For all President Obama’s rhetoric of science being back in the White House spotlight, it sounds like much of America hasn’t quite gotten that message. A new poll from Gallup suggests that 41% of Americans think that the threat of Global Warming is exaggerated, the highest such number in a decade. Well, at least people now mostly accept that it’s happening, even if it’s not a big deal…
Take that, Science!
Not surprisingly, the numbers on urgency seem to be based on political party: 66% of Republicans now think the Global Warming concerns are overblown, whereas people who identify as Democrats are holding at around 20%. The political party that supports old energy doesn’t believe we need new energy… hmmmm…
It’s very easy for me, and for everyone else who clearly sees the logic behind the climate change science, to be frustrated by the war being waged on these facts by a coordinated series of commercial campaigns, and by the political factions who are allied with oil and coal interests. But my background is coming from the news, so it’s not surprising that it’s the mainstream media that makes this poll really stick in my craw.
We Have Built a False Idol to Objectivity.
The news needs “balance” on a lot of discussions. Political issues, complex social questions, and foreign policy debates usually necessitate a counter-quote to present the opposite opinion in an article. When one is reporting the news, the common wisdom is that the reporter should remove their opinion and gather both sides of a discussion: Objectivity is King. Check it out some time. You can’t find a news story about anything without a counter-quote some where in the last few paragraphs.
Well, this method does not work when discussing Global Warming. It feeds directly into the hands of groups like ACCCE or the Heartland Institute who make a living providing the other side of an objective discussion… only that side doesn’t exist. Ironically enough, even as I am decrying the media from the one side, the anti-global warming crew makes hay in exactly the same way.
I’ve worked in new rooms and produced interview shows. I know how it feels to be searching desperately for someone to balance a discussion. “Well, we’ve got the Pro side booked, now we just need to find a good Con.” And I’ve been properly outraged when someone from my side of a discussion was given short shrift. But for a certain series of stories, it is more then unacceptable to cover both sides with equal time. The Gallup poll tells us that it is actively destroying our chances of solving this whole Global Warming thing.
>> More Gallup Polls on Red Green and Blue
What Does Success Mean?
One side defines success not by convincing the world that Global Warming does not exist (as that would be pretty much impossible), but simply be extending the conversation and keeping the money train that currently exists chugging along. The other side is trying to get a country motivated to act on something that they can’t see every day, and are not able to grasp easily. Doubt, then, is a crucial factor in this whole discussion and everything that feeds into that doubt is actively disastrous.
I am not calling for scientists and researchers or even pundits and thinkers to be silenced, regardless of how wrong I might think they are. What I want is for media outlets to look closely at what they view as “balancing” a story. The American standard of talking to both sides just does no apply in this case.
Now, it’s time for some Objective Balance in my own article. Counterpoint: this might not matter. As much as I would like people to listen to, you know, the scientests, our current version of environmentalism seems to be pushing people to the cause for different reasons. Economics-based environmentalism seems like a valid call, and with charismatic leaders like Van Jones heading to the White House, I’m hopeful that people will get on board regardless of their belief in Global Warming science one way or the other. But man, it feels like it should matter, right?
"who make a living providing the other side"
That is where you are wrong. They paid their own way to the recent convention… whereas governments pay $$$ for the warmists to jet off to their conference.
Excellent point about what I'll call the "objectivity paradox." In an effort to give "both sides" of the story (as if there were only two), mainstream media gives voice to lots of individuals and groups that maybe don't deserve equal time.
The resulting offshoot of this objectivity paradox has been the growth of blogs and new media. While these new outlets vary in their objectivity (stated or otherwise) and level of professionalism, they do not need to prescribe to all of the same principles and conventions that traditional media organizations live by.
However, the perception of blogs, held mostly by the people that don't read them, is that they are all opinion. While this may be true in some cases, I would argue that it is not the true in most cases, and definitely not the case with this one.
Those that have shown the ability to advocate for something while reporting objectively on it are doing something the MSM cannot (and, perhaps, should not).
Some of us have noticed that folks arguing that there is a global warming "crisis" seldom even try to make the case. "americangreen" didn't try to make the case. He just seems to want to keep skeptics from being able to present the case for skepticism.
If the science is really that "settled" then why not present that settled science? Instead we get opinions stated as fact. Modeling stated as evidence. Ad hominem arguments in response to legitimate skeptical arguments. And often, gratuitous vicious personal attacks.
"Americangreen" seems to be of the opinion that skeptical arguments should be suppressed. Why? If the science is really settled, it should be very easy to counter any skeptical argument. The truth is that the science is anything but settled.
I found that charts that are published on this issue are often smoothed in a way that is deceptive. I have learned to plot climate data myself. I generally use HadCRUT data because that isn't a skeptical source. I would urge everyone interested in this issue to download and plot the data for themselves.
What you will find is that from around 1910 until around 1940, it warmed around 0.5 C. That is around 0.017 / year. Then there was a cool period from around 1940 until around 1970.
From around 1980 until 2004 it warmed around 0.45 C. That is around 0.019 / year.
Most scientists would agree that the 1910-1940 warming was natural because that was before there was a significant increase in atmospheric CO2.
But it assumed that a very similar warming from around 1980 until 2004, could not have been natural even though solar activity was higher between around 1940 and around 2004 than all but a few years since 1794. Now solar activity is very low and will probably continue to be low for a good while.
Incidentally, if you look at the HadCRUT data, you will see that there has been a cooling trend since around 2004. Somehow, that cooling is seldom mentioned. I suspect that "americangreen" might argue that the cooling should not be mentioned because it might cause folks to question the existence of a warming crisis. We certainly wouldn't want to confuse people. Would we?
@ Bruce: You are correct. I had no desire to build up a discussion of the proof of Global Warming in this article. In general, I reject out of hand the idea that I would need to start from the ground up and prove global warming from the get-go every time I suggest that it is factual…
I mean… I haven't spent my entire life working on climate change issues. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't plotted whatever data you refer to… but that's not really the point of the article. The point of the article is that such a massive massive majority of the people who DO study it for a career get to
I mean, I believe in a division of labor here. I think we do have experts in our society. In this case, my argument was that, since the Scientists agree by a overwhelming numbers that Climate Change is starting to show disastrous affects on our planet across the board, that it is irresponsible for the media to present it as "even".
Further, I would agree that folks should do whatever research they want to do, but I would say that doesn’t make ‘em equivalent. Are you saying, Bruce, that all of climate change science would be discredited by a change in climate? I guess I would say that these folks know what’s up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7940532…
* Global Screaming: Climate Hysteria Reaches New Level – The fact that warming has been detected on other planets like Mars and Jupiter where there are no humans at all?…
* LiveScience – Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds – Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events:
http://cristiannegureanu.blogspot.com/2009/03/car…
I guess I am a newer convert to that 41% population being sighted. I used to generally be supportive of the warming argument as conveyed by the news. My demographic is middle class and generally in the distracted with life catagory. In the last two months I finally took enough time to more thoroughly read about the "for" and "against" human causation arguments on climate warming. My more considered opionion is that humans are not a significant climate change factor and that human acitivity is a minority factor to climate change. If there are many others like me who are now starting to become much more aware of this subject, you might expect that 41% population to increase a bit more in the near term.
Journalist(e.g., amerigreen) + one-sided reporting = bias: now an advocate not an objective reporter
Scientist(e.g., Hansen) + advocacy = bias: now an advocate not an objective scientist
Neither profession can have it both ways. It's called ethics. Objectivity is not a false idol. Without objectivity, both science and journalism are worse than useless, i.e., harmful.
The science is horribly corrupted by politics. As an example copenhagen presented conclusions as though they came from 2500 scientists. The scientists were never asked!
Most bloggers and reporters know absolutely nothing about science.
At my blog we present papers, data and code. Nothing hidden.
http://www.noconsensus.wordpress.com
I can say that after nearly a year of reading dozens of climate papers, nobody knows the real answer about climate! I can also say, liberals don't care becasue it helps further their socialist goals.
Jeff ID has it right. Journalists and bloggers know nothing of causal inferences in nonexperimental research. To them, correlation is causality. If you take the time to read legitimate research and understand the data, you will see that the situation is quite unclear.
C'mon, Chuck. Making universal claims like "Journalists and bloggers know nothing of causal inference…" is like claiming all guys named Chuck have a mustache.
Journalists and bloggers are not a homogeneous group. Making that assumption weakens your argument.
Check out the graphs here: UK Met Office Fact 2: Temperatures are continuing to rise.
Nice article! You can track all kinds of global warming stats on our site.