Post by Darren Dirt on Mar 12, 2007 12:13:21 GMT -5
I just sent this in an email to my 11 year old son who is being brainwashed by world-government-promoting fearmongering.
subj: Global Warming -- is it true?
Hey buddy, just thought I would pass this along as it explains very well what I stumbled in trying to explain to you last week.
- - -
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming
It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.
The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”
Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.
- - -
The rest of the article is here:
www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
IN OTHER WORDS, relax, don't have any "The Day After Tomorrow" nightmares unless and until the actual *facts* justify it. ^_^
Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:
- "Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant."
- "Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid."
- "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."
That last bullet point could apply to almost any major news outlet in the United States. They could all learn something and take into account the historical context of media coverage of climate change.
Some other important points include:
- Don't Stifle Debate: Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn't mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.
People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.
- Don't Ignore the Cost: Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton's term.
Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.
- Report Accurately on Statistics: Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, "20th Century Climate Not So Hot," "determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.
subj: Global Warming -- is it true?
Hey buddy, just thought I would pass this along as it explains very well what I stumbled in trying to explain to you last week.
- - -
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming
It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.
The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”
Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.
- - -
The rest of the article is here:
www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
IN OTHER WORDS, relax, don't have any "The Day After Tomorrow" nightmares unless and until the actual *facts* justify it. ^_^
Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:
- "Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant."
- "Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid."
- "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."
That last bullet point could apply to almost any major news outlet in the United States. They could all learn something and take into account the historical context of media coverage of climate change.
Some other important points include:
- Don't Stifle Debate: Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn't mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.
People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.
- Don't Ignore the Cost: Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton's term.
Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.
- Report Accurately on Statistics: Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, "20th Century Climate Not So Hot," "determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.
Seems knowing media history needs inclusion?
("four different time periods in a hundred years")
) desperately wanted to be sated by watching this obviously-crummy-since-it-was-direct-to-DVD and-even-*I*-have-never-heard-of-it moviefilm:
[as to the name, after all, doesn't "rapture" precede "Armeggedon"?! Liv is heavenly, no doubt! talk about sated...] 
you see, because we've pumped all the liquid oil out, that's left all these trillions of "barrels" (caverns in the ground) empty and so the earth's fresh water is draining in to fill those up, yada, yada. "Miraculously" solves the "no cooling" problem but gives us one requiring Government regulation & taxing! ["ditto" sagas' "oops I shouldn't have said anything"...]