippi to ship their grain to export markets. Farmers in the area lost up to three-quarters of their corn and soya bean crops to this year's drought. Old-timers say it was the worst year they can remember.

"We have been through some dry times. In 1954 when my dad and grandfather farmed here they pretty much had nothing because it was so dry," said Paul McCormick who farms with his son, Jack, in Ellis Grove, Illinois, south of St Louis. "But I think this was a topper for me this year."

Now, however, farmers are facing the prospect of not being able to sell their grain at all because they can't get it to market. The farmers may also struggle to find other bulk items, such as fertiliser, that are typically shipped by barge.

"Most of the grain produced on our farm ends up bound for export," said Jack McCormick, who raises beef cattle and grain with his father. "It ends up going down the river. That is a very good market for us, and if you can't move it that means a lower price, or you have to figure out a different way to move it. It all ends up as a lower price for the farmers."

The shipping industry in St Louis wants the White House to order the release of more water from the Missouri river, which flows into the Mississippi, to keep waters high enough for the long barges to float down the river to New Orleans.

Foster said the extra water would be for 60 days or so – time for the US army corps of engineers to blast and clear the series of rock pinnacles down river, near the town of Thebes, that threaten barges during this time of low water.

Sending out more water from the Missouri would doom states upstream, such as Montana, Nebraska, and South Dakota, which depend on water from the Missouri and are also caught in the drought.

"There are farmers and ranchers up there with livestock that don't have water to stay alive. They don't have enough fodder. They don't have enough irrigation water," said Robert Criss, a hydrologist at Washington University in St Louis, who has spent his career studying the Mississippi. "What a dumb way to use water during a drought."

Elected officials from South Dakota and elsewhere have pushed back strenuously at the idea of sending their water downstream. Foster reckons there is at best a 50-50 chance Obama will agree to open the gates. But such short-term measures ignore an even bigger problem. Scientists believe the Mississippi and other rivers are headed for an era of extremes, because of climate change.

This time last year, the Mississippi around St Louis was 20ft deeper because of heavy rain. In the spring of 2011, the army engineers blew up two miles of levees to save the town of Cairo, Illinois and Missouri farmland, and deliberately flood parts of rural Louisiana to ensure Baton Rouge and New Orleans stayed dry.

"It has kind of switched on us, and it switched pretty quick," said the coastguard chief Ryan Christiansen. "It wasn't that long ago that you had pretty high flooding, and now we are heading towards record lows."

Others argue that the Mississippi is over-engineered, after a century and a half of tampering with the natural flow.

Over the decades, Congress funded a number of projects to deepen the shipping channel, doubling it in depth to 9ft, and building an elaborate system of locks and dams to keep the river in a confined space.

Barges power their way up the Mississippi River. Photograph: Jeff Roberson/AP

The engineers are constantly dredging the river's sandy bottom or building levees to keep barges moving. Those efforts to confine the river to a deep and narrow channel are believed to have made surrounding areas more vulnerable to extreme floods – as in 2011, when thousands were forced to flee their homes.

Such measures may also not make sense in the long-term use of the river.

Criss argues the long barge trains floating on the Mississippi are just too big for the upper reaches of the river anyway, and that the industry is unfairly subsidised compared with other transport providers such as rail.

"The whole system around here has been entirely reconfigured to accommodate these monstrous barges," he said.

"This is the whole problem. We want to run boats on the river with 9ft drafts that are almost a quarter of a mile long. They are too big for the size of the river up here."

The Mississippi, Criss said, needs smaller boats.

 

[Dolos]

name='whitewind' timestamp='1355638531' post='402854']

As if Torsten will be bothered to even read this thread, he has a whole lot of other stuff on his plate which is far more interesting to him. Yet, over and over, everywhere you go, the same claims erupt "the moderators are closing me down because of a secret agenda" - probably the post has been removed because of remarks like that and this:

 

I do wonder if you even know that there is another half to this thread. It was split in two after being edited by someone with moderating abilities as Hutch was being shown the door. The thread was restarted and pinned. The rest left to who knows where. A very revealing statement was made by Torston at the time about the dangers of allowing 'deniers' freedom of speech. That post was promptly removed by Torston or someone else on his behalf. I remember it floored me at the time. Torston was willing to censor debate if he disagreed strongly enough with the others opinion because he thought those opinions dangerous. Time may prove that it was his opinion that was wrong. I'm not saying Hutch didn't deserve a cooling off period but so did others. The bias was obvious but I guess unless you can find the first half, read that then get a look at hutch's page impressions and PM's how would you know. When your going to go into bat for someone it would pay to know at least some of the story. You keep on stating why this thread was started in the first place but your wrong and you weren't any part of it. The clue might just be in the title.

