2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

These statistics have been widely studied in the literature and are summarized in the IPCC reports. If you’re interested please read the studies or the IPCC report.

Much better than randomly or cherry-picking individual stations

What media shenanigans?

The 'false balance' of the media was a construction of the PR industry. It used to be that the press would read the report, and the journalist would report the facts as they understand them.

Step in the lawyers for the Tobacco industry, suddenly there are all of these so called 'experts' from think tanks and 'institutes' who are funded by the PR companies on behalf of their clients to write articles in the media casting doubt on the science and demanding that the media reports 'both sides' of the story

These same tactics, often by the same individuals, were employed again to argue that 'there is no evidence that CFCs were depleting the Ozone layer, and that 'It is not proven that sulphur Dioxide causes acid rain'

That 'there is no evidence that adding lead to petrol is toxic to humans' etc etc etc etc

They have been doing it for more than a half a century, industry puts out fake experts quoting fake studies and 'questioning' the real independent science in order to cast doubt on whatever issue their employers pay them to question.

Finally the media has collectively decided that they no longer need to add in the PR inspired line 'There is no way to definitely link any one weather event to climate change but...' and are finally attributing climate change to these increasingly extreme weather events.

The media reports the news, often in a sensational way because this makes them money and drives advertising. It is not the job of the Scientific community to police the media. The scientists publish the studies and review them. The IPCC goes into detail to outline how much of the increased weather extremes are due to AGW. If you want to know these figures, read the papers they publish, or the IPCC report. Do not just point at bad reporting in the media and use that as an excuse to ignore the mounting scientific data and the conclusions from those data.

Akrasia wrote:

Reality:

Media creates false balance on climate science, study shows | University of California

Climate Feedback – A Scientific Reference to Reliable Information on Climate Change

It's Channel 4 so I'm not going to give them the satisfaction of a click but if it's about the oil industry then what do you expect? They will lobby and duck and dive just like the tobacco industry did. I'm not sure what that's got to do with the science?

You’re a great man for the speculation when it comes to downplaying climate change…

why don’t you just accept that the hourly rainfall record was broken

records only go back as far as they are recorded

before that we have either your speculation about what could have happened, or we can use model simulations to show how likely something was to have happened given the climate of the day.

Freak events will always happen once in a while, climate change is making those previously ‘freak’ events much more likely, and pushing the limits of what kinds of weather were previously impossible during the Holocene

in the case of NY we had 2 independent record breaking rainfall events within a week of each other.

btw, your grandchildren won’t thank you for your pathetic crusaded against the media for calling Ida a hurricane instead of an extra tropical depression when it hit NY

ffs. You’re angry about the wrong things

You should educate yourself. A lot of the results of this lobbying has seeped into your sub conscious, and most of the rubbish on the climate change ‘skeptic’ blogosphere has come either directly or indirectly from the lobbying and PR campaigns funded by these companies

I didn’t see that Twitter link, I don’t usually click on Twitter links anyway because Twitter is a cesspit of echo chambers that rarely provides anything of value

The global scientific community publishes scientific research, and the occasional synthesis report that carefully summarises those research into one easy to read report. The latest IPCC report is less than a month old, and represents years of work by thousands of expert reviewers. Yet all of you so called skeptics refuse to engage with it at all.

instead you pretend to be mad because ‘scientists’ aren’t wasting their time arguing against Twitter links

The IPCC handed you the information wrapped up in a bow and left it on your lap in your choice of multiple formats with graphics and summaries and extracts and guides to make it as easy as possible for you to digest, and you haven’t referred to it once that I can remember other than to totally dismiss the reports for political or ideological reasons

you’re not a sceptic if you do not engage with the best evidence presented by the side you don’t agree with

You didn't accept it that record, you replied by saying the media were lying and pointed at a daily record rainfall as evidence that they were lying about that record.

Ida was a record breaking storm, it broke lots of records, but when you point at records it didn't break when someone says it was a record breaking storm, you're just furthering the same exact obfuscation and denial strategy you claim to oppose

You claim to be open minded. And scientifically minded. Care to explain your avatar?

Co poo???

Why did you choose to upload this image and use it as your avatar?

You say you don't let anyone influence your opinion on the science. Well you certainly don't let scientists influence your opinion, that's for sure. Or even the findings of published scientific peer reviewed papers.

You must do your own 'research' and on your own, have independently assessed every single line of evidence relating to all of those strongly held skeptical opinions you hold. How do you find the time to post on Boards.ie? You're doing the job of 10s of thousands of highly trained experts devoting their professional and academic lives to answering these questions!

Gaoth, I can't remember the last time you voluntarily posted a scientific reference to justify your position. You're obviously too smart to need to reference peer reviewed papers.

Your link was to an investigation into corrupt politicians. You're being completely incoherent now

And Channel 4 is a perfectly acceptable source for news. You can poke holes in individual stories or historically they have commissioned some god awful documentaries, but they are a reputable news organisation. But even if you don't like channel 4, there are many many other news organisations that can corroborate the Exxon story, as well as internal leaked documents that I have directly linked to earlier in this thread. Exxon, and all the other major oil companies are up to their eyes in deliberately misinforming the public and governments on the state of climate science. There are mountains of evidence that they knew a half century ago that CO2 caused climate change, and they spent vast sums of money on PR campaigns to prevent environmental regulations that would have cost them money and cut into their profits

"btw, your grandchildren won’t thank you for your pathetic crusaded against the media for calling Ida a hurricane instead of an extra tropical depression when it hit NY" - Akrasia.

In other words, you approve of media disinformation when it benefits your agenda.

Didn't you tell us just recently that focusing on individual stations was a waste of time? Yet here you are, jumping on records being broken at one or two stations again yourself.

What does 'Co Poo' mean? Only thing I can find on google is that it is a type of shampoo. GL didn't strike me as the type to be pushing the 'big shampoo' agenda, but you don't learn something new everyday.