I will agree with the last phrase of Dr. Thompson's opinion: the media does sacrifice accuracy for impact, especially in recent years. After claims that the science was settled, the opposing skeptical views began to dwindle in mainstream media and have now reached the point where they are nonexistent.

Thanks for allowing a debate to continue, Brett.

I think CNN's reporting of the giant icesheet breaking off from Canada today is clear evidence of biased reporting. Damn liberals ruining everyone's day. With the amount of money big oil and others put in to tell us everything is "okay" there really is no argument left. Best advice out there is to start buying canned food/water filtration and burying them somewhere. Sorry for being a "debby downer". Having fun with the severe weather every other day here in the northeast, wedding party in Boothbay Harbour was blown away last weekend, just one of several extreme events lately. Also killer F2 tornado in New Hampshire, destroyed 100 houses, damaged more, went through 10 towns, glad everything is fine. Quote from 55 year old man Maine resident for most of life at Boothbay event "looked like the end of the world". He may be right.

This is just inviting Steve Bloom to come and bash this blog some more...

"She said the news media sometimes overplayed the uncertainty by balancing opposing views in a story without characterizing the overall level of confidence in either side. And sometimes they do the opposite, sacrificing accuracy for impact, she said."

Yes, and goes back to the 1990's and why so many people believe/KNOW that global warming is man made!

Back in 1997 it was found that the sun could account for most of the current global warming.

Most?? Lots of people jumped to the conclusion that meant the rest MUST be man-man!

That is not what it meant...it meant that most of the warm could be accounted by the sun from what we knew about the sun in 1997, and the rest 'Unknown'!

Maybe man-made, or maybe the sun.

We do not know everything about the sun and its relationship with the earth.

From NASA, 2007:

A fleet of NASA spacecraft, launched less than eight months ago, has made three important discoveries about spectacular eruptions of Northern Lights called "substorms" and the source of their power�.

The discoveries began on March 23[2007???], when a substorm erupted over Alaska and Canada, producing vivid auroras for more than two hours�.

�The substorm behaved quite unexpectedly," says Vassilis Angelopoulos, the mission's principal investigator at the University of California, Los Angeles. "The auroras surged westward twice as fast as anyone thought possible, crossing 15 degrees of longitude in less than one minute. The storm traversed an entire polar time zone, or 400 miles, in 60 seconds flat.�

Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules. That's equivalent to the energy of one magnitude 5.5 earthquake . Where does all that energy come from? THEMIS may have found the answer.

"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

[oops...I forgot to post the 1997 research>>>

From the Harvard University Gazette 1997:

"Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming," claims Sallie Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA).

[man-made global warming folks grabbed to to "part"]

"We're not saying that variations in solar activity account for all of the global rise in temperature that we are experiencing," cautions her CfA colleague, astrophysicist Willie Soon. "But we believe these variations are the major driving force. Heat-trapping gases emitted by smokestacks and vehicles -- the so-called greenhouse effect -- appear to be secondary." �..

Baliunas and Soon base their ideas about the cause of global warming on irrefutable evidence that sunlight is getting stronger. Since the late 1970s, three Sun-watching satellites recorded surprising changes in heat, ultraviolet radiation, and solar wind. The radiation alters the paths of winter storms; solar winds affect cloudiness and rainfall.

The increased activity, everyone agrees, is tied to a cycle that sees the Sun dimming, then brightening, every 11 years or so. From the late 1970s to mid-1980s, activity on Earth's star declined. Since then it has risen, declined, then risen again. The satellites measured an increase in brightness of as much as 0.14 percent on the latest rise�.

Baliunas and Soon base their ideas about the cause of global warming on irrefutable evidence that sunlight is getting stronger. Since the late 1970s, three Sun-watching satellites recorded surprising changes in heat, ultraviolet radiation, and solar wind. The radiation alters the paths of winter storms; solar winds affect cloudiness and rainfall.

The increased activity, everyone agrees, is tied to a cycle that sees the Sun dimming, then brightening, every 11 years or so. From the late 1970s to mid-1980s, activity on Earth's star declined. Since then it has risen, declined, then risen again. The satellites measured an increase in brightness of as much as 0.14 percent on the latest rise.

[HERE IS THE KEY to the Man-Made Global Warming Argument:

Also, a 0.14 percent jump in brightness is not enough to account for the approximately 1 degree F rise in temperature on Earth in the past 100 years. What's more, various observations show that our planet is almost 2 degrees F warmer than it was around the year 1700.

[HOWEVER:

Baliunas quickly points out that the satellite measurements apply to only one cycle, and evidence exists that the estimated jump in brightness over several previous cycles was almost four times as much -- 0.5 percent.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/BrighteningSuni.html

The research has been taken out of context!!!

This article is a warning to the AGW movement that people are paying attention and their opinions about "man made" global warming are beginning to change because they are seeing how little is known. In other words, "you guys should scale back the rhetoric and start working together more in order to keep your story straight because we are starting to lose them".

