Statistical models demonstrate that recent severe weather is caused by climate change

[fskimospy]

Thanks, a measurable bias in that meta-analysis from 1948 to 2000. An opinion from the authors that it "probably" doesn't matter. Just don't continue to say there is no media bias when your own link says there is.

TY, Doc.

Sorry, I will continue to tell you the truth that the idea of a liberal media is a myth. If you actually read the paper you would see that the biases they are talking about are so tiny as to be indistinguishable in normal living. This bears absolutely no resemblance to the description of the media that conservatives continually claim they are so horribly victimized by.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1922/article_detail.asp

Groseclose's findings are consistent with other studies of media bias that rely on non-political measures. John Lott and Kevin Hassett made a list of technical economic news reported by the United States Department of Commerce, such as stories about employment, GDP growth, and retail sales. They then looked at the headlines newspapers ran about these stories, discovering that papers are 20 to 40% more likely to print a negative headline if a Republican is in the White House than if a Democrat is there.

Two economists, Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro, programmed a computer to construct a list of "politically loaded phrases"—ones not merely descriptive but also connotative—uttered by members of Congress. On the basis of these phrases, Gentzkow and Shapiro counted the use of these phrases by 400 daily newspapers. They assigned the equivalent of a S.Q. to each paper. Among the phrases most used by Democratic members of Congress are "tax cut for the wealthiest," "arctic national wildlife," "oil companies," and "civil rights," while those most used by Republican members included "global war on terror," "death tax," "partial birth abortion," and "illegal aliens." A media outlet received a high S.Q. if it used mostly liberal phrases and a low S.Q. if it used primarily conservative ones. The most liberal newspapers were the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post. The most conservative papers were the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal.

The slant quotient of major newspapers was almost the same whether one used the Groseclose or the Gentzkow-Shapiro method, with one exception—the Wall Street Journal. But Gentzkow-Shapiro's computer program assembled and counted all of the politically loaded phrases, a large fraction of which came from opinion pages; as a result, the Journal is more conservative than Groseclose, who counted only news stories, reported. Gentzkow and Shapiro were also able to show that this political orientation did not have a lot to do with the ideology of their owners, at least when one person owned several papers. When this occurred, the political outlook of a paper's readers explained about 20% of the political slant that Gentzkow and Shapiro found. By contrast, the political contributions of the owners (a rough measure of their ideology) had no effect on the slant. Groseclose says that whether one uses his method, that of Lott and Hassett, or that of Gentzkow and Shapiro, the conclusion is that the mass media carry stories that are liberal.

 

[fskimospy]

Liberal media bias is unproven, but strongly supported.

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1922/article_detail.asp

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/jesse.shapiro/research/biasmeas.pdf

http://home.uchicago.edu/jmshapir/bias.pdf

lol, as expected. First link is a reference to a book reiterating the argument of a widely discredited UCLA study. Your second link depends on determining bias through an arbitrary selection of phrases declared to be liberal or conservative, and your third link is largely related to your second.

Liberal media bias is most certainly unproven, but it is also poorly supported. Once again, your sources use studies that have such poor methodology that they declared the NRA to be to the left of the ACLU. Really excellent quality studies there.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You just have to look at the economic impact of Australia's recent legislation for CCC, the costs and the expected results. Here, you can look at over 1,100 peer reviewed scientific climate change papers that support the skeptical side of the ACC argument. It's not as if the science is settled.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

2 things:

1. What economic impact?

2. Science is never settled. Thats what makes it science. If the bar is going to be "settled science", then you will never be happy.

 

[monovillage]

Sorry, I will continue to tell you the truth that the idea of a liberal media is a myth. If you actually read the paper you would see that the biases they are talking about are so tiny as to be indistinguishable in normal living. This bears absolutely no resemblance to the description of the media that conservatives continually claim they are so horribly victimized by.

Sorry, that response was too harsh. For several years you and other Democrats in this forum have denied there is any (any) media bias at all. When you finally give a link to your study there as plain as day it admits to there being "measurable" bias. End of the fucking story.

 

[monovillage]

2 things:

1. What economic impact?

2. Science is never settled. Thats what makes it science. If the bar is going to be "settled science", then you will never be happy.

