I learned from reading the Washington Post this morning that this has been the warmest decade in Earth's history. Anyhow, that's what I learned from the headline. Reading into the article itself I learned that this ,instead, was the warmest decade in the era of modern weather data collection, which isn't the same thing at all. A quick google search tells me that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old with an error range of 50 million years. Modern weather data gathering has only been around for about a hundred years. I'm not saying the Washington Post is printing fake news, afterall ,they clarify the length of the Earth's history they're actually referring to in the first line of the accompanying article, but wouldn't it have been nice if the WaPo cared a little more about getting things right ? I'll just answer my own question ; yes, it would have been nice, but that's not what the Washington Post is all about.
During most of Earth's four and a half billion years of existence the planet was much hotter than today . Carbon dioxide levels have often been much higher . There were also periods of cold, when Co2 levels were quite low. Temperatures effect Co2 levels and vice versa. It's a complicated relationship. During one period the entire surface of the Earth is thought to have been covered in ice from pole to pole.
Luckily ,we have only been around for a short time in this long perilous history. We've managed to miss the worst of it. But even over the past 200,000 years Earth's climate has been anything but stable as sudden catastrophic fluctuations have come close to wiping us out. What we are experiencing now is a sweet spot. If the Earth continues warming at the present rate it may be difficult adjusting to temperature increases predicated to amount to +2 C over the next century, but those adjustments are not impossible, nor unprecedented, necessarily catastrophic, or unavoidable.
The ' avoidable ' part is something we all should be happy about. whatever prescriptions to reverse or modify climate change we endorse. Many activists call for banning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use has brought us to the level of prosperity we enjoy today. Banning them guarantees less prosperity, especially in the third world. Some proposals would do this gradually, some more abruptly. Those of us who believe that banning them would have catastrophic effects on the world's economy look to other means to the same end such as carbon sequestration. Technologies to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already exist . Deploying them on a large scale is expensive but nothing near the prohibitive costs of proposals like the Green New Deal. In the meantime we could plant more trees. Millions of new trees across the planet will improve our lives in many ways while soaking up Co2. It's a low tech example of carbon sequestration, and highly effective.
The Washington Post occasionally reports on these softer but effective solutions but gives greater weight to solutions that are less practical and more disruptive. It's as if a complete reordering of society from top to bottom is the real goal. " Never let a serious crises go to waste ", to quote Rahm Emmanuel in another context. Scaring people into rash action seems to be working. Look at the climate proposals of every leading Democratic presidential candidate.
Strangely, I didn't intend to focus this column on global warming. That was just an aside that got out of hand, a digression. I wanted to write about the Washington Post as an example of advocacy journalism. It hard finding any other kind of journalism. Whatever happened to reporting the news? Where's the objectivity? Who's reporting the news fairly or agenda free? The Washington Post is only one newspaper among many but it's a leading paper and representative of the industry.
Reading the Post you could be forgiven for mistaking a news article for one of its opinion pieces. There's so little difference. I have no problem with bias, or opinions .I'd just like to see them outside the news pages. If the Washington Post wants to frighten us into reigning in climate change then let them ring that bell as loud as they wish. Just don't call it the news . Fudging stories on climate change is a small part of their program. The same lazy style of journalism crops up elsewhere. Politics dominates the Post's reporting. Their political reporting is equally shoddy. It's a shame. We need a press with more rigorous standards . We need it now more than ever.
During most of Earth's four and a half billion years of existence the planet was much hotter than today . Carbon dioxide levels have often been much higher . There were also periods of cold, when Co2 levels were quite low. Temperatures effect Co2 levels and vice versa. It's a complicated relationship. During one period the entire surface of the Earth is thought to have been covered in ice from pole to pole.
Luckily ,we have only been around for a short time in this long perilous history. We've managed to miss the worst of it. But even over the past 200,000 years Earth's climate has been anything but stable as sudden catastrophic fluctuations have come close to wiping us out. What we are experiencing now is a sweet spot. If the Earth continues warming at the present rate it may be difficult adjusting to temperature increases predicated to amount to +2 C over the next century, but those adjustments are not impossible, nor unprecedented, necessarily catastrophic, or unavoidable.
The ' avoidable ' part is something we all should be happy about. whatever prescriptions to reverse or modify climate change we endorse. Many activists call for banning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use has brought us to the level of prosperity we enjoy today. Banning them guarantees less prosperity, especially in the third world. Some proposals would do this gradually, some more abruptly. Those of us who believe that banning them would have catastrophic effects on the world's economy look to other means to the same end such as carbon sequestration. Technologies to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already exist . Deploying them on a large scale is expensive but nothing near the prohibitive costs of proposals like the Green New Deal. In the meantime we could plant more trees. Millions of new trees across the planet will improve our lives in many ways while soaking up Co2. It's a low tech example of carbon sequestration, and highly effective.
The Washington Post occasionally reports on these softer but effective solutions but gives greater weight to solutions that are less practical and more disruptive. It's as if a complete reordering of society from top to bottom is the real goal. " Never let a serious crises go to waste ", to quote Rahm Emmanuel in another context. Scaring people into rash action seems to be working. Look at the climate proposals of every leading Democratic presidential candidate.
Strangely, I didn't intend to focus this column on global warming. That was just an aside that got out of hand, a digression. I wanted to write about the Washington Post as an example of advocacy journalism. It hard finding any other kind of journalism. Whatever happened to reporting the news? Where's the objectivity? Who's reporting the news fairly or agenda free? The Washington Post is only one newspaper among many but it's a leading paper and representative of the industry.
Reading the Post you could be forgiven for mistaking a news article for one of its opinion pieces. There's so little difference. I have no problem with bias, or opinions .I'd just like to see them outside the news pages. If the Washington Post wants to frighten us into reigning in climate change then let them ring that bell as loud as they wish. Just don't call it the news . Fudging stories on climate change is a small part of their program. The same lazy style of journalism crops up elsewhere. Politics dominates the Post's reporting. Their political reporting is equally shoddy. It's a shame. We need a press with more rigorous standards . We need it now more than ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment