Mass media often failing in its coverage of global warming, says climate researcher
February 13, 2009"Business managers of media organizations, you are screwing up your responsibility by firing science and environment reporters who are frankly the only ones competent to do this," said climate researcher and policy analyst Stephen Schneider, in assessing the current state of media coverage of global warming and related issues.
Schneider, a coordinating lead author of chapter 19 in the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published in 2007, is calling for the news media to employ trained reporters in covering global warming. He will be discussing this and other issues in the symposium "Hot and Hotter: Media Coverage of Climate-Change Impacts, Policies, and Politics," which runs today at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago.
"Science is not politics. You can't just get two opposing viewpoints and think you've done due diligence. You've got to cover the multiple views and the relative credibility of each view," said Schneider, a senior fellow at Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment. "But that is not usually the problem of the well-trained reporters, who understand what is credible.
"The problem is CNN just fired their science team. Why didn't they fire their economics team or their sports team?" "Why don't they send their general assignment reporters out to cover the Superbowl?" Schneider said. Researchers have to do their part, too, he said, by clearly explaining issues to reporters in succinct terms.
"I have arguments with some of my scientific colleagues, who think it is irresponsible to go out and talk when you can only get 5 seconds on the evening news, a couple of quotes in the New York Times, or five minutes in front of Congress," Schneider said.
"Well, you know what guys, that's just how it is," he said. "And if you think that you have a higher calling and you're not going to play the game because they don't give you the time to tell the whole story, then all it means is that you've passed the buck to others who know the topic less well."
"You have to have your elevator statement or people won't listen to you," Schneider said.
"What I always suggest is that scientists find metaphors that convey both urgency and uncertainty, so that you can get people's attention while at the same time not overstating the case," he said. "Then you have websites and backup articles and books where you can give the full story, but you have to have your sound bite and your op ed piece."
Environmental justice equals environmental effectiveness
Schneider will also present a talk titled "A Scientific Perspective on Climate Change-Related Environmental Justice Issues," during the symposium "Environmental Justice and Climate Change," tomorrow at the AAAS meeting.
A disproportionate share of the effects of global warming are going to fall on developing nations, along with the poor and the elderly in wealthier nations, according to Schneider, who added that 75 percent of the accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere came from 20 percent of the world's people, who live in wealthy countries.
"We've been using the atmosphere as a free sewer to dump our tailpipe and smokestack waste since the Victorian industrial revolution and now we tell the developing world, sorry, guys, the sewer's full," he said.
Telling the developing world they can't use energy resources they have at hand, such as coal and natural gas, won't have any effect unless we offer them alternatives that are cleaner, Schneider said. He said the U.S. has to accelerate the rate at which we are developing green energy sources such as solar and wind.
"The U.S. has to walk the walk if they expect to talk the talk and convince China and India and Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico - not to say anything about the even poorer countries with less skill and money - into following suit," he said. "We have to clean up our own act and then help them clean up theirs with technology and some resources."
Schneider said that we also have to work to mitigate the impacts on poor and elderly people in developed countries. Although it is impossible to lay any particular weather event at the feet of global warming, nonetheless one can get an idea of how the expected increase in extreme weather events will affect people by looking at the effects of storms such as Hurricane Katrina.
"Who died? The poor," he said.
The European heat wave in 2003 is another example, in which approximately 50,000 people died. "You know what they were primarily? Elderly. The elderly are much more vulnerable and they did not have proper adaptation measures," he said. "
"These events are going to happen dramatically more often than they used to because of warming," Schneider said. "National governments have to consult local leaders in both the public and private sectors to figure out the most politically and cost effective solutions to help localities cope with increasing global warming".
Source: Stanford University
9 hours ago |
not rated yet |
0
His complaint that climatology isn't getting covered by specialists in the media is bogus - his problem is that he doesn't have a propaganda network to distribute IPCC dogma. To condition the public to accept a new climate-based authority structure there has to be a continual deluge of newthink education.
I suggest we come together to reject wonks like Schneider and send the global warming cabal back to work for a living again, instead of bilking the ignorant on junk science hysteria.
- Human activity causes heat waves and storms.
- Climatology must be presented to the general population through media with the express intent of creating a sense of urgency.
- Harsh weather and natural disasters are caused by man, thus can be prevented by taxation and bureaucracy.
- IPCC has a complete understanding of the functions of climate, atmosphere, and weather on earth, and must be accepted as an authority without review by other scientific bodies.
If only that single message could be gotten across emphatically to any reporter covering a science issue.
It is clearly a problem not only with climate science coverage but with any issue of science where there is some percieved level of controversy (efficacy of nuclear power, evolution / creation, peak oil, usefullness of wind generation, claims of medical problems being caused by electrical transmission lines, etc. etc.) when journalists, in order to present a "balanced article" as they've been taught in journalism school, pesent both sides of the issue as being equally valid and likely to be true. More scientifically knowledgeable journalists should be able to present both sides, but with some clear indication of the level of liklihood or trustworthiness of each side.
"STOP GLOBAL WHINING"
So let's all buy Range Rovers and warm up the planet. This year's winter was way too cold!
Respect for science is under seige. Schneider doesn't help when he whines about the media not pushing his Favorite Katrina Theory. It lowers science to just another means of manipulating opinion.
The clearest way to understand the futility of debate is to take note of the simple fact that the AGW adherants have no end goal for their "movement." There are no defined objectives that they want to achieve. Stopping climate change? Ah, good luck with that!
We are inexhorably being drive to mass social and structural change through this use/miss-use/abuse of convenient data points, theory and conjecture. But why? Who wins in the end? Well, try using the old gum-shoe detective saws. 1)follow the money. And 2)usually the most obvious explanation is the right one.
And don't forget to throw in a good dose of "fleas for the dog" thinking. If you want to keep a nosey dog out of trouble, just throw some fleas on him.
Keep scratchin' and the AGW Brand marches on.
http://tinyurl.com/7ld4bx
Funny that.
I remember one article about global dimming that expressed some concern about cooling if particulate emissions were to keep increasing, it wasn't taken very seriously by fellow climate researchers but was decontextualized and misrepresented by the media.
Theories and facts are different kinds of entities. Theories never become facts, no matter the weight of evidence behind them, no matter how accepted they are, no matter their explanatory power.
Semiconductor theory is extremely useful; without it there's no internet, no microprocessors, no DRAM. But it will never become a fact.
I'd let them go on in their delusion, because quite frankly, I have more important things to do than jump on a bandwagon pulled by the ignorant media and placed in the ignorant masses.
Show me ONE valid piece of evidence that the earth is warming due to CO2 and I'll consider it.
But, sadly, despite ten years of looking, I have YET to find a SINGLE piece of evidence that humans are altering the climate.
It simply is not happening; if the alarmists can come up with real science that supports their claim, power to them. But until then, they're just bleating sheep, albeit sheep that are bleating "Fire, fire!"
Meet the burden of proof.
This is what I reject:
1. The religious teachings of big oil's Church of Global Warming Denialism, that cornucopia of lies, distortions, and obfuscation engineered to advance a religious/political/economic agenda that has absolutely NOTHING to do with science.
2. The incoherent ramblings of the frothing fanatics of the Church of Global Warming Denialism, the legions of drooling drones who parrot what their lord and savior, big oil, tell them to think.
3. The entirety of the content of the Denialosphere, the massive big oil-funded blogosphere dedicated to propagating the religious teachings of global warming denialism, the source of much of the imbecilic rantings and ravings of the denialists.
Global warming denialism is a religious cult, appealing to self-centered narcissists, greedy corporatists, pollution-loving conservatives, anarchy-loving libertarians, science-hating bible thumpers, and gluttonous energy hogs who feel entitled to engage in orgasmic energy consumption.
1) big oil may be to blame for some of the "denialism" but AGW researchers and their followers are to blame for fanning the flames of fear by lying, cheating, and doing whatever it takes to a) ensure their incomes remain in tact and b)further their religious dogma. This is not unlike the RC church of old and people like Butthead Chavez. Grab and maintain power at ANY cost.
2)this is childish silliness - in the west, big oil has little power over the ruling financial interests. You are ignoring those facts just as you choose to ignore the physical scientific facts about AGW. You just need someone or something to be angry at, not unlike the Brownshirts of the 30's
3)OMG - better start taking your meds again.
The last paragraph is not even worthy of comment.
Continue these activities indefinately.
Something has to give eventually. Ergo, we should probably do something differently at some point.
Regardless, this civilization will collapse at some point. Civilizations have a funny habit of doing that. Future archeologists will call us Homo concreo-plasticus for the thick stratum of concrete & plastic that we leave behind.
Anyway, let's suck this rock dry n get the hell out of here. It's a big galaxy, I wouldn't worry about species loss & habitat distruction, cos really on the grand scheme of things we're pretty insignificant.
But hey, what ever helps you sleep at night, cos at the end of the day: you can kill a man but you can't change his mind.
Thanks for your opinion.
Back up your statements.
Stephen Schneider, a lead IPCC author said:
%u201CWe need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public%u2019s imagination%u2026
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts%u2026
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.%u201D
Chris Field is one of Schneider's associates on the Stanford University Global-Warming-Alarm-Team.
He has just upped the ante again with more unscientific alarmism here:
http://news.bbc.c...0988.stm
However, if they REALLY belived it is as they preach, they would be doing things quite a bit differently. The right course would be to demand action that would save lives, reduce global trauma and build cooperation between the most affected governments and people. For example, if I were an AGW, I would be advocating immediate cooperation between the low-lying countries to begin the neccessary mass migrations of people from the highest risk ocean-front areas. Also, a global conference of mass migration should be convened to understand and to prepare people, at the very least, emotionally. The alternative would surely be global war.
And I would advocate new, more stringent global housing standards to create homes that can survive unusual storm conditions.
And of course, we would need to work quickly to develop global cooperation and binding treaties for the new food distribution patterns that would be necessary once the climate tilts as far as predicted (and as fast).
But notice how many AGWs are working to do these things. Zero. I hear nothing. Nada.
