Talking about the weather

There is a real whiff of desperation coming from the ABBC lately that is as obvious as our “addiction” to fossil fuels as the bloke in the video put it. I wonder why a scientist would use the language of an activist like that?

“EMMA ALBERICI: Can I just pick you up on that because of course it became known, as we know, as “Climate-gate” and it’s been picked over extensively. Much has turned on the word “trick” – Mike’s nature trick, ——-.
MICHAEL MANN: Well, no, in fact in the lingo of scientists – and this is something that’s well known to those who work in science and math and mathematics – the term trick is used by scientists to denote a clever approach to solving a vexing problem and that’s well known within sort of scientific lingo, that that’s what that means. And there are many examples where words —— ——“
====
There is that well known description again; “—— —- well known to those who work in science —“. So – aha, – he used a “clever approach to solving” the problem of a decline that needed to be hidden.
—- That sounds a lot better,

DirkH says: @ur momisugly March 17, 2012 at 12:33 am
…To which I say: How could you hold against our media that they do not base their reporting on facts? …. Is it illegal to spread fairytales on the airwaves with a straight face? No, I don’t think it is.
Of course, there is also no reason to believe a single word they say. The null hypothesis should always be that they don’t know what they’re talking about. In seldom cases they might accidentally say a true word…..
________________________
To illustrate how true this story actually is:
My Father-in-law owned a small town newspaper. His son, my husband, had won the science fair. The father was sitting at the dinning room table next to his son while he wrote the article for his newspaper. He got the facts ALL WRONG despite the fact the primary source was sitting a few feet away! As he said the only thing you can believe in a newspaper is the sports scores. (No doubt the Mafia would take a dim view if you messed up their numbers running business. snicker)

Is that the White House behind Michael Mann. If so, is his the official US government position.

Eric The Brick says,
I read this book 2 months ago. Brilliant! If you haven’t done so already buy it and read it. Gives plenty of ammunition when talking to “fence sitters”. I used to think Margaret Thatcher was great; now realise she set in action the whole man made global warming fiasco. Another case of the law of unintended consequences.

“Hide” : the word has no place in science whether it refers to a decline or not, but only in magic, conjuring and deception. This is where “Mike’s Nature trick” belongs too.

Since the publicly funded ABC has a mandate for balanced journalism, I hope they also plan to interview Lord Monckton about the climate wars in response to Mann?
That’s a program I would tune into…..

Dave Harrison
I agree that we need Bolt as a dissenting voice -reasoning though?
Bolt is as ideologically predisposed as the ABC. He is a journalist (barely) and knows nothing of the facts. Like the ABC, he chooses his arguments carefully to corroborate his beliefs but neither
party displays an ounce of good journalism.
The problem is, Australian’s are governed by left/right partisan politics, therefore resolutions occur
as the outcome of tensions between dogged beliefs.- which is hugely inefficient but necessary.
Essentially, what you are saying is that you accept Bolt’s scripted journalism over Lateline’s.

Reply to Sam Geoghegan’s reply
Andrew Bolt makes no pretence: he does not believe the Global Warming alarmists and puts counter arguments – this is how democracy works. The ABC pretends to be unbiased – as it should be under its charter – but only ever puts one side of the argument and is deceptive in its pretence to be ‘reporting’ when it is propagandising. This is how the soviet ‘democracy’ worked.
I say again thank goodness such as Andrew Bolt are prepared to present the other side.

Dace
I agree with you that democracy needs counter arguments to strike a balance but I fundamentally reject democracy. Bolt is needed because of fundamental flaws in the bi-partisan political machinery. That doesn’t necessarily make him right, it just makes him useful.

DirkH says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:33 am
Very good radio interview.
“Harold says at 13:00 if he were to poll 100 CNN reporters about fire statistics not one of them would know (that in the past twice or thrice as many acres of forest burned in a year as today in the US). And he says “How could I hold it against them?”.
To which I say: How could you hold against our media that they do not base their reporting on facts? How could you hold it against them that they are not doing their job; that they only pretend to inform the public? When the public still buys their product because it looks like information and smells like information but is a cheaply produced substitute made from whole cloth. Can you blame a cheat, a liar, a snakeoil salesman for the gullibility of their customers? Is it illegal to spread fairytales on the airwaves with a straight face? No, I don’t think it is. ”
The problem is in the educational system. Aside from the drop-out rate the kids that do finish school, and that includes college, learn much less today than they did 40 years ago. And anyone can obtain a degree in just about any discipline, given enough time and money. No brains and not much learning required. So, the “news” people can get away with just about anything.