 |
|
« So How Does it Feel to Win a $58,000 Bike? | Main | Global Warming II: The Hockey Stick »
July 8, 2005
Global Warming I: Journalism Breakdown
Katrina's piece on global warming created quite the stir. In Katrina's defense, she referenced a (no pun intended) hot topic covered in an article in USA Today ("The Debate's Over: Globe Is Warming"). Sharing an article from "America's best-selling newspaper" simply isn't a "...leftist political smear against American Industry," as one reader responded.
Everyone's parents have told them, "Consider the source." The source, in this case—I don't care how many people buy the thing—is USA Today, for God's sake. USA Today's only example of brilliance may be that its clipped, compressed, and incomplete style predated a popular form of 'journalism' today: the Blog, which itself—this article included—is clipped, compressed, and incomplete. From the beginning, USA Today has been designed, written, edited, and marketed as quick, easy read. Nothing more, nothing less. How has it become America's best-selling newspaper? Why read a book when one can scan the CliffsNotes? An article in the Wall Street Journal or The New York Times may be infinitely better researched and presented but, well, it just takes too much time to read. Most of us don't have the time.
Consider the headline of the article: "The Debate's Over: Globe Is Warming." What self-respecting journalist—or news organization—would take what is today—still—a scientifically debatable position? (Plus, what self-respecting, national newspaper would use italics in a headline?) To support that headline, the article states…
"After decades of debate over whether the planet is heating and, if so, whose fault it is, divergent groups are joining hands with little fanfare to deal with a problem they say people can no longer avoid."
…and continues to mention the following organizations who have, apparently, "joined hands"…
• General Electric
• U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• Battelle Joint Global Change Research Institute
• U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops
• National Association on Evangelicals
• National Council of Churches
• Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
• Environmental Protection Agency
C'mon. Gimme a freakin' break. Add the National Rifle Association, Pee-Wee Herman, and The Vatican to the list, and I might pay attention.
1. General Electric, as another reader states, is clearly business-motivated.
2. Everyone at the U.N. IPCC, the aforementioned Battelle JGCRI, and the EPA would be out of jobs if it were determined that human actions won't make all that much of a difference in global warming.
3. Add to the aforementioned religious institutions another organization, Christian Brothers Investment Services, mentioned prominently in the article. That's four Christian institutions—in a single USA Today article—used as sources for one of the most heated debates in scientific history. Excuse me, but why are these organizations mentioned at all? And if you're gonna quote Christians as All Knowing Scientists, where is the journalistic balance of also representing other religions? (Hey, I was born and raised a Christian and this sort of journalism makes my skin crawl.)
4. Schwarzenegger owns more Hummers than God Himself, and showed up to give his $60 million 'Hydrogen Highway' speech in a GMC Yukon. Hey, at least he unveiled the Hydrogen Hummer.
The only instance of balance in this article is mention of the Climate Stewardship Act proposed by Sens. Joe Lieberman and John McCain, Democrat and Republican, respectively.
Global warming should be—must be—an issue of science, not covering your own butt, not politics, not profits, not votes. Science hasn't taken a back seat in the USA Today article. It's been gagged, bound, and stuffed in the trunk.
Seems Michael Crichton's onto something.
(More to come.)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://news.thomasnet.com/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/115
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Global Warming I: Journalism Breakdown:
» Going Nuclear, Part II from Industrial Market Trends
A bit more generalization and reality. (OK. Maybe this really should have been Part I, a la Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill I and II…)... [Read More]
Tracked on October 24, 2005 10:17 AM
» Oil Exploration and Drilling in Alaska, Part I from Industrial Market Trends
The plan for oil drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been scuttled. It's expected that it's not over yet, though, with senior Senators likely to insist on this President Bush priority.... [Read More]
Tracked on November 30, 2005 10:46 AM
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
30 CommentsTo Whoever:
Global Warming, The globe does warm up and the globe cools.
This has been going on for as long as the globe has been here.
Global warming has more to do about the out put of the sun and the relation of the angle of the
of globe axes to the sun at any given period of time.
