Home | About | Donate

Corporate TV Drops the Ball on Climate Change


#1

Corporate TV Drops the Ball on Climate Change

Amy Goodman, Denis Moynihan

"As you put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the globe warms, whether it’s the Earth or another planet. It’s just the law of physics. And so, it is surprising to see trained meteorologists on TV steer away from those terms.”

A home burns in Lake County, Calif.

#2

It is not surprising to me - they dare not tell the truth as corrupt media corporations will ensure they no longer get employment in their chosen industry.


#3

And to take it a step higher the media corporations are just passing on to their workers what is mandated of them by the government.


#4

I wouldn’t ask TV meteorologists to make statements on climate change. They are not trained in climate science and therefore their statements lack credibility. However, I think the TV news programs should interview actual climate scientists and ask for their opinions. While they might say that more time is needed to study the data or something like that at least it brings in the issue of climate change and raises questions about what role climate is playing in these events.


#5

With a wholly owned corporate MSM, it is no surprise that they follow the instructions of their sponsors. Because of the MSM’s warped news coverage, the general public for the most part recognizes the MSM as nothing more than propaganda. The reason though that we don’t have a public uproar or a demand for a State owned, commercial free news outlet, is that may people blame the propaganda on mysterious forces such as the “Liberal conspiracy” as if the working class has a bunch of billionaires that are working behind the scenes to undermine other billionaires.
Rarely does a citizen blame the corporatization of their nation for their economic and social ills and if someone does, you can guarantee that they won’t make it on the 6 O’Clock news. Instead we’re left with silly explanations which divert the attention away from the true culprits. What we’re left with is a confused public that ends up not voting or else voting for the most outrageous candidate that corporate America has served up to us.
Climate change won’t be discussed by our government or the MSM until democracy is repaired and the oligarchy is jettisoned from our public institutions. Until then, expect the madness to continue uninterrupted.


#6

Thank you Amy Goodman.
Every time I turn on Democracy Now!, I expect to see the message saying that it will no longer be shown.
Also thank you to Link TV for putting it on the air.


#7

“Progressive” Journalism’s Legacy of Deceit
Are Democracy Now!'s Libyan Correspondents Feeding Us the State Department and Pentagon Line on Libya?
“Democracy Now” and the “Progressive” Alternative Media: Valued Cheerleaders For Imperialism and War
Peace Activists Confront Amy Goodman on Biased Syria Coverage
We Need Better and More Diverse Coverage on Syria Open Letter to Amy Goodman and Democracy Now!
Democracy Now Runs Interference for Imperialism in Syria
Democracy Now! Criminal Cheerleaders for US-NATO-GCC’s Perpetual Conflict and Bloodshed in Syria
Cognitive Dissonance on Democracy Now


#8

This article illustrates quite a bizarre choice of words from a scientist; “As you put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the globe warms, whether it’s the Earth or another planet. It’s just the law of physics.” That’s by definition NOT what a scientific law is. A scientific law describes the relationship and description of an event, but does not define why something occurs. For example Newton Laws of Gravity (F=Gm1m2/r^2) describe the relationship earth’s gravity has with mass, distance and the forces between them, but the law does not describe why gravity exists or why it is happening.

This is why this comment is quite bizzare, as climate science would most likely eventually be determined as a scientific theory and not a law as it describes a consensus of behavior through data and testing. In an article that attempts to show the scientific discovery in its evidence you ruin the point by suggesting non-scientific relationships.

I’m not just picking one instance either. The article also claims “On our warming planet, with rapidly warming oceans, hurricanes occur with more frequency and more strength.” While part of this is true, you cannot claim that hurricanes are increasing in frequency, as our data completely disproves that. It also shows a complete misunderstanding of meteorological storms. To suggest that we can determine a trend of increased frequency suggest that we can predict the weather in the future- this is not true. We can determine the probability curve that is changing, but we cannot suggest that there is a greater frequency of event.


#9

They are also completely different fields of science. Meteorology is the study of atmospheric weather patterns, while climatology is the study of climate which includes atmospheric conditions, geographical conditions, geological conditions, oceanographic conditions averaged over a period of time. Saying that meteorologists should describe with absolute certainty climate data is to suggest a biologist should be able describe cosmic conditions as well as a Astrophysicist.

Now they can describe meteorological conditions as they may apply to climate change, and some of them are very knowledge in climate science, but that’s not their actual field of study so to suggest that they are not doing their job indicates that you have a misunderstanding on what their actual job is.


#10

How can one determine that a percentage of wildfires was caused by human made emissions that impact global warming? To suggest that would indicate that a specific concentration or isotope of carbon was related to the event, yet I have never seen data on it. Otherwise yes human caused global warming has increased the rate of warming and the probability of an event has changed, but it is completely impossible to determine that humans caused warming has led to the creation of a specific event.


#11

Corporate TV Drops the Ball on Climate Change
"Global warming is just the law of physics, which makes it surprising trained meteorologists on TV steer away from those terms." by Amy Goodman, Denis Moynihan

No, Commercial TV didn’t “Drop the Ball” on Climate Change (induced by Global Warming) – they deliberately spiked the ball, as ordered by their owners, the same Multi-NaZional Korporations which own 99.44% of “our” government:

PaulSwanee1’s criticisms of the article itself are valid, but the real point is that any discussion of the Cause-&-Effect relationship of Global Warming and Climate Change (i.e. the correlation of increasing concentrations of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere due to combustion of fossil fuels by humans and the increased intensity of recent storms, droughts, winds, etc.) is forbidden to members of the MSM by their korporate masters.


#12

That is the problem for climatologists. They know that a warming climate makes for more drought and stronger storms, but to pinpoint a fire or storm to global warming is difficult at best and next to impossible in reality.

Which is what the deniers use to state that there is uncertainty and doubt about climate change. The science though says these things will happen, proving it is another thing.

That is why the climatologists tend to state the highest probability with low end effect and less drastic outcomes. Even though events are happening faster than their predictions. Making drastic predictions which may not come true doesn’t help the science.


#13

You use current events to escalate scientific predictions. the science does not state that more drought or more storms will necessarily increase, but rather that the probability of event changes. That’s the problem with people that don’t fundamentally understand science. Drought is not caused by temperate alone, which is why drought data is not proportional to temperature increase. You need to understand the various conditions that exist in California like soil samples to truly understand why droughts exist. Scientists have already determined that the largest cause for the recent fires was not from increased temperature but from winds that has occurred over the last few months. There is not enough conclusive data to conclude that this was a climatic event,. no you may call me a denier, but in reality I am the one who is looking at the real scientific data. Just because an event exhibits escalation does not necessarily mean there is a trend. if that was true then we would have seen Katrina in the 1940s, and droughts that we see today in the 1970s. We do not necessarily see a trend, but rather a change in the probability curve. This does not indicate a trend in frequency or tat a particular event will occur.


#14

Democracy Now! Taken off the air?

That could happen because no doubt that a couple times Amy had to go to court, the last time was in North Dakota for reporting the truth and for supporting the water protectors against the fossil fuel protectors. And in my opinion, which I have no proof, Amy has been somehow intimidated about 9/11 because she will not touch that subject with a ten foot pole. Lets hope I am wrong because Amy has had my full support and I would hate to see her taken off the air.


#15

All that is true and I wasn’t stating you are a denier, merely trying to point out how hard it is to use science to prove certain things. Like a storm or drought is caused by climate change. And I didn’t state that higher temperatures caused the fire, drought is the reason why it is prone to fires. Along with a forestry policy that didn’t help. And people living in areas where fire is common.
And I didn’t use current events to escalate anything. I said the opposite, that using current events was difficult to impossible. You need to comprehend better or read something completely.


#16

Hey Amy! You’re surprised NOW.?..for a journalist (you) who has reported on global warming on a regular basis, I am surprised that you are surprised!
I have noticed this lack of discussion by media “meteorologists” for quite some time.
You know that this lack of discussion by “meteorologists” is DELIBERATE.
Haven’t you noticed that CNN, for example, runs ads by KOCH INDUSTRIES??
I know you know who they are.
Massive lovers/creators of global warming.
…massive fossil fuel creators and spreaders of this insanity around the world!
So I am surprised by your mealy mouth “surprise”…
We NEED you to talk a little stronger, Amy…
Stop working for the Ford Foundation…