Poll: global warming

[SaigonSaddler]

Interesting piece from an ex-science correspondent for BBC Radio, which is illuminating about the way the BBC reports on these sorts of issues

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Whitehouse2009.htm

"Reporting the consensus about climate change (and we all know about the debate about what is a consensus in the IPCC era) is not synonymous with good science reporting. The BBC is at an important point. It has been narrow minded about climate change for many years and they have become at the very least a cliché and at worst lampooned as being predictable and biased by a public that doesn’t believe them anymore."

Opinionated babble.

I think it is interesting that when the BBC were publishing lines like "Scientists believe as many as half a million people could die from vCJD", there were people within the organisation that were being warned off publishing their own view, that this was not actually what the science showed, especially given the very small numbers that have subsequently died of the disease.

Given the recent hysterical coverage by the BBC on a range of issues such as vCJD, MMR vaccine, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Global Warming etc, etc (in fact is there any issue they don't report hysterically?) all of which have been found to be irresponsible scaremongering, I think it is the BBC's mainstream view which has been shown to be "opinionated babble".

Now for commercial news organisations I can understand, they live or die by their ratings, but the BBC is different, they are a public service broadcaster. What I want from my public service broadcaster (funded by all of us, regardless of ratings) is a balanced view of the facts, not scaremongering headlines, which on closer inspection have little to do with the science or the truth.

Are these the new kind of flu's that could potentially (key word) lead to the deaths of millions? 50 million by some estimates in 1918, 'only' 20 million in others. The science is not different between the two cases. The CJD and MMR has the potential to cause disaster in a few cases - which is OK for the mainstream but I'd like to be told of those facts before being exposed. Global warming is another case. While it may be 'cool' in the UTS garden for this to be mostly written off as some kind of scare-mongering drivel, the vast majority of other thinkers disagree. Ask yourself why the hell China/Brazil etc would think about attending even the most fringe conference on the issue if there wasn't a clear and present danger. Even the Bush admin finally caved.

While we may disagree on the details of reporting - all journalism is biased to some extent - case in point the wording of the questions in this 'poll'. The knee-jerk rejection of everything reported by the BBC is banal. The facts should be dissected in the cold light of day and then opinions formed, rather than immediate and permanent suspicion being cast on potential results of various factors, which the public broadcaster has a duty to report.

[aaaae]

Are these the new kind of flu's that could potentially (key word) lead to the deaths of millions? 50 million by some estimates in 1918, 'only' 20 million in others. The science is not different between the two cases. The CJD and MMR has the potential to cause disaster in a few cases - which is OK for the mainstream but I'd like to be told of those facts before being exposed. Global warming is another case. While it may be 'cool' in the UTS garden for this to be mostly written off as some kind of scare-mongering drivel, the vast majority of other thinkers disagree. Ask yourself why the hell China/Brazil etc would think about attending even the most fringe conference on the issue if there wasn't a clear and present danger. Even the Bush admin finally caved.

While we may disagree on the details of reporting - all journalism is biased to some extent - case in point the wording of the questions in this 'poll'. The knee-jerk rejection of everything reported by the BBC is banal. The facts should be dissected in the cold light of day and then opinions formed, rather than immediate and permanent suspicion being cast on potential results of various factors, which the public broadcaster has a duty to report.

The problem is though, that in all of these examples (except the MMR vaccine) there was a range of views and the BBC chose to report exclusively the most extreme of those views, rather than following its remit to provide a balanced view. In fact, it would appear that where individuals attempt to give a balanced view they are suppressed.

The MMR vaccine was different, in that there was no range of scientific views to be represented. The BBC chose to promote the view of a single crackpot scientist that had produced a highly questionable report based on a study of just 12 people (versus the existing body of evidence from 500 million doses of the vaccine which had been administered safely worldwide). The fact that this scientist was also trying to promote his own single measles vaccine and hence had a vested interest in the dropping of MMR, wasn't reported either.

