"Live like you will die tomorrow and learn like you will live forever" Gandhi
Sometimes I think, in those lazy moments when I`m reading my favorite newspaper, that these writers might have an agenda? Get real! That can`t be. The Free Press is a cornerstone of modern Democracy! Then I feel like those 2 guys in the 3 stooges who are getting slapped all the time and come to my senses. If it`s the truth you`re looking for in your newspaper, it won`t be obvious and it will be crushed by the weight of dollars and shite. Big surprise? And so the story goes.
I`m moved to rant on this obvious problem by a recent column "called Climate under fire", in the Canadian Press, by "Salim Mansur". Salim joins the select ranks of reporters who specialize in misleading the average reader on "Climate Science". The lament of his column is a British television production called the "Great Global Warming Swindle". It also notes a NY Times column by William Broad that is critical of Al Gore and how much money his film and book, "An Inconvenient Truth", are making? Salim, Broad and British Channel 4 focus on the theory that the "warming" is caused by changes in been discredited by science long ago. The theory is based on study of a piece of the planet`s history, some 400 million years ago, that won`t offer any accurate indication of CO2 levels. The science of CO2 measurement is very accurate up to 1 million years back thanks to Antarctic core drilling (refer to this scientific article)
This means the past 1 to 2 million years gives us a pretty accurate vision of CO2 impact as Gore clarifies in his presentations. But journalists like Masur and Broad are lazy writers (or corrupt?) who ignore majority scientific opinion for sensationalist views. Shite sells unfortunately! This shite includes criticism of "An Inconvenient Truth" grossing over $46 million dollars. But what Salim Masur fails to mention is that Gore takes no profit from the film and puts the money back into educating the public about the dangers of Global warming. His motivations seem more obvious than the critical journalists. More shite comes from the pen of William Broad which is aptly critiqued for it`s ardent odour by Real Climate, "Broad Irony" for it`s misrepresentation (that`s bull---t) regarding the 2006 Hurricane season in the Atlantic. Considering Broad`s gaffes in NY Times this excerpt from Real Climate examines the untruths:
"Among the worst, is this one
Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.
This is dishonest in at least two different ways. First of all, Broad conveniently forgets to mention that the 2006 Hurricane season was accompanied by a moderate El Nino event. It is well known that El Nino events, such as the 2006 El Nino, tend to be associated with stronger westerly winds aloft in the tropical Atlantic, which is unfavorable for tropical cyclone development. The season nonetheless produced a greater than average number of named storms in the tropical Atlantic (10), 3 more than the typical El Nino year. But El Ninos come and go--more or less randomly--from year to year. The overall trend in named tropical Atlantic storms in recent decades is undeniably positive. We can have honest debates about the long-term data quality, but not if we start out by misrepresenting the data we do have, as Broad chooses to. Additionally, this is a clear misrepresentation of what Gore actually stated in his book. Gore indicated that it is primarily Hurricane intensities which scientists largely agree should be expected to increase in association with warming surface temperatures"
That brings to mind a piece from Gore`s book regarding scientific consensus. A University of California scientist, Dr. Naomi Oreskies, published this stat in Science magazine. " She published a massive study of every peer reviewed (making them scientifically credible) science journal article on global warming for the previous 10 years, and carefully analysed how many articles agreed or disagreed with the prevailing consensus view. They used a large random sample of 928 articles. The percentage of articles disagreeing with consensus, that man was contributing to global warming by increasing CO2 emissions, was 0.
Alongside the study of scientific journal articles a study was conducted on articles on global warming for the previous 14 years in NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal". Guess what? Yeah, 53% of these articles expressed doubt as to the cause of global warming? Yeah, more surprises for devoted readers of our local shite papers.
As for the British TV show, "the Global Warming Swindle", it is too easily discredited by George Monbiot (read this column) and further maligned by
What I have here is a failure to trust the mainstream media for much more than celebrity gossip. Which is obviously riddled with bullshite and kernels of truth. So I read between the lines, avoid the front page, check page 4 and find every fourth column has something to offer. Token truth is still to be found. But the "truth is out there" and with a little effort we can appreciate that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere over the next 30 years might prove to be a gamble that "scientific consensus" has warned us to avoid!! Hypothesis and probability! Makes sense to me.