Global Warming Alarmism 101
The breathless headline in the HJ and other newspapers today proclaims, “Arctic sea ice at record low and still melting.”
You might see this and say, “Hhmmm, maybe this global warming thing is a problem.” But if you bother to read down to the 6th or 7th paragraph, you find this tidbit:
Scientists began monitoring the extent of Arctic sea ice in the 1970′s when satellite images became available.
So this whole story really means nothing, since it’s based on only 30 years of data. However, the media banks on the fact that most people won’t make it down to the 7th paragraph, and readers will take away the intended message, that global warming will kill us all. Of course, if you happen to read the Chicago Sun-Times, they didn’t even see fit to include this tidbit in the article at all. I’m sure there are other editors that made the same decision. And people wonder why many are skeptical of the claims of global warming.
Craig
Leave a Reply
Aug 18th 2007 • 11:08
by John
Didn’t the article also say that the polar ice on the north atlantic side is at near normal levels?
Doesn’t it also state that this latest measurement is the new record low, beating the record two years ago? How is it possible that the ice situation improved in 2006? Maybe global warming took a vacation, or maybe it is the carbon credits. This is complete hype and getting to be a total joke.
Thankfully, the hysteria is starting to be exposed and there is a push toward some mature evaluation.
great post
Aug 19th 2007 • 10:08
by Frank Staheli
We’re on the same wavelength, but I didn’t think about the media’s expectation that most people don’t read past the first paragraph or two. Good point!
I have some other insights into the same article here.
Aug 20th 2007 • 16:08
by Marvin
Wow Craig,
As a fellow Cache Valley Res., it was a surprise
to get pointed here by this guy:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/
Way to bring more attention to the Wasatch Backside.
Aug 20th 2007 • 16:08
by Tyson
I would like some credible scientific reasons to dismiss it instead of editorial choices that were made at a local paper.
That said, I am more worried about the air I have to breathe locally than the potential of the ice caps shutting down the trans-atlantic current and freezing the U.K.. I am not a big fan of fish and chips anyway.
Aug 20th 2007 • 21:08
by Aaron Orgill
I wouldn’t say all is well just yet. If we aren’t careful, the data will be completely meaningless and this will be impossible to have a reasoned discussion about.
Having said that, I have to question it when people are so alarmist and claim the world is going to end. The world is an amazingly adaptable place. Leonardo DiCaprio and other Hollywood divas love stuff like this, because they’re attracted to drama and suffering, and to consider themselves humanitarians in leading the charge. I fear that this is going to be impossible to wade through just like everything else and liberals will continue to cry wolf and the Republicans will call them liars until judgment day when the trumpets sound.
Aug 22nd 2007 • 02:08
by Jason The
Still there are two questions we all have to ask ourselves.
1. What happens if proponents of Global Warming initiatives are wrong?
and
2. What happens if Global Warming nay-sayers are wrong?
Seems there would be two drastically different sets of consequences to those two hypothetical outcomes, and if you make a point to consider the economic costs vs. benefits divided by potential risks of taking action, the intelligent path to an issue this inconclusive, yet devastating should it prove true, would be (a thinking man would believe) a good dose of better safe than sorry.
I grow weary of this Ug! Tree-huggers bad! attitude I see from fellow Utahns. It is time to grow up.
Using our brains doesn’t mean we have to join the Sierra Club and swear off meat. It just means we have to… well, think, reason, and judge, rather than just REACT, which is all I see from opponents of Global Warming debate, research, or concerns.
Can any one of you, writing before me here, tell me, in a non-emotional statement, without ire, or personal attack, what you see as the great risk involved in acting to prevent even the possibility of these preditions in the scientific community becoming a reality?
Aug 22nd 2007 • 08:08
by Tyson
The only risk I would see is the cost of research and the cost of replacing the infrastructure dependent on fossil fuels. While the initial cost would reasonably be considered a hefty one, I think that in itself should not be reason to gamble with peoples lives.
I wouldn’t oppose this kind of change even if there were no predictions of doom and gloom. Call me selfish, but, I like to breathe clean air. I also like electricity, and considering that fossil fuel supplies won’t last forever I have three reasons to support alternative and renewable fuel research and infrastructure.
Aug 22nd 2007 • 08:08
by Craig
CO2 is not a pollutant like carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or particulate matter. It is only harmful if it, in fact, causes global warming, which is debatable. People commonly conflate pollution and global warming, but they are separate issues.
While developed countries could probably absorb the costs of getting rid of fossil fuels, although not without negative effects, developing countries are not so lucky. Draconian action would severely hamper these countries’ development and emergence from poverty.
Aug 22nd 2007 • 09:08
by Tyson
Question. Are you saying that fossil fuels are not a source of pollution in any way?
I am confused at the need to separate the two.
Aug 22nd 2007 • 09:08
by Tyson
Also, are you saying that because developing countries shouldn’t be forced to use alternative fuels, the United States shouldn’t try either?
Aug 22nd 2007 • 21:08
by Craig Limesand
Sure, fossil fuels cause pollution. But cars and coal plants are getting cleaner all the time. And while air pollution is a problem, more so in some places than others, it is being addressed, and it’s not the catastrophe that global warming is made out to be. Nobody is arguing that we need a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels to fix air pollution.
I would say that, if the issue is fossil fuels, then we can discuss both global warming and pollution. But if the issue is global warming, pollution is beside the point.
In response to your final comment, I think most people would be opposed to the proposition that we can’t use oil, but China can.
Aug 23rd 2007 • 08:08
by Tyson
For me, the issue is fossil fuels. Our dependence on them has caused us many headaches, and will continue to do so until we reduce that dependence or simply use them all up and be forced to find alternatives anyway.
Right now I have 3 good reasons to reduce my dependence on them.
I doubt that most people would really care if their energy came from oil or some sustainable source just because China uses oil, as long as it didn’t cause a significant and sustained negative impact that was somehow worse than relying on a pollution generating finite resource (for those that are skeptical of climate change).