10 ms·
With Climate Journalism Like This, Who Needs Fiction?
- casca 13y agoThe Daily Mail is not considered to be a reputable news source by any stretch. They have a strong political agenda and are known to play very fast and loose with the truth.
- misnome 13y agoLeave off them, without the daily mail, how would we know how global warming - and the latest celebrity whatnots - were affecting the countries house prices?
- SEMW 13y agoHey, here's a thought -- if we want the daily mail to change its position on climate change, all we need to do is tell them that we've discovered evidence that immigrants cause global warming. They'll reverse their 'scepticism' faster than you can say "Fuck Richard Littlejohn".
- xtraclass 13y agoThat's probably true - for a big number of newspapers and other media, which is actually a shame. Reminds me of Lou Grant (TV series about a honest reporter). We need more people like him.
- jessaustin 13y agoMeh. If Discover were interested in doing so, they could find warming enthusiasts e.g. blaming specific storms on global warming or recommending particular tax policies on that basis. Of course, they only care to point at goofy crap that contradicts the narrative. "Journalism" amirite? [I don't deny that warming has occurred over some time period that extends through the present. (After all there is only one other possible characterization for any such period.) I haven't yet seen a strong argument that ties a significant portion of such warming to activity that human organizations can affect in a meaningful way.]
- mpyne 13y agoI don't think that waving away 'global warming' with "well it had to either go up or down" is very honest. If the temperature were going up by 0.001C a year there wouldn't be this kind of debate about it. Either way we've been burning coal and oil like mad since the middle of the 1800s, and that exhaust mass from combustion doesn't just disappear into the ether. It went somewhere. Where did it go? Add up all the spots it went (e.g. trees, chemical reactions with soil, in atmosphere, with the oceans, etc.). If you still have CO2 left over, then the Occam's answer is that it's still where you left it: In the atmosphere. Other conclusions require evidence to support. In the meantime: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
- asgard1024 13y agoThe IPCC report, which is endorsed by almost all academies of science in the world, and above 90% of climate scientists, is not a good enough argument?
- iterationx 13y agoYou don't need to invent a new phrase, "Climate Journalism", journalism will suffice. It's like the phrase "reverse racism", the reverse adjective is unnecessary.