Not quite on topic, but have you ever done a comparison of executive summaries in IPCC reports vs the content of the chapter itself?
It seems that the team that wrote chapter 11 on extreme weather events is chock full of "science deniers". Luckily they entrusted the writing of the executive summary to a safe pair of hands.
Excellent post, thank you. Reminds me of words written by Richard Rhodes in one of his books:, which said:
Most of us were taught that the goal of science is power over nature, as if science and power were one thing and nature quite another. Bohr observed to the contrary that the more modest but relentless goal of science is, in his words, "the gradual removal of prejudices."
I follow many of the political battles relating to Israel that are fought in the press. One outfit: Camera.org, which is a Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, is particularly affective at advocacy and getting the truth out. I can point to many times when Camera has written an article about a particular article in the press and showed how it was either factually wrong, biased, or misleading. Camera holds journalist accountable for their errors by exposing them in the press and providing the truth.
My opinion is that a similar organization needs to be founded in the climate debate to provide a counterbalance to the biases that are reported every day in the press.
Tree person here.. urban forests are a standard description. But modeling whether something might die, based on your assumptions is very different from actually seeing trees die. And therein lies the difficulty. We actually don't know enough about trees' adaptive capabilities to know for sure. And all the modeling in the world can't close that knowledge gap.
Not quite on topic, but have you ever done a comparison of executive summaries in IPCC reports vs the content of the chapter itself?
It seems that the team that wrote chapter 11 on extreme weather events is chock full of "science deniers". Luckily they entrusted the writing of the executive summary to a safe pair of hands.
Crisp and concise, Roger. Just the way I like it.
Thanks!
One of your best postings. I would be very interested in hearing why anyone would or could disagree with what you've written.
Thanks, this was a challenging one to write.
Excellent post, thank you. Reminds me of words written by Richard Rhodes in one of his books:, which said:
Most of us were taught that the goal of science is power over nature, as if science and power were one thing and nature quite another. Bohr observed to the contrary that the more modest but relentless goal of science is, in his words, "the gradual removal of prejudices."
Great quote!
Nice discussion. Glad you kept it simple and clear. Thanks for taking the time.
Thanks!
Thank you, very interesting.
I’d like to offer a suggestion.
I follow many of the political battles relating to Israel that are fought in the press. One outfit: Camera.org, which is a Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, is particularly affective at advocacy and getting the truth out. I can point to many times when Camera has written an article about a particular article in the press and showed how it was either factually wrong, biased, or misleading. Camera holds journalist accountable for their errors by exposing them in the press and providing the truth.
My opinion is that a similar organization needs to be founded in the climate debate to provide a counterbalance to the biases that are reported every day in the press.
Interesting, I'll have a look.
How do journalists obtain the research results. The paper tripping through the fax machines of newspapers all around the world seems doubtful.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62928362
Above and an equivalent article appeared today in the Times of London.
How is the research communicated to the media.
It is worth noting the hyperbole of the BBC report. The description of some woods or trees in city is called the urban forest.
Tree person here.. urban forests are a standard description. But modeling whether something might die, based on your assumptions is very different from actually seeing trees die. And therein lies the difficulty. We actually don't know enough about trees' adaptive capabilities to know for sure. And all the modeling in the world can't close that knowledge gap.