Our modern media is fixed on the idea of “balanced” reporting rather than factual reporting. You find it across all topics and issues and with many of these topics a “balanced” view is okay because the nature of the issue is generally opinion anyway. On the topic of climate change, however, it isn’t a matter of opinion, but rather, it is factual. It should, therefore, be reported as fact with no need to fabricate a “balanced” scenario. The following is an excerpt from consortiumnews.com written by Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang that details how climate deniers are led by means of confusion on the topic of climate change…
With the new attention that the I.P.C.C. report brings to the science of global warming, in coming weeks and months more than a few serious news reporters will be tempted in the name of “balance” to quote the deniers — journalists call them “skeptics” – who have presented increasingly discredited messages: Global warming is not happening. Or if it is, it is not caused by carbon dioxide emissions or other human activity. Or, well, it won’t have an impact — we’ll be fine.
Who is saying what?
–Fred Singer, Science and Environmental Policy Project: “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.” Oh, yeah? Acting under U.S. Supreme Court direction, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that CO2 is a pollutant because of the harm it causes.
–Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute: “Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.” Misleading, to say the least: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
For those who write about global warming, spreading the pronouncements of fringe “skeptics” doesn’t show balance. For those who read about global warming, it equates serious climate science and evaluation of peer-reviewed reports with the declarations of individuals, most lacking background in climate research, who are often funded by those standing to profit if the United States fails to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
Exxon, for example, gave $2.8 million to the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute alone from 1998 to 2012, according to corporate tax records cited in a Greenpeace report.
Continue reading the article –> here.
It seems as though it takes a catastrophic event to hit a developed country for the people to see that the problem is widespread and doesn’t just impact “somebody else”. You could use this line of thinking with a number of events ranging from school shootings to natural disasters. Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy have brought forth many new questioners of climate change. It takes something to hit at home to really start seeing the bigger picture. The difference with climate change, however, is that there is no hiding from it. It impacts every living thing on the planet.
It should seem obvious that our planet needs to switch to using renewable sources of energy to not only keep our planet clean and functional, but also to save money. High costs are the obstacles thrown forward to the public by those opposing renewable energy. This line of thinking is fatally flawed and is truly an outright lie. Society can’t afford NOT to change to renewables for a multitude of reasons. From the sustainability of life to the economic savings that renewable energy sources provide, the decision to make the change away from fossil fuels needs to happen very soon. Paul Brown, writing at the Climate News Network, writes,
Burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas adds significantly to global warming and will in time exhaust finite reserves. It also wastes resources which the world urgently needs to conserve for other purposes, according to a study released exclusively to the Climate News Network.
Dr. Matthias Kroll conducted a study titled, “The Monetary Cost of the Non-Use of Renewable Energies”, where he discusses the monetary costs associated with our non-use of renewable energy sources. From his study Kroll writes,
It is often claimed that renewables are still too costly and not yet competitive with conventional energy sources. But what costs are incurred when renewable energies are not used? Every day during which potential renewable energy sources are not utilised but exhaustible fossil fuels burnt instead speeds up the depletion of these non-renewable fuels. Using burnt fossil fuels for non-energy related purposes (e.g. in the petro-chemical industry) in the future is obviously impossible. Thus, their burning – whenever they could have been replaced by renewables – is costly capital destruction. This study concludes that, estimated conservatively, the future usage loss resulting from our current oil, gas and coal consumption is between 3.2 and 3.4 trillion US Dollars per year.1
The burning of finite fossil fuels is the use of energy that is non-renewable and gone forever. The depletion of these energy sources is a sure thing. It will happen and when that time comes, all of those things that we have and use every day will no longer be made. All of your electronics, toys, many medicines, and numerous other non-energy applications will be gone. We have energy sources that are free and that can not only sustain us, but make our planet a much cleaner and much more beautiful one to live on. The time is now for our leaders to take this topic seriously as our children and subsequent generations’ futures are at stake.
A very good article on Truthdig today with Noam Chomsky….
Romney and Obama: Too Cowardly to Talk About What Really Matters
Posted on Oct 6, 2012
|Andrew Rusk (CC BY 2.0)|
|Noam Chomsky stands with a crowd of sympathizers.|
Acclaimed social philosopher Noam Chomsky wants you to know that presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are ignoring two of the gravest threats to humankind: climate change and nuclear war.
Chomsky points to a study from the Climate Vulnerability Monitor released in late September that found that the current predictions of the effects of global warming would be regressive for the world economy.
“The study was widely reported elsewhere but Americans have been spared the disturbing news,” Chomsky writes. The Democrats’ and Republicans’ official stances on climate change were reviewed in Science magazine’s Sept. 14 issue, he continues. “In a rare instance of bipartisanship, both parties demand that we make the problem worse.”
In 2008, both party platforms had devoted some attention to how the government should address climate change. Today, the issue has almost disappeared from the Republican platform – which does, however, demand that Congress “take quick action” to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency, established by former Republican President Richard Nixon in saner days, from regulating greenhouse gases. And we must open Alaska’s Arctic refuge to drilling to take “advantage of all our American God-given resources.” We cannot disobey the Lord, after all.
The platform also states that “We must restore scientific integrity to our public research institutions and remove political incentives from publicly funded research” – code words for climate science. The Republican candidate Mitt Romney, seeking to escape from the stigma of what he understood a few years ago about climate change, has declared that there is no scientific consensus, so we should support more debate and investigation – but not action, except to make the problems more serious. The Democrats mention in their platform that there is a problem, and recommend that we should work “toward an agreement to set emissions limits in unison with other emerging powers.” But that’s about it. President Barack Obama has emphasized that we must gain 100 years of energy independence by exploiting fracking and other new technologies – without asking what the world would look like after a century of such practices. So there are differences between the parties: about how enthusiastically the lemmings should march toward the cliff. Read more…
What is sacred to you? What are the things that you value above all others? Are they tangible or intangible? Lately I have been thinking a lot about my own beliefs and the things that are most meaningful in my life. Family is obvious and I think most would say that they agree, but moving beyond family can stretch your mind. Other things that are sacred to me would include my faith, freedom, education, healthcare, and the earth itself along with a belief that humanity is, ultimately, good.
For me, calling something sacred is saying that I can’t live with out that something. By and large, I would say that many people hold these same things as sacred. So my question is this…why do people so easily give up what they hold sacred? Presently, we, as a society, as world citizens, are being held hostage by a very small number of corporate elitists that hold only one thing sacred…money. They have a lot of money. In fact, they have most of it, and with that money comes power and they are trampling over the things that many of us hold sacred.
In the west, they (the elite) are using the banner of Jesus to invoke fear in the evangelical base to ensure that they control a major political party. They are, essentially, hijacking a religion for political and monetary gain. In our post 9/11 era, freedoms are being eroded almost daily as we are seeing the rise of a police state.
They are invoking a state of fear and hiding behind “national security” to justify this iron fist rule. The elite have nearly completed their take-over of the education system. Our textbooks are filled with non-truths and spun in such a way to promote nationalism. Our universities are being infiltrated and funded by movement conservative think-tanks.
Healthcare? I could go on and on about this and I have in many previous posts, but the fact of the matter is that the United States does not have a health care system. To be truthfully named would be to call it a sick-care system. Providers charge sky-high rates for “care” and then give us pills to mask our symptoms. If you don’t have insurance…well, that is too bad as you will probably have serious financial problems.
Now, what about the earth itself? What about the air we breathe and the water we drink? We have a problem here people. Our climate is changing. I have long been a skeptic of global warming, but the fact of matter is that world is getting warmer. We read books and watch movies like “War of the Worlds”, and “Independence Day”, and we are united against aliens who want to “consume all of the natural resources” and leave a dead planet. Well, folks, we are doing that very thing right now. I won’t even mention the environmental atrocities in China, but rather, stay right here in North America. We have coal companies completely destroying the Appalachian Mountains with their mountain top strip mining. In their wake they are leaving lakes and rivers of poison along with air that is unbreatheable. We also have the Tar Sands in Alberta. This is an aerial view of the tar sands area before extraction and since…
National Geographic has a slide show that shows the changes to the area over time. NASA scientist James Hansen is quoted as saying with regard to production of the tar sands…
“If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.”
Well, they have proceeded. With the Keystone pipeline and the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, we should have environmental disasters of epic proportions that should effectively destroy rivers, streams, lakes, air quality, wildlife habitat and the environment as a whole. Why would they do something so risky? Why do they do these things that are irreparable? The almighty dollar is why. They also have little consequence to their actions. Sure, they may get fined, but that is simply “the cost of doing business”.
The time is now to stand up to those stomping on what we hold sacred. If we are silent we are siding with them. We need to take back our planet. We need to fight for our freedoms. We need to seek the truth. We need to demand health care reform and not look at health care as a privilege, but rather, a right. We need to fight for the planet. We need to protect the air and the water. We need to protect the land, the trees, the animals, and the fish in the oceans. I believe that humanity is good and that people are waking up to lies that they are being fed every day. I believe that all of us hold things that are sacred to us and that we can’t live without. The question is this….Do you have the courage to fight for what is sacred to you?