Why Does The Weather Produce So Much Spin ?

[stewfox]

I don't know of any other area open for discussion in the world from the Middle East Wars to fashion in Hollywood.

From what to have with your bacon to how high is the tallest sky scraper that generate more spin and bias then the weather.

Is it because with the weather we have no control over it, we can therefore spin away ?.

I know there is lots of scientific research done but how valuable is this when it's all put in the tumble for drier for a good spin?

I saw this and I assume there are 1000s of 'examples'

http://www.scienceda...90917144131.htm

We have just had 2 yrs of arctic ice recovery whether that continues who knows but then you get this

---------------------------------

"We are still seeing a downward trend that appears to be heading toward ice-free Arctic summers," Meier said"

--------------------------------------

Spin out of that one ?

[SteveB]

I think Government's, scientists alike have a lot riding on global temperatures rising over the next few decades. A lot of money is being generated from green issues.

Keeping down C is seen as a way of controlling emerging nations as well. It's become a political issue on a global scale.

Politics = spin,...... simples.

Edited September 21, 2009 by SteveB

[Solar Cycles]

I don't know of any other area open for discussion in the world from the Middle East Wars to fashion in Hollywood.

From what to have with your bacon to how high is the tallest sky scraper that generate more spin and bias then the weather.

Is it because with the weather we have no control over it, we can therefore spin away ?.

I know there is lots of scientific research done but how valuable is this when it's all put in the tumble for drier for a good spin?

I saw this and I assume there are 1000s of 'examples'

http://www.scienceda...90917144131.htm

We have just had 2 yrs of arctic ice recovery whether that continues who knows but then you get this

---------------------------------

"We are still seeing a downward trend that appears to be heading toward ice-free Arctic summers," Meier said"

--------------------------------------

Spin out of that one ?

Same old tiresome tales, it must be so frustrating being a warmists, watching the climate not playing ball with your theory! Still you have got to admire the spin doctors, maybe Gordon Brown could take some lessons from them!!

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we need to be careful when viewing extreme weather events not to then use them as a measure to gauge a general (and established) 'trend' by.

This has occurred with the 98' Nino induced global temp max. and all the tales of 'cooling' that this statistical glitch has generated.

We now face the same in the Arctic with the appalling losses of 07' being held up as some kind of benchmark for the years thereafter.

The rises in global temps will eventually have every year (even the poor ones) surpassing the 98' global temps ( if we give credence to the warming we are measuring) and the incredible low of 07' in the Arctic ice will become a 'norm' if the general trend for ice loss over summer continues.

Global temps are hard for me to 'imagine' but not so Arctic ice. When I first took interest in the arctic it was back in the mid 80's and the images then were showing a summer ice pack nearly as big as the Arctic ocean.This is no longer the norm and though we quibble over 1/2 a million sq miles of ice the sight of half of the basin ice free each year (for me) is worrying.

Though I am berated for my glum view of things I think you'll find it is a view supported by the science that measures the Arctic. None of it , I might add, is pleasant but who would wish to live life in a myriad of delusions/illusions? To me that is setting oneself up for a big fall.

Forewarned is fore armed an' all that

If I see 'spin' in the media it is the attempts to make one freak season a benchmark to measure all else by and 'spin out' a recovery scenario from it.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The weather produces a lot of spin because there are vested interests on both sides.

Regarding pro-AGW spin there is the market for green technology, desire to cover backsides taxes-wise, use of AGW as an excuse to further authoritarian control (e.g. trample on developing economies, install draconian legislation) and the concern that we are using up finite resources (though this latter point is closely connected to AGW itself).

Regarding anti-AGW spin there is the desire to maintain the status quo, and avoid making potentially unpleasant changes, and the philosophy that maximising growth and consumption is the way forward, plus preserving free market economics and giving as much power as possible to the markets. Then there's the personal stuff like not wanting to see the demise of cold snowy winters.

The idea that the concept of AGW was derived for political reasons is just a tactic used to shoot down anyone who (shock, horror) has an open mind to the mere possibility that AGW might be as bad as the IPCC makes out. Rather, it is being used as an excuse to pursue other agendas.

[Iceberg]

I think for this to be thread that isn't locked straight away people tones maybe need to improve......

Spin is both sides and has nothing to do with the validity of the subject matter.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think for this to be thread that isn't locked straight away people tones maybe need to improve......

Spin is both sides and has nothing to do with the validity of the subject matter.

I dragged up up from the depths Ice, if no one could be bothered to challenge it when it was 'current' I doubt they will now

[RedShift]

erm...is the answer the Coriolis effect?

[Pingo]

The weather produces a lot of spin because there are vested interests on both sides.

Regarding pro-AGW spin there is the market for green technology, desire to cover backsides taxes-wise, use of AGW as an excuse to further authoritarian control (e.g. trample on developing economies, install draconian legislation) and the concern that we are using up finite resources (though this latter point is closely connected to AGW itself).

Regarding anti-AGW spin there is the desire to maintain the status quo, and avoid making potentially unpleasant changes, and the philosophy that maximising growth and consumption is the way forward, plus preserving free market economics and giving as much power as possible to the markets. Then there's the personal stuff like not wanting to see the demise of cold snowy winters.

The idea that the concept of AGW was derived for political reasons is just a tactic used to shoot down anyone who (shock, horror) has an open mind to the mere possibility that AGW might be as bad as the IPCC makes out. Rather, it is being used as an excuse to pursue other agendas.

AGW was not derived for political reasons originally. It was derived because Hansen truly believed in it.

That was the problem. Scientists should never truly believe in their own hypothesis.

He went out of his way to prove it.

He then got green stalwarts like Hulme, Jones, Schidt and Mann to carry the flag. They kind of believed it to begin with, but then it morphed into something that "believed" in order to further their career.

They then bullied subordinates to follow them. The train was then in motion with no brakes. PhD students came and went knowing that they couldn't disagree without their career being hammered.

So we got to where we are now.

AGW "consensus" science where no-one dares disagree as they'd lose their career and ability to appear in supposedly prestigious journals.

The worm has now turned though.

Jones and Mann are now d******d throughout climate science, and no-one dare trust them. That so much is clear. See Von Storch or Zorita's recent statements.

We are at a watershed.

AGW is going down.