Posted: Feb 17, 2012 3:35 pm
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Spearthrower wrote:Alan B wrote:That's understandable. The BBC, like any other member of the media circus, hasn't got the science trained staff to really appreciate what the scientists are talking about.
So, since they are in the business of selling news, they opt-out of having to think, and instead they pander to the more 'news-worthy' loud-mouthed illiterati - especially those with money behind them.
But I would like to think better of the BBC.
Sorry, I gave the wrong impression there. I don't mean that Richard Black (the environmental journalist) is to blame, but rather that all his articles are followed by numerous BBC members - membership allows you to comment on articles - who are the most ardent reality-deniers I've ever seen.
Look down to the comments:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17048991
He has a serious following. It doesn't matter if he's writing about tuna stock depletion, these people will write dozens of comments on 'climate alarmism'.
I'd rather expect that many of them are paid to write comments in such venues, yunno, like a nickle a word or something. This is a well known fact of life on many US sites that run a positive line on climate change, they are sometimes overwhelmed with comment posts which are little more than Heartland Institute talking points, the same old blather.
The government's failure to step up to the plate on this and do something about emissions will in future be seen as having been a monstrous crime and a fundamental bit of utter irresponsibility, and the not too distant future, either.
I fully expect the question of GHG emissions to rise to the forefront and become a defining issue for America's future, probably the singlemost defining issue of our time. The pot is just beginning to bubble, in three or fours year it could become a seething cauldron.
Indeed, the question is by that time will any changes we make even matter?
By saying matter I mean to humans. This isn't about taking care of the planet or protecting the planet. The planet is fine and is going to be fine, it's us that are screwed. We've also been screwing up other species of animals on the planet but life on Earth isn't in danger because of us... WE'RE in danger because of us not the planet, not life, not water, not the resources of Earth just us.
So I guess my point is, everything is going to work out in the end, but is it going to work out with humans around or not? Will we face a significant drop in population? I think the only way we can gurantee our survival as a species is acting NOW. Unfortunately I think that we won't change a damn thing until it's too late. At that point any changes we make won't alter the course of humanity's extinction.
Which is normal (extinction events on Earth)... it's just that we've probably had the shortest amount of time as the dominant species on the planet before facing an extinction event which was entirely created by us. So much for intelligence.