[Dolos]

The debate has been derailed. No-one is discussing the topic at hand. Let's get back to discussing the effects of climate change on our world.

 

Well there you go and thankyou for a perfect example. The debate is now over and this thread is now about discussing the effects of climate change on our world. Well maybe you should go and start yourself a thread about just that. This one is about the two sides of this debate and always was. It is YOU who have hijacked Slybacons thread. You want a 'climate change love in' then do it elsewhere.

[in_spirit]

Dolos i don't think you were either mate when hutcn was? oh i aintk takin sides,lol

Human beings are the offsprin of the earth if we don't look after the mother who will look after us?? Regardles whether it is warming up or cooling down, we need to change our destructive ways.

[whitewind]

Extreme Weather Events More Persuasive Than Scientists

Climate sceptics, it turns out, are much more likely to believe direct evidence of a changing climate in the form of extreme weather events than they do scientists, when it comes to global warming.

A poll released on Friday by the Associated Press-GfK found rising concern about climate change among Americans in general, with 80% citing it as a serious problem for the US, up from 73% in 2009. Belief and worry about climate change were rising faster still among people who do tend not to trust scientists on the environment.

Some of the doubters said in follow-up interviews that they were persuaded by personal experience: such as record temperatures, flooding of New York City subway tunnels, and news of sea ice melt in the Arctic and extreme drought in the mid-west. About 78% of respondents overall believed in climate change, a slight rise from AP's last poll in 2009. The result was in line with other recent polls. Among climate doubters, however, 61% now say temperatures have been rising over the past century, a substantial rise from 2009 when only 47% believed in climate change.

The change was not among the hard core of climate deniers, but in the next tier of climate doubters, AP reported. About 1 in 3 of the people surveyed fell into that category. "Events are helping these people see what scientists thought they had been seeing all along," Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University psychologist who studies attitudes to climate change and consulted on the poll, told the news agency.

The AP-GfK poll was conducted between 29 November and 3 December by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,002 adults across the country. Results for the full sample have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points; the margin of error is larger for subgroups.

 

[Dolos]

Human beings are the offsprin of the earth if we don't look after the mother who will look after us?? Regardles whether it is warming up or cooling down, we need to change our destructive ways.

 

That’s not the debate in_spirit but yes you are right. I have never been comfortable with how man treats this planet but that is not at issue here. Because I don't believe in catastrophic climate change caused by man doesn't mean I am not horrified at what man will do to the environment in the name of profit and how prepared we are to shit in our own nest. I could guarantee my impact on this planet is way less than the majority here. I try and live in harmony with my environment. I’ll wager my ethno botany collection exceeds most posting here now. The only thing I draw from the collective is power. That will change very soon I can assure you but not because I‘m reluctant to burn coal. I am on a quest to save money. I can power a generator to recharge my batteries from timber and basic domestic scrap. I have enough timber to last my life time plus. Lucky hey?

[Dolos]

 

Your quoting newspaper polls now? Whats going on..

[qualia]

The Australian print media have been criticised for inaccurately reporting the carbon pricing mechanism (CPM), and in some instances for actively campaigning against the Gillard government. Research from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, before the start of the carbon price, reinforced these claims. It found an overwhelmingly negative coverage of the carbon price by News Limited papers in a study of ten national newspapers.

Following the introduction of the carbon price, an undergraduate research team from the University of Melbourne has confirmed these findings in an analysis of The Age, Herald Sun and The Australian.

We found that these newspapers are contributing to an uninformed and inadequate public debate on the carbon price and Australian climate change policy.

The research considered all articles in the three newspapers that referred to the “carbon price”, “carbon pricing mechanism”, or “carbon tax” in three different weeks.

One was the first week of July 2012, when the carbon price was introduced. The others were a month before and a month later. The articles were analysed in terms of their tone (was the article supportive, unsupportive or neutral), terminology (was the policy referred to as a tax or price), and source content (who was quoted).

When neutral articles from each newspaper were excluded, The Australian and Herald Sun were found to be overwhelmingly unsupportive of the policy. Articles in The Age were also unbalanced, with a preference for a supportive stance.

News Limited newspapers almost exclusively used the term “carbon tax”, with little reference to the mechanism as a “price”. This selective use of language is extremely important, as people respond differently to the language of prices or taxes when confronted with options for paying for climate change mitigation. However, while the word “price” is used in official government publications, the language used by most politicians is generally “carbon tax”. Interestingly, Prime Minister Julia Gillard reinforced this when she admitted after the election the mechanism would operate “effectively like a tax”.

The media analysis also revealed that all papers heavily favoured quoting sources from the Liberal Party, Labor Party and businesses. This reflects the intense political debate surrounding climate change solutions. And it’s in keeping with journalistic techniques that use political figures from opposing parties to demonstrate balance.

Of more concern was the small number of articles quoting economists, climate scientists and other independent experts. This gap in coverage contributed to a shallow media discussion. It contextualised the policy in terms of short-term economic effects rather than long-term environmental – or economic – goals.

The carbon price follows logic set out in the Stern Review. It advocates for investment in climate change mitigation now, to ensure continued economic prosperity and minimise later economic costs from climate change impacts or delayed climate change mitigation.

Not only was this fundamental argument barely mentioned, discussion of climate science was almost non-existent. This is critical to public perceptions of the carbon price, as without reinforcing the motivations for introducing such a policy, readers are less likely to believe it is necessary.

More balanced newspaper coverage of the carbon price might have discussed alternative solutions to climate change, rather than merely campaigning against the policy’s short-term economic consequences. Importantly, articles might have questioned the generous concessions given by the government to certain businesses, and might have asked questions regarding the reliance on overseas abatement to meet emissions reduction targets.

However, it must be acknowledged that journalists work to tight deadlines, often making it difficult to report on issues with great depth. The way newspapers have traditionally worked is changing with the arrival of online news. Newspapers are receiving reduced revenue from advertisers, which means less money for funding investigative journalism, which is more expensive than simply reporting news.

Deadlines and funding limitations may partially explain the lack of depth in the coverage of the carbon price, but they do not explain the difference in coverage across the three newspapers.

This may be explained by the findings of the Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation. This found that the way the media is currently regulated is not adequate to ensure accountability to the public, or to make sure reporting is as accurate and balanced as it should be.

It is not surprising that two of the newspapers show bias against the carbon price. Both have published editorials opposing it: on 30 June “The Herald Sun will continue to campaign against this tax, and that is a promise we will keep unless proved wrong” and on 2 July “As The Australian has detailed previously, we believe the government is moving too soon to price carbon …”.

The aim of this research is not to condemn articles and newspapers that are critical or discuss flaws with the pricing mechanism. Rather, the study highlights that the way the media is discussing the mechanism is inadequate: current reporting techniques and standards fail to give the issue the level of analysis required. This means that the overall media coverage does not discuss the need for action on climate change, nor does it balance the short-term economic costs against long-term gains.

 

http://theconversation.edu.au/biased-newspaper-reporting-on-the-carbon-pricing-mechanism-11373

Edited December 20, 2012 by qualia

[Halcyon Daze]

Yep, that's how Hitler won support too, through paid propaganda.

It's a shame so many sheeple won't accept truth.

[Mr. Bowser]

The oceans are experiencing continued warming over the past few decades. This has been proven. For those who don't know, water holds much more heat per mass than soil or rock, and covers a much greater surface area of Earth than land area. So while deniers can claim that land temps aren't showing consistent rise across the globe, that is irrelevant to the fact that changing temperature of the oceans has a profound effect on climate all over the world.

At least where I live, over the past 20 years we have experienced noticeably warmer / milder winters with significantly (statistically!) less frozen precipitation and warmer low temperatures. The trend has actually changed our climate from 5a published in older 1990 USDA hardiness maps to 6a in newer 2012 maps. Maps are based on the lowest recorded temps during the winter season in the area, indicating an overall change from an annual min temp of -20 to -15 F (zone 5) to -10 to -5 F. You can google a comparison between 1990 and 2012 USDA hardiness maps. Not saying that all locations and micro-climates are experiencing such a dramatic warming or even changing... but there are clearly documented and statistically significant changes in climate all over the world.

Are we really to believe that some conspiratorial entity is falsely reporting the temperature of oceans, falsely reporting the quantity of frozen precipitation in winter months (that everyone can see with their own eyes and easily refute!) and falsifying recorded high and low air temps across the country... and to what end???