fable wrote:I've heard the word "scare" used to mean "things that aren't true, but are stated to invoke a mood of fear and hysteria." Is that how you are using it, here? Do you believe the piece is engaging in fearmongering without facts? Or does it have facts, and the fearmongering is counterproductive? Or are you and I simply outside her intended audience?
I am definitely outside.
About fear mongering:
This tactic has been, is and will ever be successfully employed by the politicians. I would not say it is always about things that are not true. I would say it is all about the garnish.
Good examples are the terrorism scare and the social security scare. Both are successfully used by the current administration to further its political goals. Is it counterproductive? Not from a winner’s standpoint.
I did not say that the article was engaging in fearmongering with or without facts. I maintain that the politicians are going to use the ominous images of “raising sea level”, “scorching heat”, and “deadly storms” as a part of their battle for the White House.
The article contains some facts. But these facts have little to do with the science per se.
In short, this article is giving an account of how the issue was historically handled (and mishandled) by various politicians and special interests groups. I already mentioned the emotional palette used to describe different politicians and their action (and inaction). Quite understandable, given the obvious political orientation. I am sure, Mr. Hannity would be no less eloquent, in his own special way (I would enjoy a Hannity-Begley debate :mischief: ).
BTW, do you have a link to a rebuttal article by contributing Editor Robert J. Samuelson, published by Newsweek, where Ms. Begley's article is described as a "fundamentally misleading", "vast oversimplification", and "a highly contrived story"? I could not find it.
Now, I would like to review the Logic:
1. There is the "Overwhelming Science" presenting the irrefutable evidence of CO2 emissions being the main culprit of current climate change (which is therefore man-made);
2. The honest, unbiased majority of scientists support this Overwhelming Science;
3. Therefore, if a (contrarian) scientist does not support it, he/she is biased and most certainly is bribed by...
4. ...the Big Oil, who else?
5. Historically, the Big Oil has been, by definition, up to no good...
6. ...therefore, whatever Big Oil says or does this time around, must be wrong and wicked as well, because that is the nature of the beast.
Well, I am no fan of the big corporations. They have their own agenda that have little to do with mine, and I can easily imagine that the Big Oil would go above and beyond to preserve the status quo.
However, I have a little problem with the assumption #1 that the scientific evidence is "overwhelming". The author does not address any scientific controversy at all. In her mind, there is no doubt. The science is overwhelming, period, paragraph.
Anyone who expresses a doubt is either a part of the well oiled "denial machine" or a victim of the malicious "paralyzing fog".
Another little problem is funding. All research has to be funded.
In the Live Talk about climate change (August 8), somebody asked Ms Begley a question about funding. The answer was rather interesting:
Question: You mention who is funding the "global warming deniers", but just who is financing the "global warming advocates"? Obviously, all the scientists being named in these reports are not doing this for free. I'd like to know where their funding is coming from - what are their political leanings?
Sharon Begley: I hear this argument so often, but it never ceases to puzzle me. There is a difference between the $$ going for ads, PR etc and the $$ going to do research in Greenland and Antarctica, to take ice cores, to make atmospheric measurements needed improve climate models, to study the physics of clouds . . . Scientists don't care which way the answer comes out. They guy who disproved global warming would win the jackpot in terms of prestige and reputation. Of course scientists who do climatology are paid, just as cancer researchers and plasma physicists and every other kind of scientist is paid to expand the sum total of human knowledge (and produce cool spinoffs like the internet, lasers, MRIs, CT scans, cell phones . . .) But to equate that with paid propaganda seems ludicrous.
Ms. Begley did not answer the question, did she? Yet, there are allegations of numerous research grants and funding being readily available to scientists whose research is linked to the “overwhelming science”.
“Scientists don't care which way the answer comes out”. Not them contrarian ones though. I suppose, one evil entity is probably AAPG (American Association of
Petroleum Geologists) with over 30,000 members. AARG called IPCC reports “wildly distorted and politicized”.
My personal concern is the global pollution of air, water and soil, not just CO2 emissions (which is a part of the pollution problem).