Global warming does povide a good income of money to the groups that like to steel rather than work
for there keep.
Encil L Trueblood
Mark Devlin asked this question about the USA Today paper: "How has it become America's best-selling newspaper?"
A few years ago I read a piece indicating USA Today's boast could be based on "circulation" they have in HOTELS and MOTELS which provide a "free" copy to every guest daily, whether they want it or not (it's a charge hidden on your bill). That would be A LOT of newspapers! What would be more realistic is a comparison of how many PAID subscriptions USA Today has among residential customers versus the Wall Street Journal and other more venerable newspapers.
July 12, 2005 1:03 PMMark Devlin's response to the USA article is as light-weight as the article itself. There is little or no science cited and the overuse of sarcasm makes his comments appear purile and tantrum-like. This is a real issue with significant implications that needs serious attention and not delcarative pronouncements from the press. The impact of global warming on our economies and lives needs measured and objective discussion of the real issues and solutions, if any.
July 12, 2005 2:33 PMI am amazed by this continuing debate. Why can't people rationally look at this with common sense?
Nobody can or should question the fact that there is global warming. You can see its gross effects in Glacier National Park, in Greenland and on the Alaskan coastline.
Nobody can or should question the fact that the atmospheric carbon load is increasing. The scientific data is too strong and it is not a short term trend. This has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution.
Nobody can or should question the "greenhouse" effect, a fundamental principle of physics. Solar energy at visual and short infrared wavelengths is transmitted effectively by our atmosphere. The earth (or more accurately seawater) absorbs this energy and then re-emits it at longer infrared wavelengths. The atmosphere is opaque to this radiation, so that it cannot escape. It carries heat energy which is deposited somewhere in the earth's ecosystem (land, sea or atmosphere). This is how greenhouses work, and why this effect was given its name.
Now, the only question that remains is the source of atmospheric carbon. Is it natural, man-made or both? How about we just cover our bets and assume "both".
If so, it is purely common sense that mankind should try to curtail activities which contribute to atmospheric carbon and the greenhouse effect.
As for natural sources, we might consider sacrificing virgins again, so that the volcanoes stay quiet. There can be a debate about the efficacy of this solution as well.
In any case, let's focus on the real issue. Can global warming be reduced by our choices and activities? Or is it totally beyond our control? I am betting on the former, since I prefer to be safe rather than sorry.
It is for that reason that nuclear power is looking more favorable, in comparison to fossil fuel generation. That may be another reason that industry is becoming supportive of measures to deal with global warming.
I welcome those developments and hope for clear skies in my lifetime.
July 12, 2005 2:43 PMAfter reading this trash science article, I've decided to "unsubscribe". Using USA Today as a "source" is equal to using the New York Times as a "source" for ethics in journalism.
It's been nice. Goodbye.
July 12, 2005 3:12 PMOne of our local talk show girls opened this question the other day. During the show the meteorologist guy came on with the weather report. Asked his opinion of the latest "truth" he remarked (with just a hint of boredom) that over the past several thousand years the earth has been hotter than now and it has been colder. No, he's not worried.
Personally, I'm not much into "fad-driven" missions encouraged by every pseudo-scientist who comes down the pike.
Let us admit that we are currently in a warming trend. It seems to me that within the historical period, say around 1000 CE, there were Scandinavians farming in Greenland - which I don't think anyone is doing today because it is too cold. I can understand why people in tropical places don't want the global climate to get any warmer, but what I don't understand is why the Canadians, Scandinavians, and Russians want to keep their countries from acquiring longer growing seasons and lower heating bills. I have no problem with tropical countries curtailing their use of fossil fuels in order to make an attempt to halt climate change - perhaps they should replant the massive rain forrests that they have cut down and burned - which both eliminated the trees which were taking carbon out of the air and released CO2 by burning the cut trees to fertilize the poor tropical soils with ash. I saw recently that every American is responsible (on average) for 25 tons of CO2 per year. If we knew the equivalent number for 1990(?) or whenever the Kyoto benchmark is, the difference could be made up by planting sufficient trees to use up the difference in CO2 while we move to biodiesel and E85 (ethanol replacement for gasoline) and develop nuclear electrical generating plants. Of course, people would then whine about the starving populations that we no longer have a surplus to feed.
