alexey Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I think part of the problem is poor reporting when it comes to science. Reporting is geared for consumption by the target market. That's just capitalism. Reporting is great in cases where the target market requires it - just pick up the ScienceNews magazine and see for yourself. Reporting for the general public will naturally migrate towards sensationalism and controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Reporting is geared for consumption by the target market. That's just capitalism. Reporting is great in cases where the target market requires it - just pick up the ScienceNews magazine and see for yourself. Reporting for the general public will naturally migrate towards sensationalism and controversy. Naturally? More like because the media doesn't have the wherewithal to do the proper research on their subjects. Also, the scientific journals cause issues by controlling a lot of that information. Right now, it seems that science journalism is limited to regurgitating press releases rather than much real reporting. We expect more from other parts of the media, why not science? Here's a good overview of the issues with science in the news media: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/28/dailytelegraph.pressandpublishing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 22, 2010 Author Share Posted February 22, 2010 Interesting, after two pages of responses there is essentially no dispute that the movement to enact policy to counter global warming is dead? Am I reading the responses correctly? Looks like the supporters of those policies, on this board at least, managed to get to the acceptance phase quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Naturally? More like because the media doesn't have the wherewithal to do the proper research on their subjects. Doesn't do the proper research, doesn't use the proper language, doesn't properly represent findings... all of that and then some. Still, when it comes to quality of scientific reporting to the general public, I think the primary driver behind the lack of supply is lack of demand. Also, the scientific journals cause issues by controlling a lot of that information. This is a very strong claim. Can you provide an argument for it? If you are planning to use CRU's hacked emails, please note that claims of sensorship have been addressed in one of the videos I posted: 7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/6/uXesBhYwdRo Right now, it seems that science journalism is limited to regurgitating press releases rather than much real reporting. We expect more from other parts of the media, why not science? It depends on the source... Which source or type of sources are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Interesting, after two pages of responses there is essentially no dispute that the movement to enact policy to counter global warming is dead? Am I reading the responses correctly? Looks like the supporters of those policies, on this board at least, managed to get to acceptance phase quickly. I think it's important to make sure we all agree on what the science says first... which appears to be the case, considering there were no objections to information contained in videos that I posted As for the movement and policies... Attempts to create binding global treaties have certainly failed, but I don't think too many people expected them to succeed. On the other hand, I am excited about the direction of our domestic energy policy. I think we are moving in the right direction, and we can achieve a lot if we put our muscle behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 The problem, though, is not simply in how much it would "cost" the U.S. economy to cut back on greenhouse emissions. There were a ton of other economically and politically worrisome aspects contained within Kyoto that seem to either be glossed over or ignored completely in those two paragraphs you quoted. Well, if you'd like to detail them, then I might have time to provide answers. You could also read the links I provided, which is why I provided them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Interesting, after two pages of responses there is essentially no dispute that the movement to enact policy to counter global warming is dead? Am I reading the responses correctly? Looks like the supporters of those policies, on this board at least, managed to get to acceptance the phase quickly. I doubt it is dead. I doubted much would happen in Coppenhagen ever. I think it is likely that individual nations will do something individually, including the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I said I wished more scientists said that publicly and on the record...you gave me a hacked private email as proof that they have lol. You DO see the difference, right? Hacked private emails hardly qualify as "publicly and on the record". You mean something like this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,68667,00.html (Note, this is a piece about a paper that Tom Wigely is an author on who was the author of the e-mail that alexey quoted for you. I disagree with him on some level. Regulations can HELP in terms of increasing effecincies and conservation in the system and spur the development of new technologies that in the long term will "fix" the problem. Obviously, there has to be some willingness to adapt the regulations based on advances in technology, but things can't be so lose as though as not to spur serious research.) The idea that much of anything worthwhile was said in these e-mails that wasn't said on the record is just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 23, 2010 Author Share Posted February 23, 2010 I doubt it is dead. I doubted much would happen in Coppenhagen ever. I think it is likely that individual nations will do something individually, including the US. Ah, still in the denial phase. Don't worry, we'll help you through this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Spammer...everytime there is a GW thread you post this, we get it, we watched it, we don't agree. I really am curious. What do you not agree with in those videos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 I really am curious. What do you not agree with in those videos? I watched those when he first posted them. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing out on something, sadly I wish I had that time back...I am not going to go back and watch them again just to show what I disliked about them and didn't agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 I watched those when he first posted them. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing out on something, sadly I wish I had that time back...I am not going to go back and watch them again just to show what I disliked about them and didn't agree with. Well, that's not really very helpful. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 Well, that's not really very helpful. Oh well. What did you expect? He did not say that there was an error. He said that he simply disagreed with the information... I often disagree with my alarm clock when it goes off in the morning, but whatcha gonna do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 The problem, though, is not simply in how much it would "cost" the U.S. economy to cut back on greenhouse emissions. There were a ton of other economically and politically worrisome aspects contained within Kyoto that seem to either be glossed over or ignored completely in those two paragraphs you quoted. Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 23, 2010 Share Posted February 23, 2010 I think Kyoto being defeated 99-0 by the United States Senate back in 1999 demonstrated what a piss poor treaty it was for the US. A very loud bi partisan "NO" was the response by the Senate. I think Ken actually put it best. I am very much pro environment, just don't tax humans for breathing and cows for farting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.