Not A Sheep has an interesting blog about the reporting of Global Warming in the USA
In the blog it says that only 20% of airtime, in the main steam media of the United States, is given to the alternate view of man made global warming.
The last paragraph Not A Sheep's blog says;
An interesting article and I wonder how the BBC would fare if their output was similarly analysed?
It does make you wonder how much airtime, in the UK, is given to the pro global warming debate.
What is the percentage of airtime, for both sides of the climate debate, is there in this country?
I bet it will be in favour of the pro climate change side of the debate by a huge margin.
If you want an alternate view on the climate change debate go to;
Watts Up With That or Climate Audit which is actually run by Steve McIntyre, the guy who ripped the 'hockey stick ' graph to shreds.
People should be told both sides of the debate so they can make a decision on what they think, but it looks like certain people and organisations don't want you to know the other side of the argument.
It makes you think, what are they trying to hide.
3 comments:
.... and you are able to reach a decison based upon the presented evidence, abstract arguments and multi-dimensional mathematical models, is beacuse you do what in life, exactly?
I'm just your average hard working taxpayer who tries to provide for his family.
I also don't like my family being brainwashed.
So I did some research on the subject, and although there were things that were way over my head, I believed the science of the 'sceptics'. Their science was more believable.
Also when one side of the subject says that the science is done and doesn't accept any, and I mean any, arguments from the other side I do get suspicious. That is why I started to research the subject more deeply.
Well to be honest, before the climategate scandal, I could of gone either way,
but I didn't
'HIDE THE DECLINE'
Yes, you are right, I do not have a degree in math or any other subject, but my brother does.
I'm not sure the holding of a mathematics degree or a climatology degree at whatever level addresses the main issue, which is that research throughout the world is mainly achieved through the PhD system. This system - whereby to obtain a higher degree and all the associated kudos - has been in place for many years and its main drawback is that scientists research and discover, but let the media explain.
And that's the problem. Most reporters don't have a clue about climate change which is - to put it mildly - an incredibly, mind-bogglingly, chaotically complex subject, so they run with the 'flavour of the month' slant or whatever their sub tells them.
When we started getting some warmer winters in the UK, BBC bulletins were leading with questions about global warming, as though one mild winter a cataclysm makes. Of course, a couple of bitterly cold, snow-bound winters and they don't know where to put themselves, largely because they lack the intellect, training and qualifications to understand, let alone explain to the lay public what's actually happening.
There are some indisputable facts: the Earth is warming - slowly - and CO2 content is rising - slowly. The rest is speculation, although it's slowly being accepted that the CO2 increase is at least partly down to human activity, the continuing loss of rain forests is giving some cause for concern and Venus doesn't look a nice place for a package holiday any time soon.
Post a Comment