Why? Because there is no need. Their agenda is quite different. I'll call it "de-distribution of wealth" for lack of a better name. The best way to raise the poor of the world and to globally spread the wealth of mankind is to spread energy availability and to advance each family unit's energy sources up the ladder from wood and coal through liquid hydrocarbons on up to electricity and natural gas to, finally, just electricity. And at the same time, to move people from inefficient sustainance to more sohisticated economic exchange that encourages movement up from small labor-intensive agriculture and manufacturing to larger, technologically-based manufacturing cultures and service industries. Along the way, the entire process can be accelerated with deep penetration of communication tools and technologies. And of course, an advanced global transportation network that keeps it all flowing.
The AGWs don't want this. De-distribution of wealth requires that each one of these advancements in the global human condition be labelled "evil." AGW mind-wash tells you that advancement through this global industrial age toward a widely-wealth-dispursed technologial global community will be so painful and distructive that we must avoid it at all costs.
So, their recipe is to shut down production and to "go green", which keeps your head down, blinders firmly in place and you happily not thinking for yourself.
The people behind AGW have their wealth and they intend to keep it in the family. For eternity.
Thank you.
Of course the same can be said for only 2 other "industries", the first one is valid...food production. The second one however is the money "industry". Remove any one of these three and society as a whole collapses, so at this point in history the human race needs oil, grant money and fries... We can deal with climate change and we will. I personally hope that the earth is warming because if we humans are charged with regulating the climate to best suit our own existence, the warming would be easier to "control" than rapid cooling, and would be far less damaging to most of the world. (Still devastating to parts of course, but as a whole, more supportive to life than an ice cube...)
Having said that, why not use all the wind and solar power we can? The fact is, these two sources of power will far outlast oil should the human race manage to survive a million years. It is inevitable that big oil will die one day...just not one day soon.
Dr Hansen was one of the people pushing the coming ice age back in the 70s. Now he's pushing AGW. One of these days he may come up with a luck guess. He sure won't get it from his computer models...
For Neil:
The levees in New Orleans broke because of political corruption. The Army Corps of Engineers were not allowed to maintain or upgrade the levees and the politicians pocketed the money.
Pronouncing from on high then relying on media synergy and govt. funded "legitimacy" to propagate a grossly flawed meme started in 1979 by Gurdjieff mystics on Robert Fripp's prog rock album Exposure song "The Flood".
Instead of media management & social networking, if they gave even a passing nod to accuracy vs. precision, the concept of measurement error, genuine peer review and the epistemological discussion and development of the hypotheses.
Where is it? All they say is believe.
Global warming is a political agenda and an economic one. It is about money. People like Hansen and this young reporter are only tools. Economic cash flows, carbon taxes, global trade, political positions, venture fund tax breaks, are at stake.
Second, most scientists have been completely clueless about getting the story out via complex, combined media and events. Hey, even most advertising pros struggle with this, so it's not surprising to see rank amateurs flounder at it.
Third, science needs to partner with the pros. That means ad agencies and PR firms. Especially those who understand Web strategies, social media and events, and who have a history of great creative expression.
At heart, scientists must realize that they are engaged in a battle of ideas, and the energy-industry-funded opposition has stolen a march. It's time for science to speak up, loudly and well.
No one here loves oil companies or has any motivation to assist their destructive policies.
I think we need to break the link between doubting AGW and love for oil companies. How did that become connected in your mind? Lay off the Al Gore bong - you sound like a hysterical man screaming on the street about the end of the world.
It bugs me that I have to pay full charges for trash service when I use it so infrequently. :)
In addition, I curse oil companies every time I go to the beach and step in oil goop on the shore or go to the pump. I would invest in hybrid technologies if they were up to par but it has a long way to go before it is viable enough for me to rely upon. I cannot travel far enough between supply centers for such technologies before being stranded in remote locations. I still would end up having to use gasoline. And, since there is no valid evidence thus far that will stand up to scrutiny that CO2 emissions cause global warming, I have no problem using gasoline for the entire trip. :)
Unlike most of the outspoken AGW proponents I run off grid. Not because I want to save the planet, but because I want to save money. Push the economic incentives, not some hocus pocus scary CO2 boogeyman that isn't well supported by science.
He eases his own "conscience" by buying "carbon offsets" from a company which he owns. And, he does this all the while making $150,000 an engagement speaking about how we all need to do our part in reducing CO2 emissions in order to "save the planet." :)
http://www.usatod...en_x.htm
Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit"
* * *
"...Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service."
* * *
http://www.worldn...ID=54528
I don't recall the sun being blocked out. One would think that would have been memorable.
Climate "Science" is more a belief system than a science. Yes, climatological measurements are made and perhaps one could make an argument for their relative accuracy, and even their historical value. However, our understanding of our planetary weather system's mechanisms are at best rudementary, and as a result the interpretation of those measurements are problematic. The computer models, programmed as they are by people without a strong understanding of how weather actually works on a macro level, produces results that are at best likewise problematic.
And then the media picks up the worst of a series of test runs and declares that "the news", which weaker minded readers then absorb and accept as the new baseline from which to panic.
Ugh.