Reporting Climate Change?

I wrote a post a while back chastising the Tribune for what I thought was one-sided reporting in the 'global warming' debate.

I guess I am not alone. At least one scientist also believes that our media hypes this issue:

There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed.


free thought said...

I like the part of the linked discussion about getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period (which preceded the last "Little Ice Age").

But if we do, what do we tell all those Norse farmers and sheep herders who lived on Greenland during that time? That they really did not graze up to the mountains? Their crops didn't grow? That they imagined the change when the "Little Ice Age" starved them out?

Oh, right. That is only history. We can tear out those pages to make our point now. No problem. But tell the History Channel to quit spouting off about the past. It doesn't matter now.

GeeGuy said...

Your cynicism warms my heart.

Ed Kemmick said...

Funny that he criticizes media bias, but doesn't point out that among scientists themselves, he is part of a statistically irrelevant minority.

GeeGuy said...

Is statistical analysis really valid when applied to subjective interpretation of objective results? In other words, is science a majority rule field?