From the article:

"These questions endure even as the basic theory of a rising human influence on climate has steadily solidified: accumulating greenhouse gases will warm the world, erode ice sheets, raise seas and have big impacts on biology and human affairs."

The issues listed above by the author are EXACTLY the things that are now being called into question.

This article should be viewed as evidence that some people in the AGW crowd are aware that they are losing footing and they want to more effectively manage the propaganda machine in order to edit out disagreements.

the impression that the scientific community has no idea what's going on

The scientific community has no one to blame but themselves. Some high-profile scientists seek out the press to make their unfounded predictions, and later complain about bad press - when the real problem is that they are simply incompetent.

Until the scientific community opens up the debate(s) and stops coddling pathologic members, things are going to get worse.

I agree somewhat with what the article said. The science/research takes such a long time to conduct, yet the media reports the findings almost immediately. It does, at times, give the appearance that the scientific community doesn't know what it is doing. That in turn adds a lot of fuel to the denialist fire.

Studying climate is a long process that is ongoing. New information is constantly being brought to light. Computer models are constantly being upgraded and improved. It is how the process works and how science advances civilization.

A perfect example is the flat earth theory. At some point in human history, it was widely believed that the earth was flat or that earth was the center of the solar system if not the universe. Continued scientific study revealed the truth. Don't you think that process is working now with climate research? Given enough time and resources, AGW will be proven real or not.

What many fail to realize is that it is supposed to work that way. Something that was agreed to be scientific fact today may be proven otherwise tomorrow by continued scientific study. It is not scientists manipulating data for funding, it is the scientific method at work.

"I wonder if this blog is partially guilty of this?" Reply: I doubt it.

It's becoming more common for scientists to send out press releases.
It's becoming more common for the media to have stories that are simply reporting press releases (as opposed to true journalism).
It's becoming more common for the media to just copy what other media have published.

Take this story for example. In this case you can follow the links given (which is somewhat unusual in itself) back to the original blog entry by Roger A. Pielke Jr. in December. A journalist at the NY Times picked that up and blogged on it. There was an exchange of comments there where Roger said:

I do think that the framework that I present in The Honest Broker can be applied to the media as well, since, like scientists in policy/politics, journalists are also trying to bring information to the attention to decision makers. I think there are about as many "pure journalists" as there are "pure scientists" ;-) I have to give some more thought to this but it seems that the "balance as bias" argument is asking journalists to move away from the "honest broker" who reflects the range of views to become "issue advocates" who choose one view over another.

All's fair in love and war, they say, and science in these issues is just another more moral form of war. The stakes are high, the gloves are off.

See also Roger's follow-up blog:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001303a_follow_up_on_media.html
for his summary of the comments on this topic.

The press has been "sacrificing accuracy for impact" for the hundred plus years since 'yellow journalism' was introduced. The public IS entitled to both sides of the story and not incessant propaganda, and the AGW side is blatantly responsible for most of it. The ridiculous 'studies' we have seen appearing in the press should discredit just about anything said on the warming side of the house but they are desperate to fill the media and get draconian legislation in place before the public wakes up. Incidentally, a witty article in today's local midweek paper (sorry if I'm not up to HTML tags):
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_north/northislandmidweek/opinion/25999209.html. A quote or two:"I just hope that ol� Suzuki and Gore start prophesying about global cooling sometime soon cause then sure as heck, we�ll have a heat wave that will warm us up real fine like we both want and need" and "Suzuki and Gore should have lived in Old Testament times I figures. When you prophesied back then in Hebrew Land, you had to deliver or you would get a free ticket to a very painful sort of rock concert where you were both the star and would also soon be seeing stars!" What is being commented on is our dismal 2008 in terms of temperatures; we have average 2-5C below the historic averages except for three days when we actually achieved the norms. Yeh, that's weather - but after two years its starting to look a lot like climate.

While I don't feel at all confused myself, I can understand how people that get all their new from the MSM could be.
With all the reports of impending disaster in the papers and then the occasional story that reflects reality it could seem chaotic.
It would be much better if the Scientific community just admitted they know what is going on yet.

Specifically about this blog:

The 1st amendment doesn't apply, so you could censor out all the dissenting views. That would accomplish only one thing: AGW skeptics would cease coming here for information and debate.

Bob Tisdale:

Debate? I am not really sure that is the best way to characterize things here most of the time. Have you ever seen the Monty Python "argument clinic" sketch?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

"The public is obviously picking up on this not as an evolution of objective scientific understanding but as a proliferation of contradictory opinions."

Dr. Thompson said climate science presented particularly tough challenges, given the long time lag before the worst effects kick in and the persistent uncertainty about the likelihood of worst-case outcomes. She said the news media sometimes overplayed the uncertainty by balancing opposing views in a story without characterizing the overall level of confidence in either side. And sometimes they do the opposite, sacrificing accuracy for impact, she said.

First off, the public is not stupid as many AGW hysterics appear to believe. The problem with data is that it is only as good as the person interpreting and this happens within the interpreters own fallacies and prejudices. And the 'long time lag' is got to be the most excellent premise/qualifier ever created since we will all be dead before any appreciable change appears.