July 12, 2005 4:09 PMEric, I agree, I am not sure why the debate is going on. The Intergovernmental Panel and the National Academy of Sciences, have agreed that Global Warming is 'real'. In fact, the scientists determined the 'fact' back in 1979, when they determined that a doubling of atmospheric Co2 causes surface temp increases of 1.5-4.5 degrees C.
According to the USA EPA, this is not only a reality, but that the earth has warmed at a rate almost 4x as fast in the past 10 years, as it has in the past 100 years.
NASA along with the USGS, show satellite photos depicting the evidence of the warming, and summarily all agree that the with the rise of the surface temps, oceans will rise and perhaps eventually stop the conveyer, thus returning the globe to a "little ice age" minimally, or 'ice age" worst scenerio by the end of the this century, and possibly within 50 years.
Additionally, the Pentagon has issued stern declarations to the President calling the pending climate changes, more serious national defense issues than terrorism, as the nations use nuclear arms to close their borders from migrants in search of water and other resources.
I am not sure why Mr. Devlin wastes his obvious writing talents on making sure the issue is avoided. ?
It seems to me there are three issues:
1. Is "global warming" occuring?
2. What is causing it?
3. Can we do anything about it?
First: One must assume that climate change is occuring. The earth (and every other solar body) is never in stasis. Whether it is warming or cooling is a matter of dispute, but in either event, it would have an effect on current living conditions.
Second: Climate change is constant,and has (over the millenia) been caused by hundreds of distinct and interrelated natural phenomena, ranging from sunspots to volcanic activity. Certainly,human activity has some influence on climate, just as it does on weather. Even without human interference, however, the climate would still change. The measurement of climate change, much less the proportion of that change influenced by humans is a topic of even more tendentious debate, and is certainly not settled.
Third: What we can do about climate change is necessarily related to how much humans have influenced the climate. It is the height of hubris to suggest that humans can (or should even try) to stop climate change which occurs naturally (e.g. are we to ban volcanos?). We simply have to live with it just as we do with such unpleasant things as hurricanes. To the extent, however, that human activity is responsible for climate change, it is well to examine whether such change would occur faster (or more slowly) if we modified our behaviour.
Even here, there will be disagreement about the salutary (or evil) effects of change. Perhaps we will be able to grow corn in Iceland (but Nauru will exist no more). Again, debate will be endless.
I suggest that the "global warming" debate is more political than scientific (or even theological). Worse, it detracts from the real-world justifications for environmentalism about which we CAN do something. Certainly, there should be little debate about whether toxic fluids should be dumped in rivers even if they do not result in a 0.1 degree increase in global temperatures. Let's focus on the serious and measurable problems such as urban smog which human activity has clearly caused,and the "global warming" problem will take care of itself -- naturally.
July 12, 2005 4:38 PMI am impressed with how far people will go to avoid seeing something which doesn't agree with their opinion.
Most interested people acknowledge the warming pattern. What is not universally accepted is the assumption that it's a one-way ride. Geological evidence shows where the world has " gone hot ", and also " gone cold " in eons past.
We also have hard evidence showing the carbon load from a mid-class volcanic eruption such as Mt. St. Helen's. This one eruption placed more CO2, as well as Sulphur, Ammonia, Hydrogen, and a myriad of other elements in the Earth's atmosphere than the US and Canada did in the past 100 combined!
Let's get real. What we need to do is pass a law against volcanic eruptions. There. Problem solved. Now can we move on to something that we actually have some control over?
Personally I find MAD and CRACKED magazines far more informative and far more interesting than USA Today, which has only ever been a substitute for actually reading true news sources like TIME magazine, Washington Post, etc.
Having worked on 3 NASA space flight projects in years past, I know that some years appear like there is Global Warming and some years look more like cooling is taking place. It depends very much on location and time of year.
