Is there 'unbaised' reporting of environmental concerns ?

It's clearly a hot debate, with 'heated' arguments from both sides (as seen recently on LJN). Supporters can find counter arguments against the doom and gloom forecast by the eco-science camps that promote the world will come to great harm in several score years. So it seems to me at the moment, all sides are using scare stories to further causes or views not yet determined to be truly, 'independently', verified by facts.

Look at Global warming and likely causes:

Here's one "organisation's" view; http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/

Here's an opposing view: http://www.akdart.com/warming.html

Read this, clearly looking to undermine people's lack of confidence in the Pro "man made global warming" science camp by blaming Joe Public for not understanding. Reeks of 'do as I say, not as I do' : http://www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-poles-apart-on-climate-change-1.11166

USA reports a 20 yr low in Carbon Emissions : http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/a-20-year-low-in-u-s-carbon-emissions/

Who's to know who is behind these reports/websites. Are they impartial ? Do they have ulterior motives ?

I'm not experienced enough to know, BUT I do know I do not believe everything I read. I try to take a balanced view and look for truths, not people furthering their political or environment future/careers.

I believe Climate Change exists, but not necessarily Global Warming caused 100% by mankind. History has shown Earth goes through cycles that last 000's of years, yet are taking relatively new data from when records began and extrapolating it falsely ?

Most of us work in the real world of landscaping/horticulture and can at first hand see the world is changing and we may need to make choices about what we do and how we do it, but knee jerking is not the answer.

The choice is ours - believe what you read with blinkers on or take a pragmatic, open minded view. I'm sure some forecasts will turn our true, while others are full of hype.

I simply do not know the answer, but I am not going to look for it in some biased US reporting.

As a footnote: What of Aids or Avian Flu forecasts - where they based on some scientist's extrapolating data ? (note, I am not belittling the pain and distress caused by these, but if my memory serves me right it was all doom and gloom with no hope or respite for humanity. FYI - Aids is now classified as a Chronic condition, not a Fatal one).

Gary - both AIDS and Influenza killed 10s of millions in the 20th Century: AIDS and Influenza still kill en mass in much of the world, and naturally one strain of Influenza will likely eventually overcome our current Western methods of resistance and wipe many of us out; this is as good as a natural inevitability as ever there was one. To postulate that 99% of science incorrectly predicted AIDS and Influenza would kill millions (when clearly they have and continue to do so) is an illogical and incorrect position to adopt; especially in the context of this argument about man's directly harmful or otherwise negligible influence on the planet.

That the earth has the capacity to self regulate there can be no doubt - but that by our naivety and ignorance we are accelerating a process which will unduly cause the end of our species (not necessarily the end of the earth) is a matter I cannot believe some people still regard as debatable.

Certainly there is debate to be had by science (and not by we lay postulators) about the enormity of human consumption of natural materials; and also the consequence of mass discardment of both inert (ie of no material benefit to the ground in which it is left) and toxic (ie evidently harmful to most forms of the planet's contemporary life forms); and to what extend this has on climate change and associated environmental factors.

The governments of our current global society are by and large infected with the virus of neo-liberal capitalism, and as such fall to obedience according to the whims of neo-colonialist transnational corporations, whose objectives are solely consumed with the exploitation of labour markets and natural resources for the purpose of profits. That we are witnessing a debate at parliamentary and international level concerning the environment is frankly a testament to the historical campaigns of the ecological-left and the current ability to disseminate information freely over the internet; thus we as a faux-democratic society are no longer reliant solely upon "information" that is indirectly spoon-fed to us by transnational corporations via their social agents, namely our governments and national media organisations.

I fear the skepticism revealed thus far by my LJN peers has been misplaced in favour of our economic oppressors; currently mis-identified as status-quo and thus still prevailing the "common sense" electorate.

Nicky @ GardenImprovements.com | (@gardndesign)

Replies

Phil Crossley August 19, 2012 at 7:04pm

I have to say Gary when it comes to 'Global warming' I am a complete sceptic, in that man is responsible for it. Frost Fairs on the Thames in the 1700's, Romans growing grapes in Britain, far higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere when the dinosaurs walked the earth just to mention a few things. Why should the earths climate be constant? It's always changed and no doubt always will.

However it's an excellent excuse for spiv politicians to dream up new ways to tax you, boss you about, build ludicrous windmills, but not in their own constiuency obviously, ( do you think they ever look at all those picturesque ruins of windmills and wonder why they were allowed to fall into disrepair?) so I guess we have'nt heard the end of it yet.
PRO

Stuart @ Eco Garden Maintenance August 19, 2012 at 9:38pm

Everything is biased. Don't trust anyone. Make up your own mind.

In my opinion there are sound arguments for using less fossil fuels

*improvements in the air you breathe

*less noise pollution

*reduced congestion

*reduced chance of getting run over

*supplies will run out one day
John Baker August 19, 2012 at 11:29pm

I instinctively tend towards the sceptical camp so far as the extent of man's influence on changes over 00s and 000s of years, as Phil points out. But in 30 odd years of living and working in the weather, rather than travelling through it as most people do, I wonder at the changes in the last 10 years, which seem to me to represent a step change rather than a gradual one...but sure, next year will be great.
Fenlandphil August 20, 2012 at 6:49am

At the end of the day the earth will survive and sort itself out. Whether we, the human race as a species, survive is entirely another matter. In terms of using less fossil fuels and producing our energy through renewable means, it makes good strategic and economic sense. If as a country we have the means of generating our own electricity using renewable souces, we reduce the possibility of being held to ransom by the Russians or the Arabs.

I look at things this way every megawatt or so produced by a wind turbine means one less barrel of oil we haven't got to import.

As for renewable technology it will get better more efficient and more cost effective and fairly quickly, what we have now is probably the mark 2s and 3s not the finished product. A visit to a motor museum is a good idea to see how the car has changed in a hundred and a bit years.
Benedict Green August 20, 2012 at 8:26am

For some reason the media is obsessed with repeating counter arguments in any debate, no matter how one sided the issue. There is no debate in the scientific community on climate change, 99% or more scientists believe in our current climate change, caused to some degree by humans. Only a few, very dubious reports from scientists (paid by energy lobbyists) counter these arguments. If there wasn't so much money involved, this debate would be long dead and anybody suggesting climate change is not man made would be considered a crank.

So who do we believe? The vast majority of all scientists in the world or the few funded by lobbyists? The real question is what we do about it.
PRO

Gary RK August 20, 2012 at 8:38am

That is your view and clearly you are entiltled to it and I will not belittle your beliefs.

However, the reasons the media are obsessed is that people do not believe everything they read - some of us don't believe the daily mail effect ;-)

We may talking about two slightly different but trending concepts - namely climate change vs global warming. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there are no changes taking place, mainly questioning the rationale behind some of the conflicting theories from 'experts' who themselves want funding.

However, If you believe hook line and sinker everything you read from the Pro camp, then you may be as blinded as is every one who believes the PR put out from the Opposing camp.

Ps is this the 99% of scientists who believed HIV, Avian Flu would wipe out millions ?

I agree with Phil, in that it is a good opportunity to look at renewables and our dependenacies on fuel type and political forces.

I think it's a good trait of 'Man' to remain sceptical, while all the so called 'experts' sort out their camps.
Steve London Stone August 20, 2012 at 9:36am

You also need to bear in mind that the "99%" of scientists will be government funded. Government funding is integral to scientific research and without it many scientists would not be able to fund their research. You cant imagine that the government would fund scientists who were not towing the party line?

I'm not seen enough evidence to be convinced yet that man is causing global warming

Benedict Green said:

For some reason the media is obsessed with repeating counter arguments in any debate, no matter how one sided the issue. There is no debate in the scientific community on climate change, 99% or more scientists believe in our current climate change, caused to some degree by humans. Only a few, very dubious reports from scientists (paid by energy lobbyists) counter these arguments. If there wasn't so much money involved, this debate would be long dead and anybody suggesting climate change is not man made would be considered a crank.

So who do we believe? The vast majority of all scientists in the world or the few funded by lobbyists? The real question is what we do about it.
Benedict Green August 20, 2012 at 10:32am

I simply believe in scientific consensus and that ultimately my personal beliefs and considerations mean nothing as I haven't closely studied the data or gained scientific qualifications above A-level. If scientific consensus changes, then I will follow, as that's the beauty of science, it's not a religion and 'belief' follows data. I'm just pointing out that the debate is settled in scientific circles on this issue and it's politicians and people with other agendas who are still arguing (and wasting time).

Surely HIV, or rather AIDS, has killed millions and global pandemics remain a risk. Nobody will make money out of ignoring or refuting these issues though, quite the opposite.
PRO

Gary RK August 20, 2012 at 11:47am

But the debate is not settled in scientific circles..that's the whole point Ben...Clearly it is in your eyes, but to many more of us, we remain sceptical.....hence my comments about be blinded at both ends of the spectrum of views.
Nicky @ GardenImprovements.com August 20, 2012 at 12:00pm

Gary - both AIDS and Influenza killed 10s of millions in the 20th Century: AIDS and Influenza still kill en mass in much of the world, and naturally one strain of Influenza will likely eventually overcome our current Western methods of resistance and wipe many of us out; this is as good as a natural inevitability as ever there was one. To postulate that 99% of science incorrectly predicted AIDS and Influenza would kill millions (when clearly they have and continue to do so) is an illogical and incorrect position to adopt; especially in the context of this argument about man's directly harmful or otherwise negligible influence on the planet.

That the earth has the capacity to self regulate there can be no doubt - but that by our naivety and ignorance we are accelerating a process which will unduly cause the end of our species (not necessarily the end of the earth) is a matter I cannot believe some people still regard as debatable.

Certainly there is debate to be had by science (and not by we lay postulators) about the enormity of human consumption of natural materials; and also the consequence of mass discardment of both inert (ie of no material benefit to the ground in which it is left) and toxic (ie evidently harmful to most forms of the planet's contemporary life forms); and to what extend this has on climate change and associated environmental factors.

The governments of our current global society are by and large infected with the virus of neo-liberal capitalism, and as such fall to obedience according to the whims of neo-colonialist transnational corporations, whose objectives are solely consumed with the exploitation of labour markets and natural resources for the purpose of profits. That we are witnessing a debate at parliamentary and international level concerning the environment is frankly a testament to the historical campaigns of the ecological-left and the current ability to disseminate information freely over the internet; thus we as a faux-democratic society are no longer reliant solely upon "information" that is indirectly spoon-fed to us by transnational corporations via their social agents, namely our governments and national media organisations.

I fear the skepticism revealed thus far by my LJN peers has been misplaced in favour of our economic oppressors; currently mis-identified as status-quo and thus still prevailing the "common sense" electorate.

Nicky @ GardenImprovements.com | (@gardndesign)