We do not see any call by the hysterics to clean up the local temperature gauge acts and get those gauges set/relocated, as necessary, to where their readings are not affected by immediate contamination by their surroundings. It appears the hysterics are happy to leave the status quo as it is since higher readings caused by asphalt, heat reflection, artificial heat sources, etc, etc, etc appear to uphold their 'consensus' that things are heating up.

This site itself could be a nutshell for the article mentioned, while by far the majority are skeptics, a few die hards continue to argue their points and regardless of the what the data shows the average person, arguing that such and such month was the 9th hottest on record, etc, etc.

You know, the public fell for the Y2K scam(s) and billions of dollars were paid to 'experts' who made the necessary changes so their computers could safely go into the 21st century with no data loss. I believe the public learned something by that episode. Now they feel the 'once burned, twice shy' effect and hysterics cannot persuade them that we are in a man made crisis that to avoid annihilation, they need to invest in carbon credits, and the like, and thus do their part to save the world. ROFLMAO

And now, because the elite cannot persuade the mass public, then for their perception of the good of all mankind, the elite have turned to the courts and sweetheart deals with congressmen to favor their scam. Arnold just vetoed a measure by the California legislature to cram down the throats of elementary school kids the mantra of AGW hysteria. Other groups are telling kids to tattle-tail on their friends, neighbors, and parents if they are guilty of any of the various infractions deemed by these groups to be enforced. Just a little taste of things to come.

So come on people! Sacrifice today so your children and children's children and so forth of tomorrow will have a reason to live! Buy those credits! Invest in green so today's speculators can achieve their riches at the public's expense. It's the American Way!

Sheesh....damn...soapbox just melted.....:-(

Bushhater,

Don't panic Mr Mannering!

NOAA says that severe tornadoes are on the decline, peaking in the 1970s
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg

According to NSIDC, Arctic ice melt has nearly stopped. On the current trajectory, Arctic sea ice will be above normal by mid-August.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

How odd that unbiased CNN missed these stories.

"Something that was agreed to be scientific fact today may be proven otherwise tomorrow by continued scientific study."

Scientific facts are demonstrated, they are not 'agreed upon'. This error explains much of the growing distrust of climate scientists, for the latter have simply confused consensus with fact and overreached in their claims.

Aviator,

"The press has been "sacrificing accuracy for impact" for the hundred plus years since 'yellow journalism' was introduced."

ROFL, the press has been sacrificing accuracy for impact as long as there have been town criers, it isn't a new phenomenon.

"If it bleeds, it leads" has been an unwritten rule of reporting for as long as we have had reporting.

A brilliant article saying that the debate is over, there is no need for other views to be expressed.
Dr. Kennedy editor in chief of the journal Science from 2000 until earlier this year explained why they no longer publish papers with skeptical findings with this wonderful politically correct statement:
“I do think we grew more sensitive to the need for critical review of papers likely to initiate or continue the kind of controversy that results in a whiplash effect.”

Translation:
We will publish any kind of nonsense in this field as long as it is confirms AGW. However, We shall keep the dogma of AGW up no matter where the science leads us. Why confuse the public with information that could give them pause to think other thoughts? We shall no longer publish any article that offers other viewpoints no matter how convincing the data is.
Dr. Kennedy what time does the book burning take place? Do we all get armbands with a logo on them? Can we get carte blanche to beat up or break the windows of the nonbelievers? Do we show the uneducated masses we are carbon neutral by using renewable wooden torches at the parades? All we need are a few drums, some uniforms of brown instead of green topping it all off with music by Wagner showing how if not careful we can repeat a shameful page of human history in less than 100 years.
It is truly frightening to know that these people have no idea what science is.
To you folks out there that have not yet joined the “Party and Religion of Moral Superiority and Complete Knowledge!” I ask you to read, learn, ask questions and be truly convinced, before you give these fear mongers not only your money but, with a high degree of certainty, your very right to think for yourself.
Brett- this blog is only guilty of allowing a free flow of ideas from both sides. The field of climatology is too young, uncertain and unproven to claim any sort of nearly religious right not to be questioned. But then I believe in following the science not a dogmatic theory which needs constant temperature adjustments to validate itself.

Patrick Henry:
Bushhater,

Don't panic Mr Mannering!

NOAA says that severe tornadoes are on the decline, peaking in the 1970s
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg

Hey Patrick maybe what drives the number of severe weather events is the atmospheres delta T. Since the earths atmosphere's temp increased since 1970 the delta Temp has decreased. With a warmer atmoshpere, maybe the heat transfer mechanism has changed the predominate type of cloud/storm.

I think the only thing I and many others have ever asked for is, let's have some debate, not just be dictated to by people like Al Gore. Let's hear and PRINT both sides of this complex issue. For example, how many of you have heard what a cool summer this has been in Alaska??? One of the coolest on record. Anybody???? Got that from Tom Skilling on WGN. But that didn't make the front page anywhere. (Reply: Yea, I think Senator Ted Stevens stole the show up there for now.) Stop the hype. Let's hear some facts, not just hypothesis and theories.