Lingering Denial

by Sheldon Rampton — February 18, 2009 - 1:25pm
Share/Save Share this

The "majority of American journalists covering climate change, energy, and environment understand that human industry is primarily responsible for global warming," writes Curtis Brainard. Unfortunately, "a small minority of pundits -- most of whom are talking heads and columnists, rather than hard news reporters" is "still trying to deny the well-established basics of climate science. The terrible irony is, that minority might reach more eyes and ears than all of the serious beat reporters combined." Brainard singles out Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, Chris Matthews, Charles Krauthammer and George Will, along with "Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and various anchors on Fox News," who apparently "don't know the difference between weather and climate" and "continue to contradict the news and editorial departments' otherwise solid understanding of climate science. ... The far larger volume of quality climate-news reporting, which reflects an accurate understanding of the basic science, should far and away drown out the claptrap spewed by misinformed talking heads and columnists. But it doesn't, and polls continue to show the majority of the pubic still does not understand the fundamental scientific evidence for global warming."

Main Source: 
Columbia Journalism Review, February 18, 2008

Comments

deniers

Submitted by Anonymous on February 26, 2009 - 9:03am.

To me the term denier means those who deny that climate change is happening- anonymous seems to apply the opposite meaning.

That global warming has happened is beyond dispute. What effect man-made activities have had on this is still debatable, but it is clear that it is not zero.

Editorial Department "solid understanding of climate change?"

Submitted by Anonymous on February 24, 2009 - 9:14am.

Who wrote that?

Do you think we're all absolutely nuts or did you really mean to say something other than "the editorial departments solid understanding" of the climate change /weather.

You really weren't kidding...were you? On an issue of this scientific magnitude that has scientists scrambling and debating one another - you're really so arrogant as to make a distinction between reporters and editorial staff superior understanding of the scientific subject matter over the mere 'columnists/talking-heads/pundits.'

Really...so this is why reporters report, because they really are the ones with the full understanding of each issue? They teach climate change in Journalism School...or do you all pick that up as a hobbie.

This illustrates the fundamental problem with media...it went from reporting the facts of the story and leaving interpretation to the audience, to this current state of 'we're smarter than eveyone because people are listening to / reading us."

People go to the circus and watch clowns as well...
-JF

The other side of the story ...

Submitted by Anonymous on February 23, 2009 - 9:30pm.

I understand that some deniers may be dismayed that the earth is not heating up as fast the models have predicted.

But, what if solar radiation is prevented from reaching the surface of the earth in the first place? The trend in "pan evaporation" rate data over the last century seems to indicate that this is true.

The models have not accounted for the ameliorating affects of jet contrails and industrial pollution. This should scare the pants/skirt off of the deniers.