US Media to Blame for Global Warming Inaction?
A new study published by a media watchdog group analyzes how the American News Media has downplayed global warming science, it's consequences and that humans are responsible for the increase in greenhouse gasses.
The report compared US and UK headlines in the same time frame and found that while the UK presented climate change as a catastrophe that deserved urgent action, the US portrayed climate change as an ongoing debate with science that lacks certainty.
While the analysis is timely, it's not really a surprise to regular readers of the blog or to Canadians who's own media are getting better at focusing on peer reviewed science as opposed to industry funded contrarians. Watered down headlines take the pressure off of the US government to take a hard line stance on global warming action and according to Newsweek, Americans who believe that human caused global warming is a major threat, are still in the minority.
The reason that ... "the American News Media has downplayed global warming science, it's consequences and that humans are responsible for the increase in greenhouse gasses" ... is the behavior of supervisors their staffs in US government agencies, mainly in NOAA's National Weather Service offices.
Blaming the media or blaming Exxon is simply projecting the problem's responsibility onto others when the issue is really ours.
Governments in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada can not force the citizenry to adopt draconian measures to lower C02 emissions against the electorates will.
Until we give our public assent for hardline action against C02, little will be accomplished. In Canada, we are still a long ways from giving this assent.
Paul, how the story gets out will affect the public's readiness to "give assent." That is to say, fighting the misinformation is important. Even the story to which Emily links does the same thing (although it does it well) -- one AGW denier (Harris) and one person who knows what's going on (Hoggan).
You haven't relied on your old lines, entirely, but I don't like this other thing you've introduced: "draconian". Why does this word crop up so often when talking about changing our ways? As pointed out by the AGW denial-side, the steps proposed won't do very much in the short term. The steps proposed are decidedly forgiving (look at how we're breezing through our failures to meet our Kyoto commitments!), not severe, cruel, and unusual. I went to the Pride parade thingy in Vancouver this weekend and visited the Green Party tent. One reason I did this is because I was interested when I read something about them being the only Party taking the findings of Mark Jaccard (hired by the Conservative gov't to write a report) to heart. Jaccard is an economist who found that a carbon tax wouldn't hurt the economy much, especially if there was tax shifting (make money by reducing carbon output because your income tax will be less). Have you heard about this? The idea is apparently endorsed by Stephen Levitt (author of Freakonomics), Thomas Friedman (author of The World is Flat), and Don Drummond (TD Bank Chief Economist). It ain't Draconian! Disclosure: I think I'm going to become a member of the Green Party as a result of my visit to the booth.
Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody takes steps to stop doing something about it. Well, maybe if the media treated this issue properly, you would know all about Jaccard's study/report, and you and others wouldn't call steps to reduce CO2 "draconian". And then maybe we'd see more action.
Sorry Paul S,
From my limited experience, a person named Paul G often posts saying that nobody should pay attention to Exxon, Koch, NRSP activities because the issue lies with people reducing their CO2 output, not with the lies people are told.
Steve, I am Paul S and Paul G. For reasons even I do not understand, I alternate between the two. Don't worry, it's not a Jekyll and Hyde thingy.
And yes, Exxon is a waste of time. I can't believe the amount of effort and anger wasted on constantly building up this corporate strawman only to tear it down again. Gore does it daily. And it is nonsensical.
I read lots of pro-AGW stuff. That's all the CBC and Globe publish. We've been inundated with it for many years now. And personally, I believe the reason there has been no real action is because of the inertia of the general public.
If the general public honestly and truly wants serious binding caps on C02 we will get that. That our C02 increases year after year means we don't want reductions yet. But to me, Exxon is not even relevant to this debate. It's simply a big profitable corporate entity we offload our own personal responsibility and culpability onto.
Regards,
Should really have a view of this Paul, its quite interesting
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
Paul's argument is this:
1. Exxon et al. don't spend enough money to affect how the public sees the issue.
2. Therefore the public is well informed.
3. So the reason we're so slow at getting anywhere with policy is that the public doesn't want to. Thus, big oil etc spending millions ("a drop in the bucket") is moot.
Unfortunately, the argument is unfounded, particularly points 1 and 2. He only asserts that the $$ isn't enough -- no citations, no analysis, no matter that Exxon et al disagree, no matter that "democratization agencies" disagree, no matter that the Royal Society and sociologists disagree, he simply has an opinion that millions upon millions isn't enough. Notice that Paul rarely comments on posts DEMONSTRATING that the public is misinformed (and that their media exposure plays a role in that state of being). His echoing of the "draconian" meme is a case in point -- only a misinformed public could believe that CO2 reduction requires Draconian measures.
Tha Ameriicans Are n0t t0 blam3 f0r Gl0bal Warming, H0wever tha U.S governement is..Because they are the 0nes telling Us americans, that Gl0bal Warming is N0t REAL. If tha U.S. Wanted t0 really St0p 0r Derease Gl0bal Warming then they w0uld have signed the Agreement in 1997 that stated the all nations 0f the w0rld are t0 reduce tha am0unt 0f greenh0use Gasses released into the atmosphere...141 countried signed this Agreement Howvere AMERICA THA W0RLD"S NuMBeR WUNN P0LLuT3R REFUSED.
iif pl really wanted to prevent tha chances 0f Gl0bal Warming then the sh0uld ACT nd n0t plan 0n wht t0 d0 n0r BLAME each0ther.
It's true, watered down headlines take the pressure off of the US government. It's also true, government agency careerists have given the media a watered down message on climate change in fear of being ridiculed and viewed as alarmists by their peers - particularly in meteorology and hydrology where the changes are most evident.
Part of the problem here is that this is standard class/generation warfare (I have the cash I'm not giving up $#!%) being misapplied in an existential setting. The wealthy vested interests in the USA including the media, don't realize they may go down with the ship on this one, family descedants and all.
The fact that American people have so easily been brainwashed by their politicians and media by such shallow rhetoric have led me to realize the USA lost the Cold War too; have stared into the abyss and become the enemy they were fighting. I hope China matures into post-modern nation ASAP.
GLOBAL WARMING or GLOBAL COOLING?
By: Angelos Backus
Only a moron would have an answer!
Most likely it is the same moron that will make the claim that they know which came first: the Chicken or the Egg? all without asking about the role of the rooster!
INTRODUCTION
It is embarrassing to constantly read about or hear educated politicians, news reporters, news commentators, quack scientists, and even a past Vice President of the United States making claims that the planet Earth is undergoing a period of global warming or global cooling. It is especially disturbing when these claims are made without first offering any logical scientific or mathematical evidence. Listening to some of these unsubstantiated statements, I can’t help myself from wondering what century we live in. Is it during the life of Aesop, where we were governing our thoughts by Aesop’s fable The Wind and the Sun or maybe during the eighteenth century and The Caloric Theory?
If this is indeed the twenty-first century, then we must be aware of the historic Brownian Movement and the advancement of Dalton’s molecular and atomic theory, which led to the conciliation that all matter is composed of molecules.
THE PROBLEM
There is one overriding problem now surrounding the global warming/global cooling debate. It is this problem that is arguably causing much of the overwhelming confusion among the public. Simply stated, the central problem is that both the interested and disinterested parties to the debate have no solid or tangible scientific and mathematical understanding of what temperature and heat actually are.
Obviously, most anyone can provide a definition of the words temperature and heat. A normal person would define the word heat as how hot something is or feels. That same person would likely define temperature in mostly the identical way. While those definitions sound logical and correct, they are in fact complete misrepresentations of what temperature and heat are in a scientific and mathematical sense.
Unfortunately, in our society, the social and educational systems do not work to provide their students with the correct understanding of how the living world truly operates. Our societal and educational systems would rather have students memorize a basic and uninvolved definition, and then force this definition to be regurgitated, all for the quest to earn a phony grade. Thus, students are not inspired to actually think what the meanings are behind the words like temperature and heat. Instead, because the teachers, school faculty, and politicians are more concerned with making money, they push students through school as quickly and as easily as possible.
The result stemming from having our educational and societal systems push students through school, is that students do not gain a true understanding of what the school subject matter actually is. More importantly, these corrupted systems fail to allow students to understand the true meanings and workings of the world in which they live. As already stated, the system would rather have students memorize a definition rather than allowing the students to discover and understand what the defined word actually is and what the defined word actually does. In plain terms, it is like putting the cart before the horse.
This lack of actual knowledge is a perpetuating problem and one that has contributed immensely to the many prevalent misconceptions surrounding the global warming/global cooling debate. Most of the scientists, politicians, professors, and reporters discussing this environmental debate are victims of our societal shortcomings. These experts are causing undue panic and confusion all over the world and are doing so in a reckless manner. These parties need to seek clarification on the subjects they are speaking of because MOST OF THEM HAVE NO TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!
WHAT HEAT AND TEMPERATURE REALLY MEAN
Temperature is the word that describes the method by which we can measure the height of a form of energy, but not the amount of that energy. The interesting fact about heat is that it is never fixed in any one particular form. Additionally, heat is always in a constant state of motion as it enters the Earth’s atmosphere from the Sun, as it leaves the Earth on its way to outer space, and as it changes the state of existing matter on Earth. Heat also is constantly moving when it is being converted to another form of energy, such as water vapor or plant and animal cell material.
Heat in transit is known as sensible heat and is heat that can be detected by the temperature method of thermometer measurement. However, because the Earth is round and rotates on its axis at an incredible speed, there is a constant potential difference of temperature level at all times. Therefore, heat is directed in every possible direction in an attempt for it to reach one constant level. This characteristic of heat is what contributes to the formation of rain, snow, or hail (sublimation) due to the voids of equal heat levels existing throughout the atmosphere. Like the changing levels of ocean tides and waves, the heat levels are constantly changing.
