Daily Mail Deliberately Misreports Climate Change

[Kromovaracun]

http://theconversation.com/scientists-confess-the-attack-on-the-ipcc-that-went-terribly-wrong-18496

A quick summary:

- IPCC releases report in 2007 stating that the planet was warming by .13 celsius per decade

- Daily Mail launches tirade about how inaccurate the IPCC reports are, because they predicted .2 degrees. This was completely wrong and required editing on their website, but the Mail continued to stick to its "IPCC is totally unreliable" line anyway.

How long are we going to let this foul excuse of a rag continue to exist? Everybody knows just how much they cherrypick, manipulate and distort information. Everybody knows that these people care about their own poltitical agenda first and the truth second. Everybody knows they are unreliable.

Why are they still in business?

[alexanderd]

"The constant stream of incidences when the Mail has to alter its website"
Does this mean you read its website? If so, why?

[emmie]

you get information from many sources, papers, internet, personal experience, family, friends, tv, then see what one can work out is right, the truth of the matter, that doesn't mean one will find the answer but you do have more of a balanced view.

[emmie]

i don't read it's website, but generally buy the paper, for some reason the two don't seem quite the same info....

[Kromovaracun]

"nd climate change misrepresentation is not the preserve of the daily mail, it goes way to the top of the chain, government and their associated departments, include in that scientific bodies."

even if that's true, wouldn't that completely undermine the whole point of having newspapers or the press if they just do exactly the same?

"you are assuming then they get their info from the internet, whilst it can be a source of info surely it is up to the person to make up their own mind about the matter in hand,"

Of course. But most people seem to want information to allow them to make their own conclusions. If that's the case, I don't know why a person would use a source which is notoriously unreliable when they do have alternatives.

alexanderd:

"Does this mean you read its website? If so, why?"

I read several blogs that are dedicated to monitoring the press - and this comes up a lot (and it's demonstrable because even when the site is amended the original is invariably stored somewhere and then shared). I also have facebook, where people often share times when this happens.

[emmie]

this is the only website i use, not facebook, twitter or whatnot, i also am quite capable of looking out the window to see if it's raining, i don't need a weatherman to tell me so, same with life, i don't need any paper to tell me there are wars, famine, floods, even the odd good bit of news, tv can do that and more, including the much faster internet

[LazyGun]

The IPCC report number 5 is out -tomorrow, I think. It will be very interesting to see its conclusions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-what-the-leading-scientists-say-8839763.html

[emmie]

there have been lots of lies on all sides over climate change, companies have a deal to gain that sell the idea of being, going green, like solar energy, wind farms, which i find loathsome, let us see in years to come who is right or wrong... only time will tell

[LazyGun]

@emmie Well yes, of course "only time will tell". The problem is that the possible consequences for humanity should our contribution to climate change remain unchecked are potentially pretty devastating, not just to whats in your pocket but to whole communities and societies.

I would be interested to hear what "lies" you believe have been told, on either side of the debate?

[emmie]

doesn't our climate change all the time, we know of previous ages, ice age for example, and other types of climate changes over millions of years the geologists, scientists know about, they can map weather patterns, i am no scientist, but going back hundreds of thousands of years, so climate does change, and that was at a time when man had no impact on the planet. No we do, i can see the like of food shortages, more people, more food needed, but some of the theories on climate change that have been expounded over the last few years have come from those who have something to gain from our fears. Is it the case that we have been levied with a green tax on our energy bills against our knowledge, or not, or is that another myth?

[emmie]

though it is not in the same question, how we know China's policies on children, only having one, at least in some areas of China, has had a major impact on the balance of the genders there. that was presumably not thought about before, but is coming to light now, so as i said, time will tell.

[LazyGun]

Yes, climate does change all the time and yes it is cyclic and yes it is affected by the Sun and all of that.No one has ever tried to deny that. No one has failed to take those natural cyclic variations into account.

The important question is what impact upon that cyclic change has been introduced into the system from the actions of humanity,most especially since industrialisation and urbanisation, and the consequences to the climate of that impact. So I am not sure who you are accusing of lying, and what it is you think that they are lying about?

As to your comment about China and its "one child, one family" measures that were implemented - Sorry, but I am unclear what it is you are trying to say. People-Scientists, and others- warned China right from the start what the possible consequences of such a policy were, but the Chinese authorities ignored those warnings, mostly because they feared the consequence of untrammelled population growth more. Its not as if the gender imbalance was unforeseen or anything.

And, as with all complex issues like this, that tends to be the problem - actions of governments and societies are dictated by balancing out relative risks of inaction or action. The major concern - and one shared by all of the worlds leading scientific institutions, academies, universities, reputable climate experts etc that I am aware of - is that the human contribution to climate change could prove to have catastrophic consequences for large segments of the human population in the not-too-distant future, unless we do something about it now.The action needed though is proving unpopular amongst some businesses, some sections of Government, and amongst many of the population, because the actions that are being suggested as being needed could cost more.

[Old_Geezer]

One may have as many Internet connections as one wishes. Doesn't give anyone time to waste looking up everything about everything and gaining some ability on who/what to trust and who/what not. That what one reads papers for.