I was interested in the story at that time as I have kids that were due for MMR jabs. In five minutes digging I found out that the story as the BBC were reporting it, was a load of rubbish. However, there are tens of thousands out there that took it at face value for whatever reason, presumably because it was good old Auntie Beeb. If they were reporting it, it must have validity. There were 1,348 cases of measles in England and Wales in 2008, compared to 56 ten years before. Why do you think this is?

I have a relative who is a pediatric nurse and I well remember him saying to me shortly after my kids had their jabs, "we've had our first child death from measles for over a decade this week, his parents didn't get him vaccinated". This stuff matters and the BBC are failing us.

[SaigonSaddler]

BBC reports "A meteorite that may hit earth at some point in the future has been spotted several 100 million miles away"

What the pre-conditioned hear "We're all doomed, DOOMED I say, a huge fireball will strike the earth within days, smashing the earth to smithereens!"

I think most BBC reporting in these areas usually goes out of the way to explain what could, might, potentially happen.

Having searched the BBC website for MMR news stories, it seems full of 'MMR is safe', 'evidence finds no link to autism', and a range of other perfectly reasonable and balanced reports based on evidence. :?

I can't seem to locate one inflammatory article over-emphasising the dangers of MMR jabs. There are links to programmes where some debate (Horizon, Radio 4) into MMR has been undertaken. The results 'no link to autism' are recorded in the description.

How odd. Maybe the rather reactionary statement that BBC is 'failing us' isn't quite right after all. :?

[aaaae]

BBC reports "A meteorite that may hit earth at some point in the future has been spotted several 100 million miles away"

What the pre-conditioned hear "We're all doomed, DOOMED I say, a huge fireball will strike the earth within days, smashing the earth to smithereens!"

I think most BBC reporting in these areas usually goes out of the way to explain what could, might, potentially happen.

Having searched the BBC website for MMR news stories, it seems full of 'MMR is safe', 'evidence finds no link to autism', and a range of other perfectly reasonable and balanced reports based on evidence. :?

I can't seem to locate one inflammatory article over-emphasising the dangers of MMR jabs. There are links to programmes where some debate (Horizon, Radio 4) into MMR has been undertaken. The results 'no link to autism' are recorded in the description.

How odd. Maybe the rather reactionary statement that BBC is 'failing us' isn't quite right after all. :?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/60510.stm "Child vaccine linked to autism" - Note the statement of FACT in the headline.

Do you think people stopped giving their children the vaccine on a whim? "Oh look it's raining, I don't think we'll bother with MMR after all"

[Morty]

BBC reports "A meteorite that may hit earth at some point in the future has been spotted several 100 million miles away"

What the pre-conditioned hear "We're all doomed, DOOMED I say, a huge fireball will strike the earth within days, smashing the earth to smithereens!"

I think most BBC reporting in these areas usually goes out of the way to explain what could, might, potentially happen.

Having searched the BBC website for MMR news stories, it seems full of 'MMR is safe', 'evidence finds no link to autism', and a range of other perfectly reasonable and balanced reports based on evidence. :?

I can't seem to locate one inflammatory article over-emphasising the dangers of MMR jabs. There are links to programmes where some debate (Horizon, Radio 4) into MMR has been undertaken. The results 'no link to autism' are recorded in the description.

How odd. Maybe the rather reactionary statement that BBC is 'failing us' isn't quite right after all. :?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/60510.stm "Child vaccine linked to autism" - Note the statement of FACT in the headline.

Do you think people stopped giving their children the vaccine on a whim? "Oh look it's raining, I don't think we'll bother with MMR after all"

And that's an article from 1998!! and to quote from the very first paragraph:-

"A study .....has suggested that a common childhood vaccine may be linked with autism and cause an intestinal disorder."

To me, the BBC's problem is that it has to try to give each crackpot, sorry I mean alternative, air space/broadcasting space, e.g. Nick Griffin. People then choose to jump on headlines like this rather than looking at the overall argument and making a decision themselves.

