Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Memo to the Media: Extreme Weather Is Linked to Global Warming

By Paul Rogat Loeb, AlterNet. Posted January 17, 2007.


Except in the case of Katrina, most major media outlets have treated America's extreme weather events as if they were wholly separate from the broader issue of climate change.
Advertisement

This article has appeared previously on the Huffington Post and on Common Dreams.

It wasn't Katrina, not even close, but Seattle's storm of the century was no picnic. It gave me one more a taste of a future where the weather can suddenly turn--and destroy the habitability of our world. The storm hit Seattle mid-December with pounding rain and 70 mile-an-hour winds, reaching 110 miles per hour near the slopes of the Cascade Mountains.

The ground was already soggy from the wettest November in Seattle history, and as the wind and rain uprooted trees, many fell on houses and cars, blocked roads and took down local power lines, cutting off heat and light to over a million residents in the city and surrounding areas. Thirteen people died. Sanitation systems overflowed, dumping tens of millions of gallons of raw sewage into Puget Sound.

A week later, nearly a hundred thousand people were still living in the cold and the dark. Although my own lights stayed on, the next street was dark, and I could drive ten minutes and pass block after block of blackened houses. Those affected joked at first about sleeping with mittens and down parkas, then grew increasingly testy as gas stations couldn't pump gas, supermarkets were closed and what seemed at first a brief interruption turned into days without the basics of modern human existence.

Now, a month later, the last residences are finally getting back their phone services. And 29,000 people just lost power again from yet another Seattle storm.

The December storm dominated our local news and made national headlines, preceding the blizzard that stranded five thousand travelers at the Denver airport. Both storms fit the predictive model of extreme weather events caused by global climate change, and ours fit the specific predictions for our region.

But other than a single Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist, I found no media commentator who raised the link to global climate change. For two weeks our newspapers, radio stations and TV stations talked about little else except the storm. Reporters interviewed victims, judged the performance of local utilities, suggested ways we could have been better prepared.

But by offering no larger context, they lost the chance to get people involved in shaping precisely the kinds of individual and common actions that might help prevent similar storms in the future. We'd encountered a profound teachable moment, then that moment was quickly lost.

This failure to draw broader conclusions was no exception. Last May, New England made national news with the worst storms and floods since a 1938 hurricane. In June, a 200-year storm flooded the Mid-Atlantic region. In July, in St. Louis, thunderstorms knocked out power to three quarters of a million people (the city's largest power loss ever), and then freezing rain returned in early December, two weeks before the Seattle storm, to leave another half million people without power for up to a week. Missouri and Illinois had record numbers of tornadoes, and western states record levels of forest fires. Meanwhile New York City saw balmy winter temperatures in the 60s.

Although you can't absolutely prove a specific exceptional event was triggered by global warming, they all fit the larger predicted pattern. Yet mainstream commentators drew few broader links. As Mark Twain once wrote, "Everybody talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it." Commentators certainly talked about these events, but by failing to place them in any broader context, they made it that much less likely that ordinary citizens will do anything to change a future that risks looking seriously ugly.

America's major media haven't been entirely silent on global warming. You could even say 2006 brought a sea change in their public acknowledgment of its gravity. If you really read the superb Time or Parade magazine cover stories, or even the coverage in Business Week and Fortune, you couldn't fail to be concerned.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, weather

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, winner of the 2005 Nautilus Award for the best book on social change.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great article!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 17, 2007 12:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No doubt the American Petroleum Institute bloggers will be cerowding up the comments section soon, but this article helps put things in the correct scientific perspective.

1) Cities and counties need to start making plans with global warming and extreme weather events in mind - Katrina is not an anomaly, and the only reason we didn't see another strong hurricane season is because of the current El Nino, which is associated with southward movement of the jet stream over the southern US - something that prevents hurricanes from forming.

2) We need to move away from fossil fuels and toward renewables of all sorts, including solar, wind and biofuels, as rapidly as possible - and that means ending oil imports, getting troops out of the worlds oil fields, and plowing all those resources into renewable energy develpment. This will mean tons of new jobs and a very healthy domestic economy, as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» $11 Billion, That is! Posted by: Douglas
» That is possibly true but Posted by: AdamG
The Weatherman Stole the Handle?
Posted by: edith on Jan 17, 2007 1:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To comment only on the spate of warmer than normal temps in the Midwest and East, at least until the second week in January, I would mention that meteorologists (including experts from NOAA) were hauled out on a variety of network and local news programs I viewed in January to state that this year's weather was primarly due to El Nino effect on wind patterns that normally bring Arctic air down into the USA. Climate change generally was mentioned, but no expert was cited to blame the specific warmer temps of this season in the US on human-caused climate change.

I haven't the slightest idea if these certified meteorologists are correct or not. (Perhaps they are all secret agents of the Edelman World Wide Conspiracy, as no doubt signalled by the cognescenti and Illuminati having placed a one-eyed Pyramid on the back of our dollar bills.)

But if El Nino or Donald Trump's hotels are the cause of daffodils in January, so be it.

If not, blame the weatherman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Weatherman Stole the Handle? Posted by: feduphoosier
Paul Loeb, a vague and aimless Boomer
Posted by: eddie torres on Jan 17, 2007 1:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, maybe Washington's state-wide discomfort is caused by compulsive resource importation. Your coffee isn't grown anywhere near Seattle.

Anyway, Boomer #7 (Bill Gates) is in charge of all the money. And he's shipping it to Africa.

Tough luck, meth-trash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Meth-trash"? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Nonsense
Posted by: ng1944 on Jan 17, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We just got rid of extremists on the right,
here they are, extremists on the left.
Both wants to rule by fear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nonsense Posted by: feduphoosier
» "sustainable" industrialism... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
High and mighty
Posted by: Mike's Perspective on Jan 17, 2007 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I applaud authors who have enough energy to keep writing about this and saying the same things, over and over again. I applaud them because, one of these days - probably after it's too late (if it isn't already) - enough people will begin to listen and we can thank the Loebs of the world for their prescience and collectively regret our sloth. But I must say, by now it should be possible to have a website with various facts and predictions enumerated in such a way as to allow the Loebs to efficiently publish an essay reading "A12! CC61! FZA498! Thank you." Paul, sadly, this is old news now. In addition to reminding us about what we already know, please tell us something we haven't already heard a million times. And please stop preaching only to the choir. Your point about some of the Evangelicals is a good one, but I suspect Ted Cizak's efforts are not making a huge dent and are primarily helpful to Liberal columnists who want to appear to be inclusive. Paul, from your essay, I gather you live in a pleasant Seattle suburb. Is your home solar or wind powered? What materials were used to build it? How much did you pay for it? What are you doing to be part of the solution (besides writing books and essays for the self-righteous or guilt-laden middle and upper class)? My point is not to insult you. My point is to publicly ask what we're doing to reach the working and lower middle classes, on whose backs we build our soapboxes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: High and mighty Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: High and mighty Posted by: Mike's Perspective
Charging towards the Big Melt
Posted by: feduphoosier on Jan 17, 2007 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those of you still convinced that - should the earth actually be warming - you yourself have nothing to do with it... please read this, and think about all the consumables you are buying.

Then, good luck in finding anything that isn't made in China. Do we produce anything at all now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Denial Isn't Just a River In Egypt
Posted by: bttl on Jan 17, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why aren't the major media outlets telling it like it is? Well, for starters, they don't actually get it for the most part. Climate change is science based and our media better understands Paris Hilton or whatever the latest celeb gossip is- and that goes for the media viewers and readers. It's not "sexy" and so it gets pushed into the background. As well, our media and the public, at least in the US has a very short attention span. This is a long-term problem- so no dice.

Much of our media is beholden to various political entities as well. Does anyone actually expect FOX fo be upfront on climate change? Do you know how many people get their news from FOX media? Quite a few.

Additionally, I don't know that it's good for business-media is very advertising dependent and confronting people with their out of control consumption and driving as a major contributor- well- that won't sell many ads.

And let us not forget denial- a biggie. Collectively we don't want to undestand it- or we'd need to either do something about it which won't be easy and will cause pain- or admit that we just don't give a damm. Kind of like those bumper stickers that proclaim that the driver is spending their children's inheritance. That is what we are all doing collectively as a country- and do we want to admit it outright?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The media can't handle complexity Posted by: ReallyBearish
Warmest year on record
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Jan 17, 2007 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The earth has been around for along time... records have not... as far as I know only since 1870 correct me if I am wrong...The earth is also very complex what with prevailing winds and odd weather phenomena...so really the changes we are seeing are a snapshot of time. Now that said...Is it possible that we are changing our atmoshere? I guess it is possible,But nature is a very powerful force and weather is variable even from town to town. I farm on waters edge, and there have been entire summers where the folks on the other side of the water got COMPLETELY different weather than I did... It is not that big a body of water... but the difference was very noticable.
As for folks who say that science has come up with a consensus, I just have to say this.... FOLLOW the $$$$$$$$$$

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Warmest year on record Posted by: hennep
» RE: Warmest year on record Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Warmest year on record Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Warmest year on record Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Losing It
Posted by: Liger on Jan 17, 2007 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by Patrick J. Michaels
"What's behind the shameless demagoguery and character assassination being heaped on climate change "deniers"? What's behind the chilling calls for "Nuremberg trials" for dissenting scientists? Why has the green rhetoric escalated to lynch-mob proportions?"

Losing It

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

UK Commentator
Posted by: GoodByeToAmerica on Jan 17, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the original article:

" the worst storms and floods since a 1938 hurricane. In June, a 200-year storm flooded the Mid-Atlantic region. "

So this is not exceptional stuff! There is always a comment like "Worst since...." and a date near a 100 Years ago.

200 Yr Storms presumable come round , on average, every 200 years; who was even in Seattle 200 Yrs ago to notice?

My point being, not denying anything, but if you can always point to something worse, ages ago, why do you feel that thimngs have changed/are changing?

Your recent Ice Storms; "the worst since 1998...." and the worst before that was ...... etc etc.

Maybe the weather, is just the weather, we haven't seen nearly enough of it to know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Another denier Posted by: dkm
» RE: Another denier Posted by: Liger
» This is not exceptional. Posted by: GoodByeToAmerica
Once again, the led will have to lead the "leaders."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 17, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Initiatives to promote sustainable living will have to be local: from cities moving up to states, in defiance of Washington D.C., because our federal "leaders" owe too much to the mega-corporations that bankrooll them, and that have very little reason to threaten their own profit base. Corporations are inherently conservative, in that they block technologies that either undercut their established cashflow or cannot be monopolized.

Local initiatives DO work; Canada, for example, has national healthcare because of initiatives begun in the cities and then the individual provinces. As usual, change will come from the bottom up. Let's just hope it's soon enough, before nature spins out of control.

Also, the distinction between global warming and chaotic climate change needs to be made. When most people hear "global warming," the subconsious reaction is, "oh, i's going to be a little hotter in the summer." The REAL danger, though, and correctly stated in the article, is chaotic environmental change, form weather events that destroy life and property and, most importantly, disrupt food production, to the spread of diseases to locales without a history of immunity (like, for instance, Dengue Fever and West Nile Disease moving into North America.) A more accurate discription of what we face will change group psychology, and may make people more receptive to making, and demanding, the tough changes necessary to deal with the problem (which may be precisely why the corporate-owned media insists on referring to our coming global mega-emergency as the more benign "global warming.") It should be obvious that one cannot face a problem and fix a problem until one understands the problem. Right now, our population does not fully understand – and they are already fairly concerned by what they DO know.

(P.S. – There is another clean, inexhaustable energy source that has received barely any attention: Earth's interior heat. At a depth that we currently drill oil wells, the ground is hot enough too boil water in places where the Earth's crust is thin. Here in the West, Nevada is one of those places. Also, would the environment of the Mojave Desert be compromised by shading much of it with solar energy plants? It's near a population center/electrical grid concentration [Los Angeles] and the sun shines there nearly every day. If we can build Hoover Dam, we certainly can put a hundred solar plants in the Mojave. Why not?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gaia will kill us all if we don't change our wicked ways.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jan 17, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please understand that we are reaping what we've sown and Gaia, our mother, will fight back against parasites much like a human animal has antibodies that fight back against parasites that invade its body. Gaia doesn't not appreciate what we have done in our short time on her and is seeking revenge on us all. Whether its floods, pestilence, earthquakes, global warming, hurricanes, ice storms, or high winds she will take revenge on us! Be forwarned ye who doubt Gaia's wrath. Take heed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And May I Add...
Posted by: bob t on Jan 17, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that it is Pro-Lifers that are at the forefront arguing against the ever spreading death of people and our God given planet, of which we are just stewards and not owners. But then that is Pro-Lifer mentality, death of people, death of the Democratic Party(Rove promised that) and thus the death of our democratic 'system of checks and balances', death of the truth for at least the last six years and actually all the way back to Reagan and Pope John Paul II, death of our Constitution, death of Habeas Corpus, death of what was once a unified america which is now deeply polarized and just for political gain, death of Katrina victims due to Baby Bush stripping of funds for levee repair, death of the miners in W.Va. and South Carolina due to Bush stopping MSHA from doing it's job, death of unions that would have protected workers rights, death of families because both parents have to hold multiple jobs, death to the average, everyday, ordinary americans who live without health insurance, death of truth and honesty in Bushie politics, etc.etc. ad infinitum.
'nuff said---

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sustainable Models
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 17, 2007 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I was reading the article I was thinking about the fact that someone living off the grid would still have their heat, light and hot water- even in the middle of a neighborhood plunged into the pre-electrical era. I also thought about how directly appropriate that thought was and is.

Seattle, like most places, gets enough sun to allow modern solar technology to power all but the most inefficient homes. Even an older home with upgraded insulation, compact fluorescent lighting and high efficiency appliances could go off of the grid even that far north. It also doesn't cost that much any more.

The number I hear kicked around these days is 20-25k for a standard sized home to have solar electricity, solar water, etc complete with backup systems. Given the outrageous prices of today's homes that is certainly within the range of affordability and it pays for itself with savings on the utility bill in addition to the other environmental pluses. Existing homeowners in most places could afford such an investment from a second mortgage or re-fi, instead of cashing our equity for a land yacht SUV, splashy vacation or some other waste.

My point is that if those preaching about the global warming phenom aren't willing to invest in sustainable energy, how will we have any credibility with the public at large? The costs are now affordable for most people and are dropping at a consistent rate, even as the efficiency of such systems improves. The day to put up or shut up is close at hand.

It's time that those advocating start stepping up to the plate and set the example because nobody likes a hypocrite. My next home will be a custom built passive solar with active solar water and power. With any luck I will be able to do this in a year or two (fingers crossed) and will no longer have to be at the mercy of natural gas and electricity price cycles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sustainable Models Posted by: Trazom
At least we are making some progress
Posted by: dkm on Jan 17, 2007 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I forget who once said that the first reaction to a new idea is to attack it, then to accept that it might be applicable in special cases, and then to finally say we knew it all the time. Not too long ago an article like this would have produced a bunch of attack reactions. That most of the negative reactions are in the second category means that there may be some hope for saving civilization after all in some shape or form.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More information on this topic
Posted by: DrMike on Jan 17, 2007 12:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Additional information about this topic can be found in a recently published book titled Infinity's Rainbow: The Politics of Energy, Climate and Globalization. Information about this book can be founf at http://www.MichaelPByron.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

climate change, responsibility, and solutions
Posted by: dayahka on Jan 17, 2007 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we have a slight disruption to the "normal" pattern of someone's experience of the climate in Seattle and we have a call for action against global warming. Seattle and the area have had far worse storms and probably will have them again in the future. 13,000 years ago, remember, the whole area was buried under ice...Climate changes all the time. There is no normal or stable world-wide climate system. Humans have responded in the past and will have to respond again in the future when the climate changes...Yes, we have to think about the problems of food and shelter and energy production. America's energy infrastructure is in dire straits. But all of this is just on the SURFACE of the earth. There are alternative habitats besides the surface--underground and underwater--where we would not be bothered by climate changes on the surface. And if as many suspect it is normal climate variability that "causes" global warming or ice ages, then all the CO2 reductions in the world aren't going to help us...Anyway, there are alternatives to surface living, and any major storm is no grounds for suddenly calling for action on global warming (or cooling). We need to know what or who's responsible, then what we can do in response to real causes. That we should get rid of the entire petroleum-based energy system is obvious--because of the noxious fumes and extensive pollution, among other things, but not necessarily because of climate change. And it's no use waiting for national or international changes--each one of us has to prepare for the worst on our own. Only some massive catastrophe will move the masses--an inert politicians--but that might happen too late to do anything about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Earth Is Spinning Into The Sun And It's About To Explode!
Posted by: hole11 on Jan 17, 2007 4:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reserve your tickets to Mars now!

Dig about 20 feet down where ever you live. Take it's temperature. In twenty years if that reading goes up five degrees then start making plans. Otherwise don't bother me with these crappy warnings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Mass Delusion???
Posted by: gellero on Jan 19, 2007 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is plenty of info out there that disputes the hypothesis (NOT fact) of 'global warming http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/guide.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HERE'S ANOTHER LINK
Posted by: gellero on Jan 19, 2007 3:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Copy and paste into your browser.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/ N29/EDIT.jsp

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oops
Posted by: gellero on Jan 19, 2007 3:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just go to www.co2science.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Climate Change to Demand Reduction
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Jan 20, 2007 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's how it works. You get people all worked up about Priuses, ethanol, biomass, etc. Keep them arguing, but keep them also sucking on the straw stuck in our dwindling oil supplies.

Let the infrastructure fail. Let millions go without power. Each time you do it, a few more fall through the net, and demand is reduced proportionately.

Floods in New Orleans? Demand reduction. Icy roads, no money for snow removal, vehicle deaths? Demand reduction. Old people freezing in their homes? Demand reduction, and it frees up real estate as well!

Epidemics? No food in the stores? Riots? Demand reduction. Massive government crackdown with tank and automatic rifles? Demand reduction. Cities turned into free-fire zones? Demand reduction.

Nuclear strike? Demand reduction.

In otherwords, More For Us. It's just that Us isn't us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global warming & Reefer Madness. What's in common?
Posted by: SamFox on Jan 20, 2007 7:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Propaganda. With an agenda of course. Global warming's agenda is to bring nations under the UN's Kyoto Accord. Reefer Madness was to protect Hurst, the newspaper tycoon, investments in DuPont chemical. DuPont was just getting started with synthetic fabrics. Hemp was in the way...

http://www.jackherer.com/
for the rest of the story on why cannabis was linked to hemp & then criminalized.

For more on the global warming agenda:
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom71.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom23.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Rae/debra4.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel12.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Morrison/joyce15.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf183.htm

I know that the US was misled about cannabis & hemp. Mainstream media of the time played a big role. Even in the 60's we were smart enough to question the "man", especially when it came to cannabis, hemp & Nam. MSM has even more power & influence & is owned by the same kind of people as Hurst, who lied about Reefer Madness. Now we are to believe media has done a dazzling turn about & now only tells us the truth? Remember, this is the same media that many here say misleads about Iraq... The idea is to push
" A One World Gov. is our only hope" agenda. Hence the Kyoto Accord...

SamFox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And that faked Moon landing Posted by: YogiBear
A very weak leap of logic
Posted by: wordforager on Jan 31, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While global warming may be responsible for some or all of the recent climactic events we're seeing, there simply isn't any logical connection.

The Princeton Review's LSAT logic podcast addressed this same issue in the context of the unusually warm December experienced in the NE, and the truth is that no weather events can be directly attributed to global warming. We just don't have any evidence, and we don't have enough data to accurately predict cycles or patterns of any kind.

I'm not saying we shlouldn't wake up to our excesses, particularly involving fossil fuels, but this sort of knee-jerk unfounded extrapolation only makes people more suspicious and unlikely to take it seriously.

And please, do'ne ever quote Fox as being representative of "the media."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]