There are still a number of news media outlets that chose to support climate change denialism. This is done in a number of ways. Some simply don't allow any credible science to appear in their pages, while others suppress science and promote the pseudo-science (see Fox News). Others, such as in the example below, print the scientific viewpoint but do so in a manner to indicate it is faulty. The below guest post consists of exchanges of letters between a reader and the opinion page editors of the Duluth News Tribune and the Superior Telegram. Both of these newspapers have previously supported the anti-science positions of climate change deniers.
*********************
(Note: Chuck Frederick and
Shelley Nelson are, respectively, the opinion page editors of the Duluth
News Tribune, and the Superior Telegram)
Good Morning Chuck and Shelley,
Today's Tribune (January 7,
2016) ran a puzzling local view article written by a well educated person
having a PhD in aquatic ecology, and was also reviewed by another well educated
person with a degree in climatology, who is an assistant professor at Large
Lakes Observatory, in Duluth.
What was puzzling about this
guest post column offered by Duluthian David Gerhart, is that it lists a number
of very solid and valid scientific reasons why the concentration of Earth's CO2
levels is much greater now than it was 800,000 years ago, and also that today's
rise in global mean temperatures is not due to the orbit, or the intensity of
our sun--actually the sun is delivering less energy to the Earth than is has
previously, and would actually decrease the Earths temperature if it were truly
driving global warming. The article also makes readers aware of the fact that
the Earth goes through normal glacial cycles that scientist have known about
for many, many years and are now trying to prudently warns us about the fact
that Arctic areas are continually loosing ice mass and that this will directly
affect future sea levels---so why is all this very valid and very well known
scientific evidence, presented directly beneath a cartoon showing an ad for a
Godzilla movie, and another movie depicting a giant glacier, with the caption,
"Run for your lives! It'll melt in 1000 years?"
Why are you depicting actual
science in such a way, as to imply that those who are warning others about
man-made global warming, are nothing more than hysterical alarmists worried
about something which might happen 1000 years in the future? In truth, most
scientists project only a 3 to 6 foot sea level rise by the end of the century,
which in itself will pose a problem to many large populated communities
occupying coastal areas that are already established near sea level. And, no
climatologist, or scientist in any related field, has ever encouraged us to
panic about what might happen a full millennium in the future!
When the Arctic ice cap and the
Greenland ice cap melt, they not only release more water into our oceans, but
the loss of snow and ice in those regions will prevent large amounts of
sunlight from being reflected back into space---also increasing temperatures
averages. Then there is the fact that since the actual Arctic land surface
contains vast amounts of accumulated methane gas, which may be released into the
atmosphere relatively quickly and, if so, suddenly increase the rate of global
warming. That's because methane is one of the most potent green house gasses in
regards to heat trapping properties!
Why then do you present actual
facts provided by qualified experts, and then simultaneously run a cartoon
implying that all this climate stuff---(my words)---is nothing but hysteria? If
this is what journalist call balance, it's only because most of you are sadly
misinformed or uninformed about the real problems posed by climate change and
the fact that we must begin taking aggressive actions NOW to reduce emissions
world-wide. Unfortunately, when the news industry knowingly or unknowingly
distorts or prevents real knowledge from being available to the public that
only reinforces the environment of political paralysis created by legislators
who are in the pockets of large oil and large coal. So preventing real
information from reaching voters is tragically closing the limited window of
time which we will need to make big changes---if our future Earth is to be a
comfortable and safe place for our progeny to live! You may not realize it, but
the FALSE BALANCE, you feel you must provide, is not only contributing to the
problem, but also preventing the necessary political will required for us to
successfully deal with the real problems created by AGW and its attendant
effects on our climate.
Sincerely,
Peter W. Johnson
(from Chuck Frederick, Duluth
News Tribune opinion page editor).
We provide space on our Opinion
pages for all viewpoints. It's not so much a desire for balance as for allowing
the expression of a diversity of views, reflecting the entirety of our
community. I know there are those who feel anything critical of or even in
question of global warming should be suppressed, rejected --- and not
published. I know you won't agree with me, but I don't feel we're at that point
yet in this debate. I think the need for conversation remains relevant.
Thanks,
Chuck
Chuck,
The articles you and other
Newspapers usually run provided by deniers of global warming, usually contain
grossly inaccurate information or misinformation which comes from faulty
scientific analysis or deliberate use of cherry picking or other ways to
distort information. But no matter how technicality sophisticated some of it
may sound, the issues they raise have virtually all been examined and
eliminated by truly educated and by truly informed scientists. The distorted
claims and inaccurate data provided by the deniers you publish are like similar
distortions made by "experts" employed by tobacco companies who swore
in front of congressional committees that tobacco smoke posed no risks at all
for causing cancer---along with numerous other false bits of information. Just
like those lies, the falsehoods being currently circulated by AGW deniers will
eventually be exposed and rejected politically, but in this case we have a very
limited period of time in which to enact effective measures to lower CO2
emissions. That's why it is so unfortunate that most members of the press do
not grasp the true importance of real scientific evidence and usually do not
even believe writers like me.
One would think that even as
you allow such misinformation and distortions of facts to be printed that at
least you would not place the knowledge of valid and qualified scientists
directly beneath cartoons portraying the information they provide as nothing
but hysteria offered by supposedly "mistaken" PhDs who have spent
decades studying this problem. Outside of the few scientists employed by CO2
producing companies who deliberately distort the message of real scientists and
studies done by supposed experts who have no real qualifications to know what
they are talking about, or by those whose work has been solidly rejected by
their peers, there is virtually no evidence at all confirming the falsehoods
they circulate. This is really not a case of one opinion verses another---it's
a matter of purposefully false information being distributed by special
interest groups who know they will benefit financially from distorting the
massive evidence about the real effects of man-made CO2. Eventually you and
other news outlets will realize that. But the frustrating thing about all this
is that because of the false balance, (or diversity of views) you think you
must provide, that realization may come to you only after it is entirely too
late to do anything about it.
Sincerely,
Peter W. Johnson
No comments:
Post a Comment