EDIT: the age of the article sort of contradicts your statements of:-

"There were 1,348 cases of measles in England and Wales in 2008, compared to 56 ten years before. Why do you think this is?

I have a relative who is a pediatric nurse and I well remember him saying to me shortly after my kids had their jabs, "we've had our first child death from measles for over a decade this week, his parents didn't get him vaccinated". "

if the BBC commented on a report in 1998 why did it take 10 years for the number of cases of measles to rise????

[aaaae]

And that's an article from 1998!! and to quote from the very first paragraph:-

Which is when the MMR scare dates from....I don't get your point.

"A study .....has suggested that a common childhood vaccine may be linked with autism and cause an intestinal disorder."

A study on 12 kids by a man trying to sell a single measles vaccine. Why run it as a major news story?

"To me, the BBC's problem is that it has to try to give each crackpot, sorry I mean alternative, air space/broadcasting space, e.g. Nick Griffin. People then choose to jump on headlines like this rather than looking at the overall argument and making a decision themselves..

Well there's an element of truth in that. This is where the public broadcaster side comes in. Take a look at the evidence and weigh it accordingly. Like I said if they were a commercial news organisation I would get it, but they're not.

"EDIT: the age of the article sort of contradicts your statements of:-

"There were 1,348 cases of measles in England and Wales in 2008, compared to 56 ten years before. Why do you think this is?

I have a relative who is a pediatric nurse and I well remember him saying to me shortly after my kids had their jabs, "we've had our first child death from measles for over a decade this week, his parents didn't get him vaccinated". "

if the BBC commented on a report in 1998 why did it take 10 years for the number of cases of measles to rise????

Because the impact of not vaccinating your kid is not immediate. If you don't vaccinate, they don't catch measles on the day they were due to have the jab. They may catch measles several years later. And once it is in the popultion younger kids are much more likely to catch it before they are even due to have the vaccination.

It didn't take 10 years for the number of cases to rise, they have been on an upward curve since 1998, when the fake study was published and continue to rise.

[SaigonSaddler]

People then choose to jump on headlines like this rather than looking at the overall argument and making a decision themselves.

Exactly.

I think it comes from just glancing at redtop headlines - even these reveal that the stories are a lot more complicated when examined more closely.

Hence the 'fireball to strike earth' degenerates into a 30cm meteorite that may pass within 400,000 miles in the next 50 years.

[aaaae]

People then choose to jump on headlines like this rather than looking at the overall argument and making a decision themselves.

Exactly.

I think it comes from just glancing at redtop headlines - even these reveal that the stories are a lot more complicated when examined more closely.

Hence the 'fireball to strike earth' degenerates into a 30cm meteorite that may pass within 400,000 miles in the next 50 years.

That's true and I examined the MMR story more closely and found it was a load of rubbish.

But clearly lots of people didn't, or were left in enough doubt they decided to not risk it, that's why measles cases have rocketed.

What is really odd though is that not only did they choose not to have MMR, they chose not to have the single measles jab as well. Perhaps they just came to mistrust vaccination.

[SaigonSaddler]

Morty wrote:
"A study .....has suggested that a common childhood vaccine may be linked with autism and cause an intestinal disorder."

A study on 12 kids by a man trying to sell a single measles vaccine. Why run it as a major news story?

Because there COULD have been a link! Unless you think it isn't newsworthy???

I really think you need to take a reality check on this. Even if this article was rabidly biased (something that is very difficult to accept given the moderate 'suggest' and 'may' language), it's hardly the smoking gun avalache of deliberate fantacism that you are pointing to. Where are the barrowloads of articles groaning under the weight of their own bias?

Could it be that all the other examples you cited at the beginning of the accusation are equally flimsily supported?

[SaigonSaddler]

People then choose to jump on headlines like this rather than looking at the overall argument and making a decision themselves.

