The Global Warming "Debate"

Over the last 20 years or so a trend in journalism has begun to drive me really crazy. It's the confusion over objectivism and perpetuating a lie.

Journalists, not to be confused with the nitwits on cable tv, are supposed to present the facts... not their own bias. It's a difficult task but something the pros strive to do their entire career. Usually that means presenting the various sides of a debate as equally valid opinions so that their viewers and readers can make an informed decision of their own.

Unfortunately, when one side is favored by the facts, they still feel the need to present the alternative viewpoint. It's a bit like doing a story about life as an African American and feeling the need to interview the KKK to represent the "other side".  Sometimes there is no justifiable opposition... why pretend there is?

Unfortunately in many scientific subjects this alternative worldview has been represented by the Republican Party.

Paul Krugman calls it for what it is:

if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

A good example is George Will who has developed a nasty habit of making stuff up to fit his agenda... like this gem:

According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

The ACRC immediately disputed the claim and as you can see from these pictures it's obvious George Will is a rather bold liar.

But like most skeptics, he also attempts the old "if you don't believe that..." strategy by brushing aside the extraordinary impacts of global warming actually suggesting it's good for us.

A person with a functioning brain stem should immediately see that this means his previous argument is complete BS.  You can't simultaneously say that global warming isn't occurring and then argue that it's actually good for us.

The final tactic is to manipulate data in such a way dishonest way that it seems to support your position.  Will notes that over the last 10 years the trend has stalled or even reversed.  In fact he's right.  There are always small fluctuations based on other climate phenomenon, particularly the Pacific ocean's temperature fluctuations known as El Nino and La Nina.

However, the broader trend is the important part... not day to day disruptions.  Can an honest person really look at this graph and say that the trend isn't clearly in the direction of warming?

Unfortunately the media feels that these fabrications are legitimate views and therefore worthy of broadcasting to the public.  As a result, people are given the false impression that there is still a debate on the issue.  There isn't.  There are no reputable scientists, short of the shills paid by industry, that do no support the consensus opinion that the world is warming and it's due to man's industrial activity generating more greenhouse gases than the climate system can take. 

What's the word for a person who is paid to support the destruction of our planet?  Krugman suggests traitor, I think that might be too kind.