Observers have noted a dramatic quickening in the pace of media climate scare cycles which, if not corrected soon, could have a damaging and lasting impact on global media sources. First world media, women, and minorities are most at risk.
Prior to the global warming scare of the last several years, the global cooling scare of the 1970s was the last case of unfounded media climate hype, or UMCH. But with the recent call by Canadian Scientists to study the possibility of global cooling due to decreased sunspot activity, it looks like we are already in the early stages of global cooling UMCH. If this turns out to be the case, it creates a unique condition in the mass media biosphere in which global warming and global cooling scares may be forced to coexist.
Such a condition is likely to result in widespread panic and confusion within the normally stable media biosphere. "It could get so bad," said one media expert, "that the New York Times and other prestigious media groups could endorse republican candidates."
Other experts don't believe the situation is that grim.
"At most it could take some of our major newspapers about two weeks longer to endorse the democratic candidate for president, but I don't think it's would ever get so bad that they would endorse a republican," said another highly-placed media critic.
"And don't sell the media short. They may be able to design a scenario which advocates curtailing western economic growth to combat both global cooling and global warming at the same time. If you carefully study the history of the media you will see that they have propagated notions far more absurd than this," one expert noted.
"For example, they spread the idea that Bill Clinton was the first black president and didn't even crack a smile," he continued. "This will be a piece of cake."
NEXT STORY: Global Climate Stasis Goes Unchecked
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Climate obviously has changed and will continue to change. The observation that ice is melting, which can look dramatic on TV, does not show that human activity is the cause. The assertion that humans are or ever can have a significant influence on climate by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record. The only implication that carbon dioxide level has a significant effect on climate comes from huge but still incomplete computer programs that attempt to predict future climate.
Avoid the group-think and de facto censorship by Climate Scientists. Directly interrogate official government data from ORNL and NOAA as follows:
If the carbon dioxide level from Law Dome, Antarctica http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm it is discovered that the current carbon dioxide level increase started about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use.
If average earth temperature since 1880 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html is graphed on the same time scale as fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature at least until 1976.
The asserted hypothesis that, since 1976, increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html and temperature from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat determined from the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores. If these are graphed on a higher resolution time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years.
If Law Dome and recent carbon dioxide data and Vostok and recent temperature are plotted on the same graph since 1000 AD (or before) it is observed that temperature oscillates up to plus or minus 1.5 degrees Celsius (half pitch about 100 yr) while carbon dioxide level remains essentially unchanged (between 9000BC and 1750AD). This will also show that the average global temperature 200 years ago was about the same as now, 400 years ago was significantly higher than now and current rate of temperature change is fairly typical. Recent measurements show that average earth temperatures in 2006 and 2007 were actually lower than in 1998.
For most of the history of earth, as shown at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf , carbon dioxide level has been several times higher than it is at the present.
The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does not cause significant climate change. Actions based on the human-caused global warming mistake put freedom and prosperity at risk.
Yeah, but do you have any data that would tend to support your opinion?
Thanks for the comment!
Post a Comment