As I was sitting in the park reading Wired, flanked by two assholes sleeping in their running cars with the windows closed and air conditioning on (mind you, it's all of 74 degrees), I came across an editorial by Lawrence Lessig about Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Putting aside for a moment the issue of what constitutes factual information and politics, Lessig brings up an interesting point about journalism: Sometimes our need to be fair and objective can obscure the facts.
As someone with a degree in journalism, I have to admit that's weird. It's even more weird for someone that generally believes that life is a big gray area, not something that's black and white. I mean, I have to agree with him on this one. Here's why:
About halfway through, Gore cites two studies to explain why so many people remain so skeptical about global warming. The first looked at a random sample of almost 1,000 abstracts on climate change in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 and found that exactly zero doubted "that we’re causing global warming." The second surveyed a random sample of more than 600 articles about global warming in popular media between 1988 and 2002 and discovered that 53 percent questioned "that we’re causing global warming..." If any of the networks were so impertinent as to report what scientists know about global warming, could it withstand the inevitably well-orchestrated charge of bias?
Forget for a moment what you may think of Gore or the issue his film is about, and just soak up Lessig's comment there. How do you deal with that? If scientists work in the realm of the scientific method, which as far as I'm concerned leads to the establishment of fact, and as a journalist you've only got opinions, paid for in the political system, as your counterpoint, what is your ethical treatment of the story?
Ethically, you probably report both. I hate to think that's the best we can do, but it's probably true. The failure then, is placed on the people consuming this media. It's kind of like the bleed-lead thing I saw in Vegas. People ultimately consume what they like. That makes me sad for humanity.
That phenomenon is everywhere. It's there in political parties, racial divides, religions, etc. As hard as I try to have some faith in humanity, I fear we're a species of morons. Either we're too busy, or too lazy, to really figure out where we stand on things. Or maybe we just don't care. It's all kind of depressing.
This moron concurs. But it's not really phenomenon as much as it is business as usual.
We morons like easy, look-like-me, fast, simple (no gray) whatevers — product, music, movies and yes, news. We're the smart morons, but the rest of the normal ones don't look at it like us geniuses do. You've told me before years ago, society is full of stupid people. You shouldn't be too sad, you kind of knew this all along.
Sadly, news is a business just like anything else, a product that people sell. That's the real of it.
I'm curious to see how much of the film is dedicated to proving global warming and how much of the film is dedicated to proving that humans are causing it.
Well I'm pretty sure the shrinking glaciers aren't being imagined by anyone. And if scientists nearly universally believe that human factors cause it (there is one scientist who believes otherwise, saw him on ABCnews a few months ago), then I'm inclined to believe them. Tree hugging isn't science.
The movie is actually playing at several theatres in the area (http://www.cleveland.com/movies/index.ssf?finder=cleve&movieId=52989®ion=&x=49&y=7), unless of course you're like me and don't consider Regal a true theatre chain. Regardless, the movie is a must see -- and I might add that Al Gore is arguably one of the most entertaining (and funniest) people I've seen on the big screen in a long time.
If this trailer doesn't convince you to go see it, nothing will! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24
-Skydiving Jeff
Must ... resist ... urge ... to ... get ... involved ... in ... debate ... :)
But I will dispute the fact that there's a universal consensus among scientists or that the debate is over.
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
Here we go again ... Al Gore the brilliant politician of years past, who, as we all know, also invented the internet has now joined the Michael Moore school of journalism. The issue of Global Warning will continue to be debated and Mr. Gore's film offers no answers, only alarmist views to be soaked up by those all consuming media gluttons Jeff thinks so highly of.
While simple observation seems on the surface to indicate it is warmer, there is still no consistant evidence, pro or con, that the globe is warming. Anyone who takes the time can build a case for either point of view with ample scientific support from well intentioned and sincere scientists on both sides of the debate.
What I find really incredible is the arrogance of humanity to think that our pitiful actions have ANY lasting effect on the cycles of this planet. Good or bad. I grew up in the era when we cowered in the fear that a nuclear holocaust would leave the Earth barren. It did not happen. I have no doubt the Earth will warm and cool (that is called an ice age for those who have forgotten) many times in the millenia to follow and the human race will neither prevent or advance the cause.
Earth scientists are only beginning to understand our planet and this very debate shows how far we have to go. Our time on Earth is only a relative nanosecond in a day when compared to geologic history. Let's get on with the day and worry about things we can influence and stop the madness.
Jeff, I think your suspiscion about humans being a species of morons is being proven true right before your eyes!
It's pretty arrogant to diregard the opinions of the VAST majority of scientific experts in favor of a minority few who refuse to believe or admit that humans removing an enormous carbon sink from within the earth, converting it to a gas, and pumping it into the atmosphere does not have any adverse affect on the atmosphere.
The problem with the film is that it probably won't change anything. Those who prefer to live with their heads in the sand will continue to live that way, and those who do see and understand what is happening are already aware of the films argument.
One other thing, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. It's a fabricated media myth. Look it up sometime.
I've yet to see the film, but I hope to next week perhaps. Documentary style films can either present something in a compelling fashion, or just be completely over the top. Look at Michael Moore's movies. He makes a case that gets you thinking, then throws away all of his momentum by coming up with ridiculous conspiracy theories and Fox News-style sensationalism (ironic, since he criticizes Fox for the very same thing).
But hey, he made Moses feel like an asshole in his own home, and that's comedy gold.
iceracer, did you actually see the movie, or did you walk out after seeing the trailer for the Santa Clause 3? If you had paid attention, you would never have said that the movie "offers no answers", because the entire conclusion consists of one solution after another; the credits even list dozens of ways any individual can help the environment. But I digress... you probably believe the sky is orange anyways.
My feeling after seeing the movie was that 1) there was an enormous amount of research presented which indicated humans are harming the environment; 2) while I still remain somewhat skeptical, I've found little credible evidence elsewhere to reject the movie's viewpoints.
Taking that into account, my grand conclusion is this: If I'm wrong, and the movie is wrong, and all of those who believe that we're destroying the planet are wrong... if we spend the money, time, and resources to change, then all we've wasted is some money, time, and resources.
But if we're right, and the world fails to change its ways, then ultimately we're DOOMED -- and there will be no way to reverse the incalcuable economic devastation or the loss of life afterwards.
I'm no environmentalist, but to me, it seems like a no-brainer.
-Skydiving Jeff
The theory that even if we're wrong, it can't hurt to make changes, is flawed, because you're assuming that the solution can't possibly cause problems worse than the original problem. There is debate in that area. Unfortunately, there are too many people who believe there is only one side to the story and will quickly discount anything outside of that box.
Ultimately, the debate soon won't matter. There is no future in a cheap energy oil economy anyway. And how much more of our world do we want to devote to giant interstates and ugly suburban slums?
It blows my mind that people spend so much time fighting these things instead of taking a huge opportunity for economic gain and running with it.
Aha ... it seems I have struck a nerve or two. Please take the time to re-read my comments and try to separate an emotional reaction from a pragmatic one.
Re: Gore, the internet and media fabrications that is exactly my first point. Get past the headline.
I did not suggest anywhere that there was not evidence to support global warming, in fact, I acknowledged it. Glaciers are shrinking and there has been a nominal increase in average temperature over the last several decades. What I stated is that there is ample research to support an opposite point of view and both deserve attention by the student. Read the science behind the debate and take the time to understand it. It is dangerous to simply read a conclusion and accept it as absolute. For those who cannot find a contrary view to almost any discussion I suggest you are not trying very hard.
I stand my by question as to the arrogance of mankind when it comes to bringing massive and lasting effect on the planet as a whole, not on mankind itself. There is no question in my mind that we do terrible things that adversely impact our environment and further no question that we can do a better job of managing our place in the environment. I even agree that Gore's film has well intentioned suggestions to manage the problem, but understand in the big picture it is simply micromanagement and will not alter Earth's natural cycles of warming and cooling. I said it offers no answers, when perhaps I should have said permanent answers. What I did point out is how little we really know and understand this far into the debate. That is not to say we shouldn't do what we can on a day to day basis to keep our house clean.
My final point and the one I apparently did a poor job of conveying is that while global warming is an interesting topic, there are so many ways we can use our time and energy to move forward on so many fronts that will benefit mankind as a whole it is sad that we fall to quixotic quests when there is so much we can do on a daily basis both collectively and individually that can have immediate results.
Feedback welcome ...........
It's funy how the meteorologist among us seems to disagree with the notion that global warming exists. I assume he is much more knowledgeable on the topic than most.