Exactly.

I think it comes from just glancing at redtop headlines - even these reveal that the stories are a lot more complicated when examined more closely.

Hence the 'fireball to strike earth' degenerates into a 30cm meteorite that may pass within 400,000 miles in the next 50 years.

That's true and I examined the MMR story more closely and found it was a load of rubbish.

But clearly lots of people didn't, or were left in enough doubt they decided to not risk it, that's why measles cases have rocketed.

What is really odd though is that not only did they choose not to have MMR, they chose not to have the single measles jab as well. Perhaps they just came to mistrust vaccination.

But it's not up to us to take account for people's irrational fear. Nor indeed, is it actually the job of the BBC.

Even a cursory glance at the current (from 2002) articles on MMR gives a clear indictation that there is no link between MMR and autism.

[Whitti Steve]

People then choose to jump on headlines like this rather than looking at the overall argument and making a decision themselves.

Exactly.

I think it comes from just glancing at redtop headlines - even these reveal that the stories are a lot more complicated when examined more closely.

Hence the 'fireball to strike earth' degenerates into a 30cm meteorite that may pass within 400,000 miles in the next 50 years.

That's true and I examined the MMR story more closely and found it was a load of rubbish.

But clearly lots of people didn't, or were left in enough doubt they decided to not risk it, that's why measles cases have rocketed.

What is really odd though is that not only did they choose not to have MMR, they chose not to have the single measles jab as well. Perhaps they just came to mistrust vaccination.

But it's not up to us to take account for people's irrational fear. Nor indeed, is it actually the job of the BBC.

Even a cursory glance at the current (from 2002) articles on MMR gives a clear indictation that there is no link between MMR and autism.

But as PJD points out.... their (and other media's) coverage did have a massive effect on the numbers having the MMR jab. I know what you are saying, that people should be reading beyond the headlines - but in this superfast media age... many people don't. The BBC has become more like a red-top newspaper on it's most popular channels (radio1 and the main TV news in particular). The BBC have more of a responsibility to be impartial than other commercial organisation - it doesn't appear to take this as seriously these days.

[SaigonSaddler]

People then choose to jump on headlines like this rather than looking at the overall argument and making a decision themselves.

Exactly.

I think it comes from just glancing at redtop headlines - even these reveal that the stories are a lot more complicated when examined more closely.

Hence the 'fireball to strike earth' degenerates into a 30cm meteorite that may pass within 400,000 miles in the next 50 years.

That's true and I examined the MMR story more closely and found it was a load of rubbish.

But clearly lots of people didn't, or were left in enough doubt they decided to not risk it, that's why measles cases have rocketed.

What is really odd though is that not only did they choose not to have MMR, they chose not to have the single measles jab as well. Perhaps they just came to mistrust vaccination.

But it's not up to us to take account for people's irrational fear. Nor indeed, is it actually the job of the BBC.

Even a cursory glance at the current (from 2002) articles on MMR gives a clear indictation that there is no link between MMR and autism.

But as PJD points out.... their (and other media's) coverage did have a massive effect on the numbers having the MMR jab. I know what you are saying, that people should be reading beyond the headlines - but in this superfast media age... many people don't. The BBC has become more like a red-top newspaper on it's most popular channels (radio1 and the main TV news in particular). The BBC have more of a responsibility to be impartial than other commercial organisation - it doesn't appear to take this as seriously these days.

I wouldn't wipe my backside with anything eminating from Radio One. Radio 4 on the other hand is an excellent news carrier. News 24 is also a valuable resource, BBC 1 reducts the most newsworthy items for mass viewing and does a reasonable job, although Channel 4 news is the best.

[Exile]

Saigon - pick up a copy of Nick Davies' excellent book Flat Earth News for a great read of what goes on behind the "headlines".

[Whitti Steve]

Saigon - pick up a copy of Nick Davies' excellent book Flat Earth News for a great read of what goes on behind the "headlines".

Is it like drop the dead donkey?

[Whitti Steve]

Saigon... I agree, Radio 4 is much better... the trouble is, many millions of young people do listen the the sensational pap news on Radio 1, many being the same ones that read the Sun or Mirror for their newspaper.

[Exile]

Saigon - pick up a copy of Nick Davies' excellent book Flat Earth News for a great read of what goes on behind the "headlines".

Is it like drop the dead donkey?

A bit, according to my fading memory, but more serious and FACTy.

[Exile]

Glad to read that the Copenhagen talks are going nowhere fast. Might buy us some breathing space to spread the truth about global warming before we're all taxed back to the dark ages. :D

[Neuromantic]

Also strange that if the world is in fact now cooling then why is it the large deterioration in the ice sheets has occurred since 2002. 1998 may have been a spike but the longer term trend is still upwards and that sadly is a fact.

I'd dispute the trend (how long is long term) and the ice sheet deterioration. Here's a graph showing ice extent globally since 1979 - looks like a pretty regular seasonal heartbeat to me.

A question for all though, what is the harm in trying to live on a better bluer planet, small changes in energy consumption are easy to do, and actually can save money.

I concur wholeheartedly, but the changes proposed by governments will cost us all dearly.

This where interpretation of the results suffers from a lack of expertise.

The graph above is correct I'm sure - accurately relaying the area of ice coverage during these years.

Ice is a funny thing though and is not a static mass of rock. Every year ice is laid down during the winter months as snow compacts under it's own weight. Every summer some of the ice melts.

Previously, large masses of very old ice (100,000s of years old in some cases) formed a reservoir of material and new ice was laid down or melted away. There is a slow progress of the ice towards the sea. Recently (last 30 years) the depth, thickness and area of this old ice has dramatically decreased, leaving the total ice block to be composed more and more of the new ice. The old ice takes ages to thaw, melt and disappear but the new ice is weak and is easily eroded.

Another process is the rate at which ice sheets and glaciers advance towards the sea, calving ice floes off to float around. This also has dramatically increased.

The upshot is that the area of ice means nothing and it may actually increase (as ancient ice speeds towards the sea and breaks up) - a nice little factoid for the followers of pseudo-science. Sadly, that's not the whole story as the quality of the ice (along with some evidence) is weak, fragile and is easily eroded under closer inspection.

I would like to see the data on a box plot. Have a look at the SD's etc to examine the data a bit more. Line graphs can cover a hell of a lot of info up.

[Exile]

Not sure there's any reliable data that you could put into a box plot, bangor. :?

[Neuromantic]

Not sure there's any reliable data that you could put into a box plot, bangor. :?

And that was going to be my next point! Reliability, I can't see any grounds for reliable data, I would love to know the sampling technique. You have to question the validity too.

I.e the box plot, I'd like to see each year graphed with the actual estimations (samples) of area, means, IQ ranges etc - however that's pretty much impossible. hence why any conclusions therefore are not reliable or valid.

[Exile]

Not sure there's any reliable data that you could put into a box plot, bangor. :?

And that was going to be my next point! Reliability, I can't see any grounds for reliable data, I would love to know the sampling technique. You have to question the validity too.

I.e the box plot, I'd like to see each year graphed with the actual estimations (samples) of area, means, IQ ranges etc - however that's pretty much impossible. hence why any conclusions therefore are not reliable or valid.

...so we'll have to stick with what the line graph tells us, which shows variations annually. you could plot each year on top of the previous year I suppose.

[Neuromantic]

Not sure there's any reliable data that you could put into a box plot, bangor. :?

And that was going to be my next point! Reliability, I can't see any grounds for reliable data, I would love to know the sampling technique. You have to question the validity too.

I.e the box plot, I'd like to see each year graphed with the actual estimations (samples) of area, means, IQ ranges etc - however that's pretty much impossible. hence why any conclusions therefore are not reliable or valid.

