Must-Read Study: "The Media's Decision to Play the Stenographer Helped Opponents of Climate Action Stifle Progress"
One of the country's leading journalists has written a searing critique of the media's coverage of global warming, especially climate economics.
The study deserves attention because the media is making the same mistakes in reporting on the Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill that the author warns against (see "The New Yorker (!) parrots right-wing talking points" and "David Broder" and "NYT's Matt Wald" and "the NYT again")
The well-documented study, How Much Would You Pay to Save the Planet? The American Press and the Economics of Climate Change, is by Eric Pooley for Harvard's prestigious Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Pooley has been managing editor of Fortune, national editor of Time, Time's chief political correspondent, and Time's White House correspondent, where he won the Gerald Ford Prize for Excellence in Reporting. Before that, he was senior editor of New York magazine.
In short, Pooley has earned the right to be heard. Journalists and senior editors need to pay heed to Pooley's three tough conclusions abut how "damaging" the recent media of the climate debate has been:
- The press misrepresented the economic debate over cap and trade. It failed to recognize the emerging consensus ... that cap and trade would have a marginal effect on economic growth and gave doomsday forecasts coequal status with nonpartisan ones.... The press allowed opponents of climate action to replicate the false debate over climate science in the realm of climate economics.
- The press failed to perform the basic service of making climate policy and its economic impact understandable to the reader and allowed opponents of climate action to set the terms of the cost debate. The argument centered on the short-term costs of taking action-i.e., higher electricity and gasoline prices-and sometimes assumed that doing nothing about climate change carried no cost.
- Editors failed to devote sufficient resources to the climate story. In general, global warming is still being shoved into the "environment" pigeonhole, along with the spotted owls and delta smelt, when it is clearly to society's detriment to think about the subject that way. It is time for editors to treat climate policy as a permanent, important beat: tracking a mobilization for the moral equivalent of war.
Precisely.
Pooley is one of the few major journalists in the country who understands that global warming is the story of the century -- and if we don't reverse our emissions path soon, it will tragically be the story of the millennium, with irreversible impacts lasting for many, many centuries (see "Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path").
Pooley told me, "I think this is the only story going forward." That's why, although he remains a contributor to Time magazine, he is devoting most of his time now to researching and writing a book on the politics and economics of climate change.
The first step for Pooley was an analysis of media coverage over the previous 15 months. In a long introduction to the different roles reporters can play, Pooley notes:
Being a referee is harder than being a stenographer because it requires grappling with the substance of an issue in a way that many time-pressed journalists aren't willing or able to do.
He decided to examine media coverage surrounding the 2008 Senate debate over the climate bill put forward by John Warner (R-VA) and Joseph Lieberman (??-CT):
News coverage of the Lieberman-Warner debate included some shoddy, one-sided reporting and some strong work that took the time both to dive into the policy weeds-evaluating the economic assumptions used by the various players-and step back to portray those players as com-batants in a war for public opinion. But most of the reporting was bad in the painstakingly balanced way of so much daily journalism-two sides, no real meat.
He then explains his research:
My analysis of news articles published in national and regional newspapers, wire services, and newsmagazines between December 2007 and June 2008 suggests that for most reporters covering this story, the default role was that of stenographer-presenting a nominally balanced view of the debate without questioning the validity of the arguments, sometimes even ignoring evidence that one side was twisting truth. Database searches yielded a sample of 40 published news and analysis stories that explored the cost debate in some de-tail (see appendix). Of these, seven stories were one-sided. Twenty-four stories were works of journalistic stenography. And nine stories attempted, with varying degrees of success, to move past the binary debate, weigh the arguments, and reach conclusions about this thorny issue.
The bottom line:
The media's collective decision to play the stenographer role actually helped opponents of climate action stifle progress.
He makes another interesting point, one I would not have expected from a journalist
Mainstream news organizations have accepted the conclusions of the IPCC but have not yet applied those conclusions to the economic debate. The terms of that debate have been defined by opponents of climate action who argue that reducing emissions would "cost too much." So the battle has been fought over the short-term price of climate action and its impact on GDP, while overlooking an extremely important variable, the long-term costs of inaction and business as usual.
Although Pooley doesn't make the point, the problem he identifies is compounded by the fact that the mainstream economic community also overestimates the cost of action and underestimates the cost of inaction, a central point of my ongoing series on voodoo economists (see, for instance, Part 3: MIT and NBER (and Tol and Nordhaus) -- the right wing deniers love your work. Ask yourself "why?" and Part 2: Robert Mendelsohn says global warming is "a good thing for Canada.").
That means when the media goes out looking for a well-known climate economist to quote in an article, they typically end up with someone who doesn't understand the scientific urgency and those who misunderstand the economics.
If you really want to understand the fact that even a very strong cap and trade bill "would have a marginal effect on economic growth," the best place to go is the the International Energy Agency and IPCC and McKinsey (see "McKinsey 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero").
Pooley's whole paper is a must read, especially for advocates of climate action. Yes, the media bears much culpability for the fact that, as Pooley says, "the tipping point for climate action has not yet been reached." But so do scientists, environmentalists, and progressives. The general state of our messaging remains lousy (see, for instance, Part 4: The idiocy of crowds or, rather, the idiocy of (crowded) debates and Does the "Reality Campaign" need new Mad Men?
One clear message from this study is that the climate science activists need to do a better job of spelling out the cost of inaction. Until that cost is clear to the public, the media, and policymakers, the country will never be able to mobilize to do what is needed to preserve a livable climate.
Related Post:
- What if the MSM simply can't cover humanity's self-destruction?
- Intro to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost -- one tenth of a penny on the dollar
- New media same as the old media. Politico pimps global cooling for Hill deniers
- The New York Times blows the bark beetle story
- NBC News ignores climate change, blows the bark beetle story
- The NY Times Blows the Drought Story, too.
- AP blows the Arctic ice story
- The Independent blows the sea level rise story
- The Atlantic Monthly Blows the China Story
- The Media Blows the Extreme Weather Story ... Again.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Even Sarh Palin can no longer ignore warming, now if she can only quit shooting endangered species from helicoptors.
"Because of a climate disaster, global warming skeptic Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) has been forced to cancel her attendance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The Wall Street Journal reports that an “unusually warm spring thaw in Alaska is causing some of the state’s worst flooding in decades, with rising rivers wiping out an entire village and bombarding another town with ice chunks as big as houses”: "
"The floods resulted from “a rare combination of unusually heavy winter snow and a spring warm-up over the past week that saw temperatures soar into the 70s — a good 20 degrees higher than normal for this time of year.” "
http://www.care2.com/news/member/434996229/1138735
They could have reported it truthfully as "because of a weather disaster...." which is what it was.
Another example of the way HOW you say something is more important than what it is you actually say: from the HuffPo today, I found "The iconic polar bear _ some 25,000 of the mammals can be found across the Arctic region from Alaska to Greenland _ has become a symbol of the potential ravages of climate change. Scientists say while the bear population has more than doubled since the 1960s, as many as 15,000 could be lost in the coming decades because of the loss of Arctic sea ice, a key element of its habitat." Now lost in that statement is the FACT that the bear population is twice what it was in the '60s. "15,000 COULD BE LOST...." This is the kind of nonsense that makes me angry. Look closely at how many times you'll see the words "might" or "could" or "possible" you'll find in the average global warming article.
Rhetticent, did you ever for a moment consider that in the 1960's hunters hunted the polar bear almost to extinction. Their coats were a fashion accessory in almost all wealthy homes. Laws were put in place to protect them and their populations grew from nearly extinction levels. Pointing to such a low point in a trend when the bears almost disappeared entirely and claiming succes since then is the kind of disinformative, nonsensical device that you conservative science-deniers use constantly. It is why it is very difficult to take any of your arguments seriously.
Studies show that the polar bear cubs and female bears are losing weight, but I am sure all this information escapes you. What are you guys on the right so afraid of that we may not be able to depend on coal forever?
We had unusually late and heavy snows where I live, and an unseasonably cool spring that persists. I guess using your reasoning from one incident to global warming, I have now proven that global cooling exists.
Wow, the article on unseasonally warm weather in Sarah Palin's hometown, 20 degrees above the norm, is very threatening to you. Do you think since Palin denies warming it will just go away?
Aha, Real!!! New facts just in!!!
TARGON finally discovers that warmer oceans results in more water vapor in the air, and more precipitation -- rain, sleet, and snow.
As a MOISTER global atmosphere comes into contact with the polar ice caps, the result of moist air cooling over the poles is SNOW and ICE (frozen rain).
So the result of global warming must inevitably be GROWING ICE CAPS, and LOWER OCEANS. Heat causes evaporation from the oceans. Evaporation is moist air. Moist air when it comes into contact with cool areas results in SNOW and ICE.
So if global warming is occurring, the polar ice caps should be increasing, not shrinking, and the oceans should DROP not rise.
Try putting a pot of boiling water on the stove. Then put a glass of ice-cold lemonade next to it. What will happen? The water will evaporate and will condense on to the ice-cold glass.
Furthermore, the temperatures at the poles remain below freezing. If the temperature increases from -15 C to -13.5 C, it is still below the melting point at 0 C. So how the hell is a 1 degree rise going to melt the polar caps?
Ironically, the growing ice at the poles is consistent with global warming. But the result will be lower sea levels, not higher.
Yes, well publish your results in a scientific journal and we will wait for the scientiifc community to react! By the way, there is no evidence the heat from greenhouse gases and the corresponding extra heat produced by accompanying water vapor, which then produces clouds cancel one another out. It is simply far right conjecture!
Joseph Romm's bottom line: "The media's collective decision to play the stenographer
role actually helped opponents of climate action stifle progress." Using his climate change logic, we can conclude that a consensus of the media opposes climate action progress.
Here's my take. Pooley analyses 40 media pieces and judges them as one-sided,
stenographic, or some combination of analytical and conclusive. I read a few of the
one-sided articles and couldn't figure out which side the reporters were on. They all seem to be
reporting on people who agree with Pooley's opinion that global warming is fact and that
you just have to decide on what side of the economic argument you're on: negligible or
huge impact.
Thus Romm's article is an opinion about Pooley's opinion about the opinions of a bunch
of reporters writing about people's opinions about the economic consequences of carbon
legislation which is based on the opinion that climate change is caused by CO2
emissions. In my opinion, there's too much BS opining going on out there.
If it's not too late, skip Romm's article and go directly to the Pooley article. First, you may want to go here http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png , and notice that global temps are relatively unchanged for ten years and ask why we haven't seen continuous temp rises if CO2 emissions are the problem, if you think we have a problem at all.
Oh oh, I know why we haven't seen continuous temp rises in the past ten years! It's because there were sunspots, and because condensing water vapor released the extra heat into space, and because CO2 isn't really a greenhouse gas, and because CO2 is only less than 1% of the total volume of the atmosphere, and because soot is making the atmosphere cool down and making the sea ice melt, and because humans are just not powerful enough to affect the atmosphere, and because the magical unicorns that fly around the tropopause actually eat CO2.
Did I get it right?
Look it's a simple question. You obviously know a lot about this science. You may have actually published a peer-reviewed scientific paper on the subject. I don't understand how temperatures can average no change in the last decade and a 0.5 degree rise in the previous two decades. They don't seem to be paying attention to CO2 emissions?
All but the last part, Val. Glad to see you're finally paying attention.
Wow, Valkyrie607, you have condensed all the denier talking points into a single nonsensical list. You must have located the secret denial webpage where science deniers find all the nonsense. I thought only conservatives had the password.
Yes, the story of the century.
"Arctic sea ice declined quite slowly in April; as a result, total sea ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979-2000)." - NSIDC website
And the Antarctic sea ice remains well above the mean extent for the reference period. There is no striking evidence of accelerating anthropogenic global warming at the earth's polar regions.
The polar bears can go back to sleep.
From the NSDIC site:
"According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season."
"Arctic sea ice extent declined quite slowly in April; as a result, total ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000). The thin spring ice cover nevertheless remains vulnerable to summer melt."
"Sea ice extent averaged over the month of April 2009 was 14.58 million square kilometers (5.63 million square miles). This was 710,000 square kilometers (274,000 square miles) above the record low for April in 2007, and 420,000 square kilometers (162,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."
"For the past few years, Arctic sea ice extent for most months has been more than two standard deviations below the 1979 to 2000 mean, particularly in summer. Two standard deviations provide an estimate of the expected range of natural variability. Because of cooler than average temperatures, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of April 2009 was within the expected range of natural variability."
"The study showed that extensive ice loss in summer warmed the Arctic atmosphere during autumn. This warmth weakened the storm track that encircles the northern hemisphere, affecting weather patterns far away from the Arctic. As sea ice continues to decline in summer, these influences will become more prominent."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
Yeah, remember how we were supposed to have killer hurricanes every year beginning with Katrina, because of global warming? What happened to that prediction? These guys can't even tell me if it's going to rain here TOMORROW.
According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center,
"In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator" and that it is important to distinguish between sea ice in the Northern and Southern hemispheres when discussing global warming. The document explains that "[a]lmost all" climate models project that human-caused global warming will result in decreased sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but that some recent studies have suggested that warming might initially cause the amount of sea ice to increase in the Southern Hemisphere, and that these projections are consistent with observed sea ice data.
"Global climate model projections suggest that the most significant response of the cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice extent. Recent decreases of N. Hemisphere summer sea ice extent (green line at right) are consistent with such projections. Arctic summer sea ice is only one potential indicator of climate change, however, and we urge interested parties to consider the many variables and resources available when considering observed and model-projected climate change. For example, the ice that is presently in the Arctic Ocean is younger and thinner than the ice of the 1980s and 1990s. So Arctic ice volume is now below its long-term average by an even greater amount than is ice extent or area."
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf
And your point?
If average global temperatures are up since 1970, then it is not too difficult to believe that average artic ice might be down at the moment. In 10 years, both phenomena may be the reverse regardless of the inevitable increase in CO2 emissions.
"In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator
Real, have you noticed how anything that turns out not to fit their projections, or that doesn't support their theories, suddenly becomes an irrelevant factor? "Oh, wait. The earth is actually COOLING now. Well, global warming is not a relevant indicator of global warming." This stuff is increasingly shown to be sheer nonsense, doubletalk. Now they're using marketing firms to find a new name for global warming since that doesn't seem to work anymore, and climate change is too confusing. What a JOKE.
valkyrie607: ” I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that water vapor is a "solvent of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." Is it that CO2 is soluble in water, thus increased water vapor and increased raining will remove CO2 from the atmosphere?”
Dear valkyrie607, water, which we drink is not only H2O. It contain many ingrediants solvent inside for example salt, which we put in every meal. Gases, including all GHG, also solved in water. If you will heat slowly water in transparent glass, you can see on glass small booble of gas. In cooler water we have more solved gases than in warmer water. When water vapor condensed to water droplets it is almost clean H2O and the best solvent of everything, including GHG.
valkyrie607: ”Yes, I understand, water vapor cools the earth, cloud cover increases albedo, water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas. This is why I'm asking you whether the cooling effect of increased albedo from increased cloud cover can counteract the warming effect of CO2 and other GHGs (including water vapor) forever.”
Water vapor is greenhouse gas it has special property. Molecular weight of H2O=18, N2=28, O2=32, CO2=44. You see that water vapor is lighter than most gases in atmosphere and because of that they going up to cloud level. Water vapor is invisible gas. Clouds, fog is not waters vapor, but waters droplet.
To evaporate 1 kg of water we need 339 kcal. When 1 kg of water vapor condensed to water droplet of rain they release the same amount of energy-339 kcal, but it happens on cloud level, where latent heat of condensation more easy go to space. Water vapor actually helps cool the air, despite it also greenhouse gas. That is huge mistake of Al Gore.
In atmosphere we always have nitrogen, oxygen, greenhouse gases, including water vapor and DROPLET OF WATER. DROPLET OF WATER, ALSO PLAYS It’s ROLE IN COOLING the air. Infrared radiation absorbed by GHG help evaporate closest droplets of water. Water vapor as result of this evaporation cool airs and goes up as lighter than any other gases.
Clouds reflect to 90% of direct sun radiation.
Sorry English isn’t my Native language. I have BS in Physics from Latvian State University.
"Latvian State University," not the University of Latvia in Riga? You'll have to pardon my skepticism. Claims of credentials usually show up when the argument does not hold water.
Okay, so atmospheric CO2 increases. Heat energy in the atmosphere increases. This extra heat causes more water droplets to evaporate. The resulting water vapor rises, cools, and condenses, where some of the extra heat energy is released into outer space. So you've got a negative feedback loop. That's great. There are plenty of those when it comes to atmospheric processes, and also plenty of positive feedback loops.
So, what proportion of the additional energy in the earth's atmospheric energy budget is released into outer space? All of it? That seems improbable. More likely, some proportion of the added heat leaves the earth's atmosphere, while another part of it stays in the atmosphere. Which brings me back to my original question: will this process always balance out any increase in concentration of atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs? If so, can you provide research to back that up?
For Mikefina, further expanding on the "mindset of exploitation":
"We accept more of traditional economics than we reject, although we certainly reject some of the things we were taught. We have little patience with anti-economists who want to abolish money, who consider all scarcity to be an artificial social construct, or who think that all of nature's services should be free. On the other hand, we do not share the view of many of our economist colleagues that growth will solve the economic problem, that narrow self-interest is the only dependable human motive, that technology will always find a substitute for any depleted resource, that the market can efficiently allocate all types of goods, or that the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant to economics."
Herman E. Daly, Ecological Economics
http://books.google.com/books?id=WGKt763MIbsC
obama gives up on hydrogen cars from bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abc.hrgl1DPQ&refer=home
Somehow lost the photo thread here. Which polar bear is the stenographer?
Gee whiz, the press acted as stenographer for opponents of climate change legislation? How about for proponents of the war in Iraq? How about for the banks and wall street in this latest meltdown? It might be easier to discuss the stories when the press did not act in the best interests of big business and friends....
Yes, it is a shame the way the press feels it must report all sides as legitimate due to right-wing demonization of the press. When the press talks of a round earth, they should give the flat earth folks equal time.
Stop the presses!! The media is no longer a propaganda parrot for Al Gore? What a tragedy for the media to actually present both sides of an argument. The global cooling deniers will have to stick to insults and petty tirades rather than facts to push their agenda. Same old story.
There are no two sides to the story. The other side is only in your mind and that of other science deniers.
That is the open-minded, continually testing and exploring rational motto of the global warmers. There are no two sides to the story. Let's make sure we ignore or suppress any contrary facts so we can continue to believe our religion. Sounds like a creationist to me....
Your ego is astounding.
Some of these idiots won't accept climate science until Houston is under 6 feet of water.
What a beautiful picture, with Blackwater taking over law enforcement with no bid contracts. Ha//iburton Development Inc. replacing all the poor neighborhoods with Condos and Skyscrapers , no bid contracts ( of course).
See, there is a Golden lining behind every dark cloud!
Humans did not evolve a capacity to put off current gratification or comfort on the off chance that it would benefit the species several generations down the road. If we had absolute incontrovertible proof that our actions today would result in the destruction of the species in a couple hundred years, the majority would still refuse to adopt the behaviors that would discomfort them personally in their lifetimes. It's not our fault; it's just the way we are. The "deniers" will always be with us. All species pass away eventually. Humans are just smart enough to get ourselves into serious trouble, but not smart enough to avoid it. Although I won't be here to see it, I hope that we don't take the rest of the vertebrates with us when we finally wreck the planet for mammals.
Emmy2. Some leaders have inspired us to look beyound feeding our immediate greed.
Allthough not a religious person I see the story of Moses with his gang of Golden Calf folks, who seemed not interested in working for the good of the people. Moses didn't buy it.
And of course Jesus who told someone 'give up the riches and follow me' . Which is impossibe for some but I don't blieve they would be hard for others , such as Gahndi , or Jefferson, Mother Teressa.
I think the vast majority of us have this spark of humanity in us. Its just not been in Style amoung our leaders for a while.
According to NASA...
"The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well.
Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).
Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70 percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent.
According to researchers from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28, was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the average extent for 1979 to 2000."
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/apr/HQ_09-079_Sea_ice_thins.html
Dear Realpolitic, ice in Arctic is melting. For mankind will be better if it will be status quo forever, or at least, melting or increasing ice will be as less as possible, to adapt to climate change.
If carbon dioxide is main player in Nature we must follow Al Gore recommendation:
“Save energy at home, choose energy efficient lighting, appliances when making new purchases, properly operate and maintain your appliances, heat and cool your house efficiently, insulate your house, conserve hot water, improve the efficiency of your home office, switch to green power’ telecommute from home, reduce air travel, consume less, buy things that last, recycle, don’t waste paper, bag your groceries and other purchases in reusable tote, compost, carry your own refillable bottle for water and other beverages, modify your diet to reduce less meat, buy local, purchase offset to neutralize your remaining emission.”
If “it is not only carbon dioxide.
It is wind, which send hot air to cloud level. Most winds and their direction in USA depend of huge convection forces and Golf Stream evaporation.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space. We change reflection by tilling land for crop production all around North America, by changing vegetation, by road and growing city population, houses, businesses, etc.
It is convection, when hot air from the land surfaces going up.
It is evaporation.”
WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS!
Yes, wind is a problem because they say soot is the secod biigest cause, I believe, of the ice melting in the arctic. The soot lowers the albedo and causes more melt.
NASA has yet to show if the changes are due to co2.
Changes in ocean current speeds affect melting. How does atmospheric co2 affect ocean current speed?
Wind current pattern and associated speed to arctic region affect precipitation. How does atmospheric co2 affect wind current patterns and speeds?
CO2 has nothing to do with currents itself.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps the Sun's heat in the atmosphere.
A hotter atmosphere will have everything to do with currents and wind.
Scoentists are convinced that co2 is responsible for the warming and that is good enough for me!
just as well..
we soot be going after our soot anyway and not our CO2:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LT461035.htm
Yes, the article says: "Technology to clean up soot emissions is cheap and easily available.".
I am struck by the irony of your lament that Global Climate Change (or whatever it is being called now) is consigned to the 'Evironmental pigeonhole' pages instead of the 'news' pages. Isn't the heading of this section 'GREEN'??
You can't even get your own blog on HuffPo on the the 'Home' page. It is a shame.
Would you or the readers consider that to often the face of "Environmentalists/ism" has been the unwashed tree-sitter, the shadowy ELF types or the hypcritical and hyperbolic Gore-type? And that most of America is disinclined towards taking marching orders from those archtypes?
I believe the science, but am ill-disposed to those who are making the arguements. And, to the all-or-nothing stance of the lobby. Modest proposals to develop and utilize our natural resources are opposed with a religious fervor that makes the flat-earthers seem reasonable.
Moreover, when the supposed world-leaders in Western Europe meet the Kyoto goals that they promised to meet, then I'll sign on to hobbling U.S. economy.
Clearly, our world would be more liveable if we could dramatically cut pollution of ALL types. I would support a simple, transparent carbon tax that allows NO deductions or 'tax breaks' for pet party loyalists. But spare me the Crocodile tears of the sanctimonious Al Gore and his ilk.
Dear mikefina, Al Gore as anyone else brings attention to global warming. Most powerful his slogan: “keep earth in balance” correlated with your vision and vision millions of others people.
In my opinion he made huge mistakes about main reason for global warming-carbon dioxide and water vapor. Water vapor despite that it is greenhouse gas actually cools the earth. In Hawaii summer cooler, than in Texas, because in Hawaii more evaporation.
We have convection, reflection, evaporation, cloud formation and saving sun energy in vegetation.
Using all these forces of Nature we could fight melting ice in Greenland, Alaska, North Canada, Europe, Russia and Antarctic during five years, We could be energy independent, 100% employment and make huge profit. We no need support of all nations in the world. Canada, USA and Mexico can do it!
Following Al Gore recommendation we will fail.
At the same time Al Gore is good writer.
We need respect him.
We must correct him.
"As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up).
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
So let me see, you believe the scientific arguments, but you are ill-disposed to the elfan people who are making the arguments. So you would prefer if better looking people made the arguments, like Britney Spears or someone? That is a new take on the subject!
No, I would prefer people that aren't reaping 10's of millions of dollars in windfalls from the PUBLIC POLICY they advocate. Particularly those whom would presume to tell Americans what they can drive, how they can heat their homes, what kind of materials can be used to build them, what resources can be extracted, developed and distributed at the same time they show NO restraint themselves (Mr. Gore and his private jet travel), ELF and their bomb and burn campaigns and tree-sitters who halt legally approved building/construction.
SO, yes, I do believe the science and as I have written I support carbon tax, or something like it. I just REFUSE to take my marching orders from the archtypal characters I described.
That said, I do like better looking people to be the face of ad campaigns.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