In addition, how in the name of science can anyone make a determination whether the Earth is gaining heat or losing heat by the use of a thermometer (temperature scale) reading? How is it possible to obtain the Earth’s heat content by measuring the height of sensible (unused) heat, where the Earth’s heat content is converted into latent heat and cannot be read by a temperature (thermometer) scale!
The hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 136 degrees Fahrenheit in Al Aziziyah, Libya on September 13, 1922. The second-highest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 134 degrees Fahrenheit in Death Valley, California in 1913. Does that mean that the Moon is hotter than the Earth? Certainly not, for the Moon ranges from daytime highs of about 265 degrees Fahrenheit to nighttime lows of about -170 degrees Fahrenheit.
UNPROVEN THEORIES
Many unproven theories surround this debate. One such unproven theory involves the existence of man-made gases in the Earth’s atmosphere (vapor state). It is forgotten that gases are unstable vapors and the slightest change of the latent heat will cause a change in state. In turn, this change will cause the gases to return to liquid form. Moreover, our modern society is causing heat transmission from the Sun to be slowed down or reflected back to space. The overall result stemming from the potential difference of heat between the Sun and the Earth is that engineered gases will slow down the movement of heat in our atmosphere. Therefore, with the movement of heat being restricted, the existence of a long-term global cooling theory can be supported as existing in our atmosphere.
This theory of global cooling becomes clearly probable when analyzing the physical actions using a simple visual demonstration. Imagine a bucket that is placed under a flow of running water. Now imagine that a water-deflector is placed in between the water source and the bucket. Do we know what the ratio of gains and losses will be as a result of potential difference of intensity between Object One and Object Two (i.e., Sun to Earth)?
And as in another example, the Ocean’s level in relation to the polar ice caps. If we use a glass pitcher with water and on the outside of the pitcher mark the water level with a marker, then place an uncracked raw egg in that water. We will quickly see that the water level has risen! The egg will be 90% immersed in the water, only about 10% of the egg will be above the water level, similar to that if a piece of ice was put in water. After the water level in the pitcher with the egg has equalized, we will now put a mark at that level. If we break the egg and drop the total substance of the egg in the pitcher, what will the water level be now?
CONCLUSION
To those who advocate the theories of either global warming or global cooling, on what did they base their conclusions and viewpoints? What evidence have they found after thoroughly investigating the critical subjects and concepts I have outlined below?
It must be understood that no substantive conclusions surrounding this debate can be reached without first determining the answers to the following questions:
What exactly is matter?
What is energy?
What is the basic energy on Earth?
What is the name of the Earth’s basic energy?
What are the sources of basic energy?
Why are all other forms of energy derived from the basic energy?
What effect does basic energy have on matter?
What is sensible heat?
What is latent heat?
What is specific heat?
What is super heat?
What is subcooling?
What is saturation?
What is the first conservation law of thermodynamics?
What is the second conservation law of thermodynamics?
What are the effects of potential difference?
What are the three methods of heat movement?
What are the three states of matter?
What influences the three states of matter?
What is Absolute Zero?
What effect does the level Absolute Zero have on matter?
How do we measure the quantity of heat energy?
How do we measure the level (intensity) of heat?
Which form of energy do we use as a standard to measure the specific heat of all forms of energy?
What is Temperature, and what does it represent?
What are the differences between the concepts of heat and temperature?
What is diffusion?
What percentage of the Earth’s waters make up the polar ice caps?
What effect does the weight of the polar ice caps have on the level of the Earth’s oceans?
What percentage of the polar ice caps is part of the ocean levels?
What happens to the ocean levels when the polar ice caps melt, and their weight decreases?
What percentage of land erosion is deposited in the oceans daily?
What effect does the daily land erosion of the Earth have on the oceans’ level?
What percentage of the total Earth contents as in solid, liquid, and vapor states 50 years ago?
What changes have occurred in the Earth’s states 50 years later?
What was the Earth’s vapor state diameter 50 years ago? What is it 50 years later?
What was the atmospheric pressure at ground level 50 years ago? What is it 50 years later?
How many total units of heat energy are required to be converted into latent heat from the creation of one cubic foot of rain, and how many for the creation of a cubic foot of snow?
How many tons of latent heat did the planet Earth contain 50 years ago? How many 50 years later?
How much of the Earth’s totals latent heat was distributed among the solid, liquid, and vapor states of the Earth 50 years ago? How does this vary 50 years later?
These are only a few of the subjects and concepts that need to be thoroughly investigated. These alone cannot determine the loss or gain of heat content on Earth. Many other questions also need to be investigated before a conclusion can be drawn. That is the reason to keep politics and ignorance out of the debate, so the scientific body can do its work without any undue pressure.