Knock yourself out.
http://www.une.edu.au/business-school/working-papers/economics/econwp11-2.pdf

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/aus...st-of-carbon-tax/story-e6frg12c-1226313086802

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Knock yourself out.
http://www.une.edu.au/business-school/working-papers/economics/econwp11-2.pdf

The tax is likely to have an economy-wide impact affecting Australia’s GDP, industrial structure and trade. The policy to cut emissions is regressive and the tax burden will be unequally distributed among different household groups with low-income households carrying a relatively higher burden.

Awesome! /s

 

[Jaskalas]

To put it gently, your post is showing that you don't understand the topic. First of all, either periods of extreme drought or extreme wetness can both be elements of climate change. It makes severe weather events more likely, not always in one particular direction.

That's the crux of the issue, probability. When you link to a drought in 1950 you are totally missing the point. It's not that bad droughts didn't happen without man forced climate change, it's that climate change makes them likely to occur more frequently and it will make them likely to be more severe. I frequently see this from climate change deniers, they don't appear to get what the arguments they are fighting against really say.

A 1950s drought hasn't occurred in 60 years... and you want to apply the term 'more frequent'.

Asinine.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Really its all man made . I don't think so . I think they just want to create more laws (jobs) and regulations (more jobs and less freedom)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROGTV7GkWAE

 

[cybrsage]

IMO, we should not impliment potentially economy damaging rules when the economy is so fragile AND when our understanding of climate is so limited. We should study HOW the climate works until we actually understand it, THEN make recommendation on what do to about it.

Right now, politically controlled science is making recommendations without actually understanding how climate works. That is stupid, and potentially dangerous.

 

[Nemesis 1]

A 1950s drought hasn't occurred in 60 years... and you want to apply the term 'more frequent'.

Asinine.

The creek behind my house dried up in the mid 50s . I know I witnessed it . Today its almost dried up . and I live in part of MN thats still has fair crops .

 

[Ronstang]

So the answer is to tax energy, heavy taxes will curb consumption, and do what else? The rich will buy carbon credits, based on the premise that paid for carbon doesn't count. The poor will of course get a free ride because they're poor, that leaves the middle to pay the bill for something we may not be able to influence at all.

You pretty much summed up everything Liberals/Democrats try to do. It always affects the middle class the most while they claim to be the champions of the middle class. Unfortunately the masses are too stupid to see the truth.

 

[Jaskalas]

The creek behind my house dried up in the mid 50s . I know I witnessed it . Today its almost dried up . and I live in part of MN thats still has fair crops .

Right...words didn't sink in, let us visualize this. How many 1950s do you see since 1950s? Remember... we're talking about 'more frequent' here.

Hansen Lying About Drought

 

[Screech]

I tend to be of the opinion that we are, indeed, causing climate change to a significant degree, and an international treaty (that deals with everyone) on such things is the correct solution, but shooting our economy in the foot while china and india are free to increase their pollution output is mind-bogglingly (new word there) retarded. And realistically, I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Right...words didn't sink in, let us visualize this. How many 1950s do you see since 1950s? Remember... we're talking about 'more frequent' here.

Hansen Lying About Drought

Didn't sink in ? LOL It was I who called this drought last winter . What do you mean it didn't sink in . You are speaking about self I assume. This is just 1 year . What makes you believe its going to get better and not worse . I will tell you straight . In times to come vary soon . you will seek hell for its coolness . Future fact . how future 2013

 

[Jaskalas]

I tend to be of the opinion that we are, indeed, causing climate change to a significant degree, and an international treaty (that deals with everyone) on such things is the correct solution, but shooting our economy in the foot while china and india are free to increase their pollution output is mind-bogglingly (new word there) retarded. And realistically, I don't see that changing any time soon.

Natural gas has done wonders for our CO2 output.

Amazing Shale: US CO2 Emissions Plummet Towards 1990 Levels

 

[Screech]

There's a lot more to pollution/ climate change etc than CO2 (all those cow farms aren't so good .... ). That said, it's amazing what newer technology and a recession will do for you In any case I stand by my previous statement (which I'm sure you will agree with ) that independently legislating against this is basically idiocy.

That said I certainly support research towards cleaner energy systems.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Awesome! /s

Its a pretty interesting paper. Lots of quotes to pick from!

Our general equilibrium calculations show that an environmentally valuable reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in Australia through a carbon tax is achievable without major disruptions to the Australian economy.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Actually I wouldn't, since you pulled that number out of your ........ummm armpit. Post it, post them, link them. You have serious issues posting your links, probably because they don't exist or like the last one actually supported my contention of media bias.

Start here: http://www.realclimate.org


Plenty of Science there. Enjoy the ride!

 

[monovillage]

It's just started.

Pardon? But Prime Minister, there is a very easy way to cut power bills by 10 per cent:

FIVE weeks after imposing a 10 per cent hike in electricity bills with the carbon tax, Julia Gillard says power prices are rising “too far and fast”.

But the Prime Minister says it’s not her policy but the states and power companies who are to blame for a 50 per cent rise inflicted on families and pensioners.

In a bid to take up the political fight in an area where Labor has been on the back foot, Ms Gillard declares unacceptably high power prices have become “a threat to fairness in our society”.

Her gall is amazing.

UPDATE

Did I say 10 per cent?

How much did your power bill go up? TD Securities Melbourne Institute inflation gauge, July, yesterday:

DUE to the introduction of the carbon tax from 1 July, the price of electricity rose by 14.9 per cent and gas and other household fuel prices increased by 10.3 per cent.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...power_bills_after_hiking_them_by_10_per_cent/

 

[cybrsage]

Didn't sink in ? LOL It was I who called this drought last winter . What do you mean it didn't sink in . You are speaking about self I assume. This is just 1 year . What makes you believe its going to get better and not worse . I will tell you straight . In times to come vary soon . you will seek hell for its coolness . Future fact . how future 2013

Won't the 50 foot rise in the ocean level, swallowing many major cities (and therefor ending their global warming effects) help cool things off?

 

[monovillage]

Start here: http://www.realclimate.org


Plenty of Science there. Enjoy the ride!

I'm very familiar with RC and Gavin Schmidt, it's why I usually recommend Judith Curry's blog at http://judithcurry.com/ , but read the one you find most accurate and interesting.

 

[woolfe9999]

lol, as expected. First link is a reference to a book reiterating the argument of a widely discredited UCLA study. Your second link depends on determining bias through an arbitrary selection of phrases declared to be liberal or conservative, and your third link is largely related to your second.

Liberal media bias is most certainly unproven, but it is also poorly supported. Once again, your sources use studies that have such poor methodology that they declared the NRA to be to the left of the ACLU. Really excellent quality studies there.

Indeed. I read both of the studies in his links. The first study relies on a single measure, the number of times various think tanks are mentioned, without consideration of context.

The second study is more interesting, but also deeply flawed. It's pairing up phrases as liberal/conservative dichotomies based on the number of times each is used by members of Congress, then using those phrases to analyze media content.

The fallacy of the excluded middle is pretty obvious here. For example, the phrases "death tax" versus "estate tax." The paper mentions that conservatives have gone out of their way to substitute the catch phrase "death tax" because it has a negative connotation. Certainly true. The trouble is that "estate tax" is not the mirror opposite. It has no emotional slant. It's straight from the tax code and it's been there for over a century. It's just a dry and neutral way to describe this tax.

The study suggests "estate tax" implies that it's a tax on the wealthy. I have my doubts about this, but even if we concede that is true, given the multi-million dollar exemption built into the tax, any such connotation would be accurate anyway. It's a tax affecting maybe 1-2% of estates. If democrats are using this term, it may just mean that they are using a neutral term from the tax code, whereas conservatives are using the made up catch phrase "death tax" as an emotional appeal. There are plenty of liberal catchphrases, but "estate tax" isn't one of them, and I have a hard time swallowing that a news outlet using that term could be deemed "liberal" biased.

There are other dichotomies which make more sense, such as "tax relief" versus "tax break." Still, the methodology is very strange in that it fails to acknowledge that there can be such a thing as a neutral way to describe things. In the minds of its authors everything is either liberal or conservative, which sort of begs the question.

- wolf

 

[Jaskalas]

The science speaks for itself.

Editorial: ‘Hansen is simply wrong’ and ‘his hypothesis is a complete and abject failure’

Scatterplot graph of U.S. Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) -vs- NASA GISS temperature data. If there was a correlation between temperature and droughts in the USA, the dots would align along a line from upper left to lower right (or mirrored LL to UR, depending on the correlation). But, as the plot shows, there is no correlation between drought & temperature of any kind.

 

[Jaskalas]

As one final note, here is even easier data to read.

NASA’s James Hansen is just wrong: Proof that there is no increased drought in the USA tied to temperature

Contiguous U.S. precipitation – annual average – source NCDC