Politically biased media climate coverage is not a coincidence
Let’s be honest – the global warming debate isn’t about science by Dana Nuccitelli Friday 4 October 2013 theguardian.comThe scientific evidence on human-caused global warming is clear. Opposition stems from politics, not science.The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans have caused most, and probably all of the rapid global warming over the past 60 years. Approximately 97 percent of climate experts and peer-reviewed climate science studies agree…….
Politically biased media climate coverage is not a coincidence
The scientific evidence is what it is, and it has no political bias. The same is not true of the media outlets that cover the topic. It’s not a coincidence that politically conservative tabloids and newspapers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Australian, and Wall Street Journal spend a disproportionate amount of time amplifying the voices of the less than 3 percent of climate contrarian scientists, as well as many non-scientist contrarians.
It’s certainly not the case that David Rose has some brilliant insight into the state of climate science that climate scientists don’t have. He and his fellow climate contrarians simply approach the question backwards. They start from their political ideological opposition to climate solutions and work backwards, seeking out cherry picked evidence to justify their predetermined conclusions, thus ignoring the 97 percent of inconvenient scientific evidence. This climate contrarianism ideological bias is illustrated in a new study, summarized by Graham Readfearn:
“if you’re a conservative who believes the world runs best when businesses operate in a “free market” with little government interference, then the chances are you don’t think human-caused climate change represents a significant risk to human civilisation.”
Let’s debate the solutions
Even if you’re not convinced by the scientific evidence, you should support taking action to mitigate global warming. What if you’re wrong, as the body of scientific evidence indicates is the case? ……
We need conservatives to be constructive, not obstructive
Ultimately this climate ‘debate’ is not about science. The scientific evidence is crystal clear that humans are causing rapid global warming. The longer we wait to do something about it, the more climate change we commit ourselves to, and higher the chances are for a climate catastrophe. From a risk management perspective, failing to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is just plain stupid. Opposition to climate action isn’t about the science, it’s about the politics and policies.
So let’s debate those policies. The more input we have from different political and ideological perspectives, the better crafted the solutions will be. After all, Republicans came up with the concept of cap and trade as an alternative to government regulation of pollutants, and it was a good, successful idea.
Denying the science and obstructing the solutions will only make the problem worse. It also results in climate solutions that are far from ideal, like US government greenhouse gas regulations instead of legislation allowing the free market to solve the problem. We need everyone on board to help craft the best possible climate solutions and help grow the economy in the process.
Climate change is a situation that fits the adage “you’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.” Be part of the solution.
No comments yet.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Leave a comment