A pre-approved message will always get the publicity.
Ya got it wrong again!
It’s a well-known fact that mundane run-of-the-mill stuff does not rate as newsworthy as atypical stuff. I’m sure you’ve heard the old adage that "When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."
It’s also a fact that the general public news media will be much more likely to print a story about peer-review studies that come up with unexpected results that go against established scientific community consensus. Why? … because THAT’s news.
There are plenty of scientist that have opposing views on the “consensus” of climate change yet don’t get the face or airtime. Why? Because they don’t fit the mold that the message deliverers hold. Its always easy to dismiss someone or something because they aren’t “mainstream” as defined by one side.
We are in the process and may have already lost the country due to a lack of free press. If you think otherwise there are countless current examples of the lack of due diligence by the MSM that is occurring now. Also numerous current examples where they themselves have joined forces with one political party in delivering a purposeful false message. Anyone that thinks otherwise has their head in the sand.
Follow the money trail.
I’ll end this here as I know we are swaying into an area that is not the purpose of this forum.
You are looking at what is a scientific scenario and plugging in your version of what you think (or wish) it should be in order to match your POV. Your “plenty of scientists who disagree” are outnumbered by a factor of THIRTY-TWO to ONE.
The things that won’t go away with magical or wishful thinking are those pesky things based on hard facts.
Here’s what we know today:
- CO2 in earth’s atmosphere plays a significant role in retaining heat from solar radiation.
- Since the industrial age began the amount of CO2 has increased to level not seen on earth since modern humans have existed on our planet.
- The average global temperature has risen along with the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere.
- A significant amount of that extra CO2 is coming from human activities and we know much of that CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels that have, before the Industrial Age, been prevented from releasing their carbon dioxide.
Trying to make those things go away by denying that they exist is folly. And not attempting to slow down the man-caused sources of excess CO2 is close to a criminal act against the people who inherit the earth and the baggage we leave behind.
The costs will be much more than money from their pockets, it will mean lives, if not all life in the future.
I am very leery about ‘news reports’.
Case in point: Raw video feed destined for nightly news a couple decades ago. A camera was set up in an Alaska supermarket catching peopl as they entered the supermarket. There had been a very bad winter storm (blizzard?). As people came in shaking snow off them, a voice behind the camera asked each 'How Is IT Out There?". Person after person admitted it was pretty bad “but you should have been here last year. It was worse then”.
The clip that got on the news that night on the network and its’ affiliates… “It is HORRIBLE out there. It is the worst I have ever experienced!”. That was the comment and it was true. The problem is (for him): that guy just moved to Alaska from the mainland where they had warmer weather and no blizzard. The network was reporting that there was a blizzard and his comments cemented that fact.
This is why I loved haveing a c-band satellite dish back then. I could watch all the raw news feeds being sent up and the ndown to the networks before editing. I had multiple feeds of the OJ trial. Clourt TV was inside with the public view of the trial. I could watch a live view in the hallway of people getting ready to enter the court room. Then there was the live feed from outside the court house, the live feed from the house and so on. By having options in viewing you can see some of the bias that occurs in the news.
One of my biggest gripes was CNN who would start out during a disaster by saying “We don’t want to speculate…” and then spend the rest of the day speculating.
Science: So if you review data, you find that Hawaii experiences a minor barometric high and low twice a day. Scientists scratched their heads. You should know that Honolulu, Hawaii is the place in the US with the overall smallest range of changes in barometric pressure. Thus a small change is easier to detect here. In the late 60’s they figured it out, but how many decades or centuaries had this happened without anyone knowing it was happening. It was such a small change. Without knowing about it, I investigated the issue once I put up my own weather station and noticed that the data seemed odd.
Until the 60’s revalation, few knew the event was happening and there were all sorts of guesses about what was happening and why. When they determined the cause (or they believe they know) it was something they didn’t consider. Everyday we hear of new science thing that effect the earth. We may discover that these things also are effecting our climate. " Humans have pumped enough water from underground reservoirs to shift Earth’s geographic North Pole at a speed of 4.36 centimetres per year. The motion of atmospheric masses and water masses during seasonal changes causes the planet’s poles to naturally wobble by up to several metres every year."
Yes, most every day
I agree, all news media sources I watch have definite “flavors” which imparts a bias to the news they report. I think most people are capable of taking in a mix of them and making up their own minds abouit what’s going on in the world.
I mainly watch the four major networks available where I live. ABC, FOX, NBC and CBS. And what used to be “local” news has become a mixture of local and syndicated operations, Sinclair Media now controls some of the stations here that used to be authentically local.
I occasionally watch Pluto TV and some of the fringe stuff like NewsMax… mostly for entertainment and to see how wide the divide might be on a particular news item.
Regarding climate change, a certain Facebook friend of mine has told me the following:
I accept that the majority of climate scientists who arguing that anthropogenic global warming have the weight of evidence on their side.
How big a deal is it? Ignoring the most extreme voices from both sides of the political spectrum, and from other non-experts, and paying attention to what actual scientists say, I think it’s pretty bad.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the world’s nations are going to take effective action on it, which means that loss of habitat and biodiversity is going to continue, and the poorest nations of the world will pay the heaviest price.
#PropofolMask … You keep posting statements, like the one below, that make no sense. What’s up with THAT?
Please explain what you mean by:
Which money trail?
Years ago, fossil fuel companies hid the evidence of CO2 emissions. Quite a money trail there.
Tell your “Facebook friend” that their chatbot needs recalibrating. 
This post jumped the shark long ago. Has anyone’s mind been changed at all? I doubt it. It’s time to go back to your corners.
1 Like