Besides I have always had a "hankerin" for Icelandic corn on the cob...
July 12, 2005 6:49 PMIt seems this debate about global warming is totally pointless. It reminds me of the vehement denials of the toxicity from pesticide use as pointed out by Rachel Carson and the legal battles over the harmful effects of tobacco that the cigarette manufacturers eventually lost after denying the incidence of the damaging effects for decades.
The arguments put forth against all the scientific evidence pointing to the incidence of global warming appear to be the actions of vested interests who believe they have commercial benefits in evading the issue and thus are insisting on disregarding all the evidence to puit forth a contrary viewpoint with a whole lot of specious arguments.
July 13, 2005 4:58 AMI am a licensed Environmental Engineer with 40 years experience. Professionally speaking, the debate on global warming is far from over. This is not a discussion for amateurs - any more than other scientific subjects. Anecdotal observations mean nothing. "This is the wettest year I have ever seen in my lifetime" - is useless information. Engineers design for one in every 100-year storm event. Often the drainage design is made on the "once ever 1000 year storm".
Of course the globe has been warming. But is it a man-made event? No one knows. We will only have some real answers when scientists produce a reliable computer model of the earth's carbon cycle. While we have been observing glaciers, the increased carbon dioxide may have spurred the growth of saplings that will one day consume large quantities of carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Ironically this may be the time we have converted to hydrogen fuel cell cars. We will be producing hydrogen from water, which may tremendously increase the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere.
So in the next century we will be running around saying "global cooling caused by excess oxygen production".
To be prudent, we must always look into alternative technologies. The more our knowledge bank grows, the better equipped we will be to accept the 50% additional people being born on this planet in the next 50 years. We also must face the impeding shortages of petroleum. We can concentrate our resources in those areas where we are certain a problem exists. But to run around like Chicken Little saying "the earth is warming, the glaciers are melting" is a dangerous way to throw our money down a rat hole. When scientists can say, in a decade or so, "we must stop doing this" and "this activity is not causing any problems" – then we will know where to put our money with the assurance that we are indeed correcting a problem. Don't forget, running around cutting all emissions of carbon dioxide today, may cause more problems than we can imagine 100 years from now.
Remember doctors practiced "blood-letting" to release the evil spirts for two centuries, contributing to the deaths of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Let us not be so foolish to follow what seems to be a "logical conclusion". We might accidentially kill somebody.
There have been several sensible comments to this already. The author of the USA rebuttal makes some valid points about our "sound bite" culture and paucity of rigorous thinking, but destroys his own argument for reason others already have pointed out.
The author is guilty of the identical "mile wide, micron deep" thinking as his victim, the USA reporter. He fails to cite credible sources, he fails to look into and cite the magnitude of the change, which exceeds anything we have measured since the warming of the globe after the last Ice Age. No "normal" cycle of warming has melted glaciers and polar ice. There are phenomena occuring in the natural world that are not explained by a normal cycle of warming. The data indicate temperature increases well outside the normal curves, sufficient to permanently change the earth's ecology.
He makes an egregious error by failing to examine in depth the statements and actions of the companies he makes fun of for begining to engage in environmental capitalism.
The author should read "Natural Capitalism" by Amory Lovins, et al, to gain some real perspective on the magnitude of the problems we face. Armed with some education, perhaps he could take a more sober look at the world.
July 13, 2005 9:51 AMEncil L Trueblood has this to say:
"Global warming does provide a good income of money to the groups that like to steel rather than work
for there keep."
To which I would reply – in part:
"groups that like to =STEAL= rather than work for =their= keep."
Communists of whatever stripe – will =STEAL= rather than 'labor' – for what is otherwise honestly won, as a result of the exchange of one form of wealth for whatever other.
For communists/socialist/thieves, all wealth is to be shunned.
Better it be that everyone is equally dirt poor, than for anyone to be even in the slightest wealthy more than any other.
Remember: Misery loves company – the primary tenet of communism.
July 13, 2005 11:55 PM
