Are the media not too bright, or just biased on global warming?
March 28th, 2008, 4:23 pm · 6 Comments · posted by Mark Landsbaum
When it comes to global warming like any other newsy topic, reporting ain’t brain surgery. All it takes is a lick of common sense, a touch of skepticism and the ability to ask questions.
Then why do we so often find pablum like this (tip of the hat to blogger Jeff Poor):
“Much of the effects of climate change have been couched in terms of if or when its effects will be felt,” CBS correspondent Mark Phillips said. “Well, here there is no ‘if.’ And when is now. So choices are being made. It’s called managed retreat. Some areas of coastline deemed indefensible are being abandoned. Climate change is producing winners and losers, and Diana Wrightson and the others here have already lost.”
As Poor points out, global warming expert Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, says blaming global warming for that is “nonsense.” Reports Poor:
“This story is nonsense from start to finish,” Monckton told the Business & Media Institute. “As a result of continuing isostatic recovery following the recent end of the last Ice Age (about 9,000 years ago), the western half of the U.K. has been rising, and the eastern half has been falling.”
Monckton continued, “The loss of coastal properties in eastern England, which began occurring long before we could have had any appreciable influence on the climate, has nothing to do with rising seas and everything to do with falling land. But stories like this are constantly peddled by the leftist media, who have no regard whatsoever for objective truth.”
How can CBS be so superficial to uncritically swallow then regurgitate global warming alarmists’ clearly absurd claims? We’ve long viewed much of mainstream press coverage as glorified stenography. But with so much contrary evidence and so many respected skeptical voices easily accessible, this kind of coverage smacks of pure slant.
A “news” corresponsdent would have to purposely ignore contrary facts to come up with flat assertions like: “Well, here there is no ‘if.’ And when is now. So choices are being made. It’s called managed retreat. Some areas of coastline deemed indefensible are being abandoned. Climate change is producing winners and losers.”
March 29th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
‘ But with so much contrary evidence and so many respected skeptical voices easily accessible, this kind of coverage smacks of pure slant.’
Too bad you can’t seem to apply to this attitude to your creepy and cultish devotion to Milton Freeman and other ‘free market’ evangelists.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:28 am
You may want to check out the “Earth Day” festivities in Australia. I know it didn’t get much press here, but they are trying to make this a worldwide event. I especially liked how the media altered images to show Sydney as dimmer than it was and how the statistics were skewed, but still skimpy. You can find the blog here:
http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2008/03/earth-hour-putting-mental-back-in.html
March 30th, 2008 at 8:40 am
“And when is now. ”
I dunno about where he is, but here in Salt Lake City, we’ve arisen on March 30 to a new overnight snowfall. Gee, didn’t I hear something a week and a half ago about the beginning of Spring?
I would post more, but I have to go out and get all of the “global warming” off my windshield so that I can drive to church.
March 30th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Global warming, or just a nice day between Ice Ages? Until the global warming chicken littles start talking about nuclear energy and other clean energy systems I don’t believe them. Solar Energy is important, but since the electricity is only created during the day, what about the evenings? Wind power works when there is pressure differentials between regions, but during the hottest days that isn’t the case, so the energy isn’t there.
Let the global warming folks answer those questions, how do you deliver energy on hot nights using solar and wind power? Or how do you dispose of the batteries from the hybrids?
March 31st, 2008 at 9:14 am
Environmentalism is the new religion. And if you don’t thrust yourself into the movement with equal fervor to those leading the charge, then you must be A) A greedy evil Republican, B) illiterate or unwilling to read the “facts” as quoted by CBS above, “all legitimate” scientists, or C) recklessly stupid.
I don’t mind debate on issues like this. Can we make some positive changes to our world by following some of the new commandments (ie thou shalt not drive when it’s just as easy to walk or honor thy local farmer for food tastes better fresh)? Sure. But this Armageddon approach with Chicken Littles running around screaming that the sky is falling or the ocean will wipe out San Fransisco and Manhattan next summer is ludicrous.
The fact is, this is a rich countries “religion”. Only in a wealthy country (with the freedom to whine about our “failing” economy) can someone throw away perfectly functioning lightbulbs, linens, and cars to replace them with CFC bulbs, bamboo sheets and towels, and hybrid vehicles.
I don’t deny the fact that temperatures are warming, but how about letting some moderate or dissenting voices into the conversation about ALL of the potential causes and ways to address it - if there is a way for us to address it? The same left-leaning people who scream about the right to free speech are the same ones to immediately try to silence or discredit critics who don’t agree with them.
March 31st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
As the atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase and average earth temperature doesn’t, many people are going to look more and more foolish, the faulty predictions of the incomplete GCMs will continue to be exposed, and the main-stream media’s global warming hype will cease. Anyone that is curious about government data of actual climate history should look at http://www.middlebury.net:80/op-ed/pangburn.html .
As the price of petroleum continues to increase, people will select vehicles that use less of it. As gasoline sales decline the gasoline tax revenue source for highway maintenance and expansion will decrease and other revenue sources will be proposed.
The good news is that nuclear reactors are planned which will reduce acid rain and mercury contamination of the atmosphere by coal fired plants. Eventually the red herring of storage of nuclear waste will be drowned out by further exploitation of spent fuel reprocessing. Better news will be when nuclear breeder reactors are built and plug-in hybrid turbo diesel cars become available. When all this eventually happens world wide, all the energy needs of humanity will be met for millions of years.