backtop


Print 39 comment(s) - last by brute1248.. on Jan 13 at 2:39 PM

The UN treats us to good news... and bad

Among all the debate on global warming, The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has long been one of the loudest voices. Despite accusations of bias and political motivations, the IPCC has been persuasive in getting many governments to pass environmental legislation.

So when the IPCC releases a new report, downgrading man's impact on the environment by 25% (and lowing predictions of temperature and sea level rise by 50%), one would think this good news would make headline news across the nation. Think otherwise. Such happy news apparently isn't fit for public consumption, according to our mass media.

The media has been even less forthcoming with the details of another UN report, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow. This 400 page report expresses what people who study global warming have long since known-- that the world cattle population is responsible for some 18% of all greenhouse gases, a larger contribution than planes, trains, automobiles, and all other forms of transportation combined.

The report also blames livestock farming for over 100 other polluting gases, including the number one source of ammonia, a major contributor to acid rain. It further blames ranching for deforestation, and ends with a slap at the massive amounts of drinking water used to feed cattle herds, which presumably is taking water from the mouths of thirsty children.

So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Two wrongs doesn't make a right
By Live on 12/14/2006 8:06:15 PM , Rating: 0
Just because cows are worse then cars doesn't make cars good.

Our consumption of food have a big impact on greenhouse gases. Much more then you would think. The wasteful ways of production, processing, storing and the long transportations all add up. The idea that a lot of people would stop eating meat, vegetables and fruits all year around and food from around the globe is however highly unlikely. We need to deal with this problem on all fronts and that certainly includes our means of transportation. That is if you believe there is a problem with the way we effect the environment which you don't seem to do.

I'm getting rather tired of your insinuations Michael that there is some kind of media conspiracy of not reporting news that support your political agenda. In your so called science blogs you constantly insinuate that the news you report are somehow deliberately absent from the media. In the name of science it would be nice if you would provide some proof of this thesis. I mean is it common practice for the main stream media to drum up every UN report? I think not. I know its a crowd pleaser but in my opinion its just bad journalism.

I did however find the reports interesting.




RE: Two wrongs doesn't make a right
By Merry on 12/14/06, Rating: 0
RE: Two wrongs doesn't make a right
By TomZ on 12/15/2006 10:17:29 AM , Rating: 3
You guys are missing the point. Politicians and mass media are strongly communicating a message that we must take "urgent action" to reduce "global warming" because it is "human caused." The point of Mr. Asher's articles is to show that, if you research the "global warming" problem for more than 5 minutes, you quickly realize that the facts don't really support the assertions or the proposed solutions. For example, it is clear that further reducing automobile tailpipe CO2 emissions is not an investment that is likely to produce anything more than a feeling like you "did the right thing" - clearly it is not going to affect global warming one bit. Is anyone suggesting that we eat more fish and chicken instead of beef to reduce global warming?

The Bush administration may be wrong in many areas, but their resistance against Kyoto was right on - this will become more and more clear as we begin to understand the reality of global warming, instead of the FUD that we are fed by today's politicians and mass media.


RE: Two wrongs doesn't make a right
By Merry on 12/15/2006 1:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
Is anyone suggesting that we eat more fish and chicken instead of beef to reduce global warming?

I believe the author of this blog is!

Besides having trawled through a significant amount of videos on this matter last night (as i've had nothing better to do since I got back from uni)I'm still not sure one way or the other, so my existing opinion stands.



By ttowntom on 12/15/2006 10:36:42 AM , Rating: 3
Listen to the recent Senate hearings on the media's role in the global warming scare and you'll get all the proof you need. You'll hear stories of scientists being called for interviews, then hung up on if their viewpoint disagrees with the reporter, cases of reporters intentionally misquoting scientists. Of their failing to report any of the research supporting that warming is mostly natural in origin, or that the warming may actually be beneficial to us. You'll hear countless cases of reporters crossing the line from journalism into advocacy, of their arguing with scientists and politicians to promote their viewpoint, instead of just reporting the facts.

You can find the audiocast online at the Senate's website. You sure won't find CNN reporting any of this.


RE: Two wrongs doesn't make a right
By Dfere on 12/18/2006 4:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
I believe this is an editorial? Which is supposed to have an opinion.

Also, IMHO The immediate rush to sensationalism by the media does not do anything constructive about any climatic issue. As a defending point, I point to the recent article published by a scientist who recommended we could inject sulfur dioxide into the air to aid in averting this "environmental disaster". While it might not have been the point of his article to address the overall impact (He might have been simply establishing one method to reduce greenhouse effects), this was touted by the media as a potential "cure".

This is like rushing to cut off one's leg before cancer is confirmed.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki