Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming
09-26-2006, 05:42 AM
#1
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 21,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm...=rep&id=263759
HOT & COLD MEDIA SPIN CYCLE: A CHALLENGE TO JOURNALISTS WHO COVER GLOBAL WARMING
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Contact: Marc Morano (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) Matt Dempsey (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov)
SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED MONDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media’s coverage of climate change.
Global Warming -- just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood’s involvement in the issue. And of course I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media pedaled a coming ice age.
From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years. Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of London’s Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism.
During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.
...
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Contact: Marc Morano (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) Matt Dempsey (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov)
SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED MONDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media’s coverage of climate change.
Global Warming -- just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the senator who has spent more time educating about the actual facts about global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood’s involvement in the issue. And of course I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media pedaled a coming ice age.
From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years. Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Just last week, the vice president of London’s Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism.
During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.
...
09-26-2006, 06:14 AM
#2
G35
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: NW NJ
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" C. Little
We are definitely altering the Earth's systems. To what extent is impossible to tell. Yet.
I give it about 200 more years before humans look at current history and say "You fools!"
We are definitely altering the Earth's systems. To what extent is impossible to tell. Yet.
I give it about 200 more years before humans look at current history and say "You fools!"
09-26-2006, 10:10 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is impossible for humans to predict weather systems. Even today's super computers can only do very small ecosystems. It is an error to say that global warming is absolutely coming soon, but it is also an error to say that it will not come. We just really do not know.
However, pollution does have major tangable effects on ecosystems besides global warming. If we are not careful, we may change something that will come back to haunt us.
However, pollution does have major tangable effects on ecosystems besides global warming. If we are not careful, we may change something that will come back to haunt us.
09-26-2006, 02:51 PM
#6
lots and lots of fail
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
09-26-2006, 06:18 PM
#7
Stuff and things.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inhofe is kind of a nutcase. There are legitimate scientific arguments to be raised against global warming, but Inhofe is not the guy I trust to do it.
March 2002, Inhofe said:
"One of the reason I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."
In other words, god sent terrorists to attack the United States because we weren't supportive enough of Israel. and we deserved it. On behalf of New York and all Americans, fuck you James Inhofe.
I don't care about anything this guy thinks about anything.
March 2002, Inhofe said:
"One of the reason I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."
In other words, god sent terrorists to attack the United States because we weren't supportive enough of Israel. and we deserved it. On behalf of New York and all Americans, fuck you James Inhofe.
I don't care about anything this guy thinks about anything.
Last edited by benjamin; 09-27-2006 at 03:00 AM. Reason: Grammar
09-26-2006, 09:22 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 7,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inhofe is kind of a nutcase. There are legitimate scientific arguments to be raised against regarding global warming, but Inhofe is not the guy I trust to do it.
March 2002, Inhofe said:
"One of the reason I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."
In other words, god sent terrorists to attack the United States because we weren't supportive enough of Israel. and we deserved it. On behalf of New York and all Americans, fuck you James Inhofe.
I don't care about anything this guy thinks about anything.
March 2002, Inhofe said:
"One of the reason I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."
In other words, god sent terrorists to attack the United States because we weren't supportive enough of Israel. and we deserved it. On behalf of New York and all Americans, fuck you James Inhofe.
I don't care about anything this guy thinks about anything.
My question, how much money did Inhofe make from speacial interest before making these claims?
09-27-2006, 05:38 AM
#9
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 21,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Benjamin, Duff Man
:blah:
Originally Posted by Duff Man
My question, how much money did Inhofe make from speacial interest before making these claims?
I am reminded of a question the media often asks me about how much I have received in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic answer is ‘Not Enough,’ -- especially when you consider the millions partisan environmental groups pour into political campaigns.
Last edited by reno96teg; 09-27-2006 at 05:42 AM.
09-27-2006, 01:35 PM
#10
I need sleep...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NH
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I think that humans are affecting earth due to the by-products of our existence? Yes I do. This may be a surprise to some but I am actually a big conservationist, avid recycler, supporter of alternative fuels, and want the environment protected. But I also want it done responsibly. Do I buy into all the hype that people like Al Gore try to scare us with? Absolutely not. And the reason is that scientist that disagree with the industry norm of Global Warming and its effects are not given the grants that they need for their research. Either you toe the line or you get no money. Global Warming is something that we need to address, and the excessive use of fossil fuels is a problem. But signing onto an accord like Kyodo will do more harm to the US than good. I agree with it in principle, and in a perfect world it is great, but when applied in the reality that is today this would have a huge negative impact on the US economy. I think Inhofe makes a lot of very good points that some will simply discredit because they are ignorant on the situation and toe the party line.
