You may use this content (better still, argue with me!), but please cite my ideas as © 2007, Dr. Bruce Klopfenstein. Find any typos? Please let me know.
In my own neck of the woods, Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue, has just asked President Bush to declare the area north of Georgia including Lake Lanier, a key source of water for the Atlanta metro area, a federal disaster area. We went from relatively normal soil moisture last winter to a 100-year-drought in a matter of months thanks both to the lack of rain and to the evaporating effects of 10 or so days of sunshine and temperatures over 100. In fact, what's lost in that statement is the weeks of upper 90s F we also experienced this summer. No one seemed to notice how quickly lake levels were dropping, and many probably thought it was a temporary thing. Needless to say, we were hoping for a tropical storm or two to find their way to North Georgia to help alleviate the situation as it has in the recent past. Such was not the case this hurricane season, which technically isn't over.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Global Warming Backlash: Here Are Our Experts
You may use this content (better still, argue with me!), but please cite my ideas as © 2007, Dr. Bruce Klopfenstein. Find any typos? Please let me know.
Well, I decided to make this a secondary post to the earlier one. One are there so many names on Wikipedia of Global Warming skeptics? I can see two obvious reasons: 1) to the novice, the sheer number of names at first glance is impressive; 2) this is an easy way for Fox News and the Drudge Report, among many other right-leaning "news" organizations to easily find a skeptic to debunk the latest scientific research on Global Warming; mainstream journalists in the U.S. are trained to offer both sides of an issue on the assumption that citizens are wise enough to see the truth (I ought to know, I'm in a journalism college and have been affiliated one way or another with journalism, since I was 18 years old). So, the mainstream media can go to Wikipedia for sources if they so choose, and if any of those listed are articulate and know how to give a complete yet terse 30-second "sound byte" are far more likely to get on the air than those who don't.
In fairness to Wikipedia (no pun intended), it also has a comprehensive area about Global Warming, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy. Of course, mainstream scientists might argue that there is no controversy, the issue has been settled. Yet those with a political agenda to "Do Not Disturb" the fossil fuel industry work every day to frame Global Warming as a controversy. The extreme weather all over the globe this year (and it's continuing with severe weather in mid-October in the Midwestern United States where October is usually one of the most beautiful times of the year). Ironically, those who don't want to get into the controversy of Global Warming may very unscientifically look at the weather this year and agree Global Warming is upon us and it's time to do something about it.
Well, I decided to make this a secondary post to the earlier one. One are there so many names on Wikipedia of Global Warming skeptics? I can see two obvious reasons: 1) to the novice, the sheer number of names at first glance is impressive; 2) this is an easy way for Fox News and the Drudge Report, among many other right-leaning "news" organizations to easily find a skeptic to debunk the latest scientific research on Global Warming; mainstream journalists in the U.S. are trained to offer both sides of an issue on the assumption that citizens are wise enough to see the truth (I ought to know, I'm in a journalism college and have been affiliated one way or another with journalism, since I was 18 years old). So, the mainstream media can go to Wikipedia for sources if they so choose, and if any of those listed are articulate and know how to give a complete yet terse 30-second "sound byte" are far more likely to get on the air than those who don't.
The Lengths Global Warming Skeptics Go to Villify Al Gore
In fairness to Wikipedia (no pun intended), it also has a comprehensive area about Global Warming, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy. Of course, mainstream scientists might argue that there is no controversy, the issue has been settled. Yet those with a political agenda to "Do Not Disturb" the fossil fuel industry work every day to frame Global Warming as a controversy. The extreme weather all over the globe this year (and it's continuing with severe weather in mid-October in the Midwestern United States where October is usually one of the most beautiful times of the year). Ironically, those who don't want to get into the controversy of Global Warming may very unscientifically look at the weather this year and agree Global Warming is upon us and it's time to do something about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)