Climate Change Deception: Aided by the Press
Image via Wikipedia
Did reporters mess up again?
The Global Climate Coalition, a group representing oil, coal and gas companies, among others, ignored scientific evidence supporting the role of greenhouse gases in creating global warming, according to a story in the New York Times. And, for more than ten years, it engaged in a campaign to confuse the public about the issue.
That’s pretty outrageous. But I also noted with dismay this discussion of the role reporters played:
Environmentalists have long maintained that industry knew early on that the scientific evidence supported a human influence on rising temperatures, but that the evidence was ignored for the sake of companies’ fight against curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. Some environmentalists have compared the tactic to that once used by tobacco companies, which for decades insisted that the science linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer was uncertain. By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action.
George Monbiot, a British environmental activist and writer, said that by promoting doubt, industry had taken advantage of news media norms requiring neutral coverage of issues, just as the tobacco industry once had.
“They didn’t have to win the argument to succeed,” Mr. Monbiot said, “only to cause as much confusion as possible.”
via Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate – NYTimes.com.
Isn’t it time journalists started rethinking — really rethinking — the sacred norms of the profession? During the Bush years, Karl Rove and pals took great advantage of the we-are-neutral, there-are-two-sides-to-every-story precepts of U.S. journalism. Also, the if-someone-in-authority-says-it-we-have-to-cover-it-as-though-it’s-something-to-be-taken-seriously-even-if-it’s-obviously-ludicrous tenet.
No matter how outlandish their actions, they knew the press would dutifully cover the topic, always making sure to get the other side. They’d lead with, say, “The President said that tree leaves should be purple today,” then in the third paragraph observe, “Critics contended that leaves are green” and so on.
And, as this story makes clear, reporters did the same thing with the global warming “debate”.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but I know this situation has to change. There are not always two sides to every story. Sometimes there’s one. Sometimes there are five. In the meantime, reporters keep getting played. It’s bad for the profession–and the country.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
In Dubai, we’ve just had the wettest year this Emirate has ever experienced, and lower temperatures than most can remember.
If global warming was an absolute undisputed fact… common sense would hold that what we have experienced shouldn’t have happened. It should have gotten hotter, and drier. But it didn’t.
When people experience local conditions that contradict the accepted story of the scientific community, it doesn’t take a lobby group to cast doubt on that accepted story.
And even if you bring up the “it’s complicated” canard, it isn’t a stretch to someone to say “then you don’t really understand what is going on after all, do you?”
I can’t comment on Dubai specifically. But I can say that there has been a notable increase in the average temperature of both the air and ocean over the past 50 years. That’s the clear long-term trend. If one season doesn’t fit the pattern in some parts of the world, that doesn’t constitute a change in the long-term pattern.
At any rate, the story in the New York Times was saying that the industry group was aware of the scientific data and didn’t dispute its accuracy. They just didn’t want to admit that publicly and, in fact, actively engaged in an effort to confuse the public.
In response to another comment. See in context »