I'm not suggesting we completely repress the "deniers". What I do find troubling, The National Post seems to have an agenda here, wherein they disporportionately give coverage to a MINIMAL viewpoint. The question becomes, why is this paper so determined to undermine the scientific evidence, and provide cover for a lack of action on a real problem? Why is it always the Post that argues against the negative consequences of global warming?
The sad part, people read this crap and take it as fact. The issue is presented as though confused, when a statistical measurement shows no real argument at all. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find some study that showed broccoli can kill me too, but I prefer the rational realm, where most of the science lives. The National Post is "deniers" headquarters, polluting the waters to support its narrow agenda, which I don't quite understand.
5 comments:
Sure you understand it. You just can't bring yourself to name it.
It's called wilfully pandering to gross ignorance, greed and socially destructive self-interest.
It's what the Aspers do to sell papers and attract viewers. It's what they've always done.
They demonstrate their personal and corporate commitment to those three principles within the first weeks of taking over every endeavour they take over.
Then they spend the next years re-affirming that committment.
Every other major paper and network in North America has staff the Aspers fired or made persona non grata upon becoming their bosses.
They've perfected the race to the bottom. Why self-respecting journalists continue to seek paycheques from them only speaks to the overall degradation of the craft.
In a perfect universe these Winnipeg crap artists would be reincarnated as rabid junkyard dogs so they could be safely euthanized.
But how do I really feel you ask?
dana
Well said!
The National Post was one of the organizations that was behind the creation of the Canadian Alliance or CCRAP for short.
The Canadian Alliance took over the Progressive Conservatives to create the Conservative Party of Canada.
The leader of that party does not believe in the science of global warming either, although he has found it a political liability to say so publically.
So his mouthpiece in the media is doing it for him. The idea is to cast enough doubt on the science of global warming to give him political cover when he produces a plan that does not really address the problem.
It is not that difficult to connect the dots.
And Dana I will ask. How do you really feel? Don't hold back?
Lawrence Solomon bugs the shit out of me.
Solanki believes that natural factors such as the Milankovitch cycles and changes in solar variability have driven climate change in the PAST. However Solanki research has shown that those factors are not the cause of current global warming. He published a paper - peer reviewed - where he showed that solar variability was a major factor in past climate change, but has only been responsible for a small fraction of climate change since 1970. (Called solar intensity and climate or solar variability and climate)
Solanki has said this:
"since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
Solanki is no denier. He has been one of those scientists who through sheer hard work has shown us that there is absolutely no way that the same thing that caused past climate change is causing present climate change, leaving all of the evidence pointing to humans. Instead through some fucked up logic Solanki is being used as an example of skepticism by the flat-earthers.
wayward son
Thanks for the clarifications, it really helps put things into context.
Post a Comment