global warming everywhere

[Mike D]

They have a responsibility to be unbiased and to present both sides of an issue.

I believe this is a misconception. Presenting both sides does not make a story unbiased. Take another issue as an example; should journalists give 50% coverage to the North Korean government when reporting on human rights in that country? Certainly not. Nor should we expect the public relations line of a polluting industry to be given half of a story's weight.

[Bill O]

Despite what Al Gore the attorney says, there are more than two sides to this problem.

Reading my comments you might think I am some sort of coal baron looking to consume all the worlds resources and destroy the environment.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. I love the outdoors, clean air, clean water...the whole ten yards. I think national parks are cute but wilderness areas are what we need more of. What excites me the most is the permanent protection of large tracks of land. I think the White Mountains have too many trails. The idea of somebody camping above treeline in the Whites really disturbs me (in the summer of course). I could go on.

I fully acknowledge that adding carbon into the atmosphere will make the world warmer. How much? I don't know. If ice caps melt, will the sea rise? Of course. 2 inches or 200 feet? I've seen estimates of both, which one is it?

There is a common problem built into the human brain. It recurs often and is very hard to cure. The problem is that people tend to make long-range predictions based on relatively small amounts of data. Casinos bank on this flaw, investors lose millions on hot stocks because of this. You can trace many mountaineering accidents to bad decisions made from recent successes. Even very detailed models do this.

A famous emperor once said: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane."

How many times in history has mass hysteria occurred? I was really scared of bird flu two years ago. Is bird flu coming? Maybe, maybe not. But the problem that dominated news two years ago has totally fallen off the radar. Meanwhile, the threat of bird flu really hasn't changed.

Meanwhile, while chickens were being slaughtered something completely unexpected happened. The Indian Ocean tsunami came out of nowhere and killed 250,000 people. Often, disasters come from the least expected source. Remember what the dominant news headline was in August and early September 2001? Sharks! Shark attacks were happening everywhere. If you watched Foxnews you'd think that sharks were the nation's leading killer. Early on a Tuesday morning we learned that shark attacks weren't the biggest problem around.

I watched a great NOVA on PBS about the Scablands in eastern Washington state. In the early 1920's the smartest geologists in the world agreed that this land formation was created by slow erosion over millions of years, like the Grand Canyon. This was how it happened and the book was closed. Then one scientist flow over the area in a plane and blew that theory away. The scablands were created in one massive flood that occurred over hours not millions of years. Ostracized at the time, his theory is now assumed to be fact.

My point is to try to avoid being caught up with the hysteria of the masses. Otherwise, I've got some million dollar tulips for sale, anyone interested?

[Puck]

I believe this is a misconception. Presenting both sides does not make a story unbiased. Take another issue as an example; should journalists give 50% coverage to the North Korean government when reporting on human rights in that country? Certainly not.

I am not sure what you disagree with, the media has or does not have a responsibility to be unbiased. Understood unbiased reporting is an ideal that is not always obtain at best. At worst it is a guise (slam against Fox News intended).

For your North Korean example, the news stories should carry the rational, denial or no comment from the offending government. It is part of the story.

Nor should we expect the public relations line of a polluting industry to be given half of a story's weight.

This is the point I am trying to make; the Polluting industry public relations line has been given equal weight in AGW. The press has turned to grass roots organizations for opposing comments not realizing that they are oil funded astro turf orgainizations. Fact check thier statements you will find them to be half truths and misrepresentations.

[Puck]

Found this interesting article about the media and environmental issues;

From http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2...8/chapter.html

The Daily Planet: Why the Media Stumble Over the Environment
By Andrew C. Revkin
Chapter from "A Field Guide for Science Writers," second edition
National Association of Science Writers (www.nasw.org)
Edited by Deborah Blum, Mary Knudson and Robin Marantz Henig
Oxford Univ. Press, 2005
The Tyranny of Balance
As a kind of crutch and shorthand, journalism has long relied on the age-old method of finding a yeah-sayer and nay-sayer to frame any issue, from abortion to zoning. It is a quick easy way for reporters to show they have no bias. But it is also an easy way, when dealing with a complicated environmental issue, to perpetuate confusion in readers' minds and simply turn them off to the idea that media serve a valuable purpose.
When this form is overused, it also inevitably tends to highlight the opinions of people at the edges of a debate instead of in the much grayer middle ground, where consensus most likely lies. I can't remember where I first heard this, but the following maxim perfectly illustrates both the convenience of this technique and its weakness: “For every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.”
One solution, which is not an easy one, is to try to cultivate scientists in various realms—toxicology, climatology, and whatever else might be on your beat—whose expertise and lack of investment in a particular bias are established in your own mind. They should be your go-to voices, operating as your personal guides more than as sources to quote in a story.
Another is what I call “truth in labeling.” Make sure you know the motivation of the people you interview. If a scientist, besides having a PhD, is a senior fellow at the Marshall Institute (an industry-funded think tank opposed to many environmental regulations) or Environmental Defense (an advocacy group), then it is the journalist's responsibility to say so.
In a recent piece on climate politics, this is how I described Pat Michaels, a longtime skeptic on global warming who is supported in part by conservative or industry-backed groups:
''Climate science is at its absolutely most political,'' said Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia who, through an affiliation with the Cato Institute, a libertarian group in Washington , has criticized statements that global warming poses big dangers.
Such a voice can have a legitimate place in a story focused on policy questions, but is perhaps best avoided in a story where the only questions are about science. The same would go for a biologist working for the World Wildlife Fund.

[Bill O]

Nice article. That's exactly the point Jim was trying to make and I think I missed.

It makes perfect sense for the media to put both extremes together. It creates for a lively and heated debate.

[JimS]

Found this interesting article about the media and environmental issues;

From http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2...8/chapter.html

The Daily Planet: Why the Media Stumble Over the Environment
By Andrew C. Revkin
Chapter from "A Field Guide for Science Writers," second edition
National Association of Science Writers (www.nasw.org)
Edited by Deborah Blum, Mary Knudson and Robin Marantz Henig
Oxford Univ. Press, 2005
The Tyranny of Balance
As a kind of crutch and shorthand, journalism has long relied on the age-old method of finding a yeah-sayer and nay-sayer to frame any issue, from abortion to zoning. It is a quick easy way for reporters to show they have no bias. But it is also an easy way, when dealing with a complicated environmental issue, to perpetuate confusion in readers' minds and simply turn them off to the idea that media serve a valuable purpose.
When this form is overused, it also inevitably tends to highlight the opinions of people at the edges of a debate instead of in the much grayer middle ground, where consensus most likely lies. I can't remember where I first heard this, but the following maxim perfectly illustrates both the convenience of this technique and its weakness: “For every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.”
One solution, which is not an easy one, is to try to cultivate scientists in various realms—toxicology, climatology, and whatever else might be on your beat—whose expertise and lack of investment in a particular bias are established in your own mind. They should be your go-to voices, operating as your personal guides more than as sources to quote in a story.
Another is what I call “truth in labeling.” Make sure you know the motivation of the people you interview. If a scientist, besides having a PhD, is a senior fellow at the Marshall Institute (an industry-funded think tank opposed to many environmental regulations) or Environmental Defense (an advocacy group), then it is the journalist's responsibility to say so.
In a recent piece on climate politics, this is how I described Pat Michaels, a longtime skeptic on global warming who is supported in part by conservative or industry-backed groups:
''Climate science is at its absolutely most political,'' said Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist at the University of Virginia who, through an affiliation with the Cato Institute, a libertarian group in Washington , has criticized statements that global warming poses big dangers.
Such a voice can have a legitimate place in a story focused on policy questions, but is perhaps best avoided in a story where the only questions are about science. The same would go for a biologist working for the World Wildlife Fund.

Bingo...and I definately didn't say it better myself ... a well written commentary!

[Brad]

Bill,

I love tulips.

[Steve M]

NICE TULIP,BRAD
Yes, it would be nice to be able to weave through the mess of "scientists" which are corporately funded or are pushing an agenda for one reason or another on both sides of the fence. I can agree that the left and the right(in the political realm) have something to gain/lose in their stand on global warming. The media certainly doesn't help matters because for the most part there is very little unbiased reporting and for the most part are one-sided politically. What I am interested in more than anything is to know the TRUTH of the matter(not someones agenda)and then act accordingly to see the problem corrected. There must be a balance, leaving extremism behind.
I don't think we all need to start using only one sheet of toilet paper to wipe our butts in an effort to save the environment. There is way too much hypocrisy from the loudest voices on saving the environment. It seems that everyone else should do all sorts of things they are mandating but the same rules don't apply to them.
We have the opportunity to reduce the amount of fossil fuels being used in creating energy off the coast of New England by use of wind powered turbines, yet it seems these turbines will interfere with a certain lifestyle so they are dismissed.

[Puck]

Steve
Good luck finding a news source you can trust. I turn to NPR. If you hear an "expert" quoted as a source from an organization check it out with
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
If I see that thier organization has a funded bias that expert is dimissed from the discussion regarless of thier credentials. To double check I will fact check thier statements. For example I posted some questions on this thread about an editorial by the Heartland Institute. I found the editorial to be filled with misrepresntations and half truths, they oil funded. Now they will never be a source now I know that they lack integrety and honesty.

I try to stay current with the latest discussion among climatologists with

http://www.realclimate.org/ the articles are dry and lack the buzz words that is typical of sensationalist media.

Here are some other good sites.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php

http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462

[Steve M]

Puck, thanks for the websites. I'll check em out.