Do you think the mainstream media will ever consider that climate change is worse than expected?

Question

A study presented at a recent AAAS annual meeting found "New scientific findings are found to be more than twenty times as likely to indicate that global climate disruption is "worse than previously expected," rather than "not as bad as previously expected," strongly supporting the ASC perspective rather than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media."
http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2010/webprogram/Paper1639.html

The framing by the US mass media of course being that we're not even sure the planet is warming, or that humans are causing it, the effects might not be that bad, and climate scientists may be frauds, etc.

Media articles rarely consider the possibility that climate change will be worse than currently expected. Yet as this study showed, new studies are more than 20 times more likely to find the impacts of climate change are underesimated than overestimated. Therefore, clearly the climate science community is not being accurately represented in the mass media.

Will this change? Do you think the mainstream media will ever consider that climate change is worse than expected, as scientific studies are consistently showing?

Answer 1

Not until it is too late.



The media is more concerned with ratings and advertising revenue than it is professional journalism, and the most loyal viewers are conservative political activists (including followers of the anti-AGW political agenda). The media will not bite the hand that feeds it.



===



beinghere2002 --



It is a common practice that government employees not use their affiliation to further their personal political agendas.



The article you reference:



http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=47bf0fba-b98f-43fb-89fb-58b6464a7b24&k=65248



makes it clear that climate scientists (or experts in any field) are not being “muzzled” “



>”Under the "guiding principles" of the new policy, it says Environment Canada employees and "subject matter" experts "shall discuss only their own job within their personal areas of experience or expertise"



The only people being “muzzled” are non-experts who try and peddle their political beliefs as expert opinion at the government’s expense.



=--===



beinghere2002 --



Sorry, I may have misinterpreted your reply due to temporary insanity brought about when a partner company failed to get a proposal in on time,and I certainly oppose such restrictions, just as I am offended that Congress has claimed total authority over all of some scientists' emails past, present, and future.



And there are conflcting forces at work here. In the US, if you work at a publicly funded institution it has always been the case that any tax-paying citizen has the right to email, phone, or drop by and ask you a question about your work.



It also is usually the case that your employment contract typically includes a clause that gives the employing institution ownership of your intellectual "property" and anything that it generates or produces.



I remember when I was in engineering grad school and some of the stat classes overlapped with the required curriculum of the MBA program. The MBA and other business grad students were so stupid and dragged the grading curve down so low that it meant automatic 'A's for everyone else.



Now they control the admisistration of our places of work, and so I guess they get the last laugh after all - though they are still stupid as Hell.

Answer 2

The film Blue Gold indicates it could as well as the film Not To Hot To Handle.

A scientist says that what they cannot predict is the problem in affects of Global Warming.

For example heat exploding the ring of fire Volcanoes and all active or dormant ones.

Perhaps Mount Saint Helen's and Vesuvius in Italy again.

Answer 3

It doesn't help when governments are trying to muzzle its scientists, either. PM Harper in Canada has done exactly that



Gary F.:

You seem to like editing, as you only quote the Tory gov't side, here's what you're censoring:



"Environment Canada scientists, many of them world leaders in their fields, have long been encouraged to discuss their work on everything from migratory birds to melting Arctic ice with the media and public. Several of them were co-authors of the United Nations report on climate change that won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.



"It's insulting," says one senior staff member, who asked not to be named. She says researchers can no longer even discuss or confirm science facts without approval from the "highest level."



Until now, Environment Canada has been one of most open and accessible departments in the federal government, which the executive committee says is a problem that needs to be remedied.



It says all media queries must now be routed through Ottawa where "media relations will work with individual staff to decide how to best handle the call."



The only political agenda is yours and the Tory gov'ts in Ottawa and Alberta.You're just full of bureaucratic double-speak..we live a suppositly democratic and free society and information the gov't has on the enivronment should be freely accessible to the public and media..including its scientists...the gov't works for the public NOT any one political party.

Answer 4

No, I don't think it will change much and really there's nothing you can do about it so why fuss? If you want control of the media, move to a dictatorship regime.



And really, I know pretty well what is considered right wing media in the US. So are you saying all the media is basically right wing? Or are they too neutral?

Answer 5

They don't like disturbing news. So they will only acknowledge it after the fact. Don't want to be alarmist, do we now?