...so we'll have to stick with what the line graph tells us, which shows variations annually. you could plot each year on top of the previous year I suppose.

True dat. It's just very easy to manipulate data with figures and shizzle.

The crux of the matter is with regards to global warming, is that it is indeed cyclical - but are there significant differences cumulatively over the past 100 years as opposed to the previous 100,000 in the mean difference between ice ages, mean polar ice cap area etc etc

[Exile]

Not sure there's any reliable data that you could put into a box plot, bangor. :?

And that was going to be my next point! Reliability, I can't see any grounds for reliable data, I would love to know the sampling technique. You have to question the validity too.

I.e the box plot, I'd like to see each year graphed with the actual estimations (samples) of area, means, IQ ranges etc - however that's pretty much impossible. hence why any conclusions therefore are not reliable or valid.

...so we'll have to stick with what the line graph tells us, which shows variations annually. you could plot each year on top of the previous year I suppose.

True dat. It's just very easy to manipulate data with figures and shizzle.

The crux of the matter is with regards to global warming, is that it is indeed cyclical - but are there significant differences cumulatively over the past 100 years as opposed to the previous 100,000 in the mean difference between ice ages, mean polar ice cap area etc etc

Significant? Define and explain!

[Neuromantic]

Not sure there's any reliable data that you could put into a box plot, bangor. :?

And that was going to be my next point! Reliability, I can't see any grounds for reliable data, I would love to know the sampling technique. You have to question the validity too.

I.e the box plot, I'd like to see each year graphed with the actual estimations (samples) of area, means, IQ ranges etc - however that's pretty much impossible. hence why any conclusions therefore are not reliable or valid.

...so we'll have to stick with what the line graph tells us, which shows variations annually. you could plot each year on top of the previous year I suppose.

True dat. It's just very easy to manipulate data with figures and shizzle.

The crux of the matter is with regards to global warming, is that it is indeed cyclical - but are there significant differences cumulatively over the past 100 years as opposed to the previous 100,000 in the mean difference between ice ages, mean polar ice cap area etc etc

Significant? Define and explain!

Well you could look at the cumulative means over the past 100 years of mean ice mass over a polar region and see if there is significant decrease in mass over that time period. What I mean about about cumulation, is that between 100 and 90 years ago, is the difference then by the same or a greater decrease. So you could do an ANOVA of mean samples between these points temporally. I think that it IS cyclical however the periods in between the cycles have been increased, causing fluctuations that are not natural - I think that is the effect.

[Whitti Steve]

Daz.... yowm talking guff mate.

[Neuromantic]

Daz.... yowm talking guff mate.

:?:

[aaaae]

The crux of the matter is with regards to global warming, is that it is indeed cyclical - but are there significant differences cumulatively over the past 100 years as opposed to the previous 100,000 in the mean difference between ice ages, mean polar ice cap area etc etc

As always it depends how you cut the data, you look at the first graph and you think wow something odd is happening with temperature -



But if you extend the date axis you can see that warming began well before the industrial revolution -

[Neuromantic]

Exactly! Point I was trying to make! Thanks pal.

I'm just doing my own graph to illustrate my point! :mrgreen:

[Cully]

I'll tell you what guys, you can tell someone else is paying the bill when it comes to your research. The only thing we haven't had on this thread is a pie chart and some of thoses coloured balls on sticks to model Saigon and Metfanwys brainwaves.

Here's something I knocked up earlier, for those of you who cannot understand Metfanwy is currently sitting at his desk, tongue out to one side, pencil in hand, frantically sketching the corelation between the ice in his freezer and the temperature of the packet of fishfingers he has just removed for his dinner.




ps Blimey, I must be clairvoyant :shock:

[aaaae]

I'll tell you what guys, you can tell someone else is paying the bill when it comes to your research.

:D

Doesn't someone else always pay the bill for research? "

"Right here's the cheque and this is what I want your research to show" :mrgreen: