Politics and Media

Media coverage shows that in recent decades the global instrumental temperature record have increased. Most agree that the cause is mainly because  human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. Although very few disagree they hold non-committal positions. While in other countries the media say that they have done very little research on climate change the U.S. has widely studied their information released to the media. Some researchers think that the media coverage of political issues such as climate change is fair but other think it is biased. Some think that the research is not recent nor concerned with the environmental issues like climate change.

(Climate change skepticism)  Most people do not read scientific reports, blogs or specialist websites, or the real reports of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The facts of climate change science should be reported in a straightforward way by the newspapers and television, considerable differences exist between the editorial lines taken by the different media organisations about the reality and seriousness of climate change. There is a very strong relationship between the political perspective of a media organisation and its position on climate UK newspaper the Guardian is known to make up things with the facts but exaggerate them. The U.S. Wall Street Journal is far more likely to carry a skeptical opinion. Media-generated controversy is also often cited as a  reason for skepticism about climate change.

(Geo-engineering) Shiny things absorb less heat when left in the sun. If the earth could be made a little shinier it would be less influenced by global warming. Ways to brighten the earth such as adding nano scale specks of salt to low clouds, making them whiter or putting a thin haze of particles into the stratosphere are the province of “Geo-engineering”. The small band of scientists who have been studying this over the past decade or so has mostly been using computer models. Some of the scientists are not proposing outdoor brighten clouds, or spewing sulfur particles from underneath a large balloon 20 km in the sky. Some are against the idea of geo-engineering and any experiments in the area, even if they pose no immediate risk the the environment. They seem to think they have an idea that some, possibly many countries having the power to change the climate for the whole planet, a geopolitical nightmare. Even modest experiments in geo-engineering, according to this are the beginnings of a slippery slope. The will engender a false sense of security and domesticate an idea that should have always remained outrageous. Our planet is not getting cooler and the pressures on the climate are unlikely to go away. It is therefore not to hard to imagine a work, decades ahead, in which emissions are falling but temps are rising steeply. The ability to adapt to these changes has stretched to far. Geo-engineering may prove impossible, politically or scientifically. It may be too dangerous to countenance and the circumstances which might make it an appealing complements to cutting emissions may never arise.

(Of warming and warnings) Average land and sea-surface temps rose by 33.5 F from 1880-2012: Sea levels rose by 3.2 mm a year in 1993-2010. Twice as fast as in 1901-2012. The acidity of the oceans surface has risen by 26% since the start of the industrial revolution. The impact of all this change can be seen mostly on natural systems. Arctic sea ice for example is shrinking around 4% a decade and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass. Marine species are heading toward the poles to find cooler waters. The report is all doom and gloom therefore refer to the middle of the century and later. Then the IPCC suggests there could be “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts”. Forecasts that far ahead come with significant qualifications. The size of population makes a big difference to carbon emissions and climate change.

(Face the Nation) On the most recent editions of CBS’s Face the Nation and Fusions America with Jorge Ramos, presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio was asked about his past remark that he doesn’t believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate. While Fusion’s Jorge Ramos made clear that Rubio’s claim runs counter to the findings that 97% of climate scientists, Bob Schieffer did not.