Popular journalism regarding AGW is usually not too good. This article has some good info on it and some poor associations. I get that a journalist's best method to connect his audience to his story is to invoke current weather but the weather events themselves do not indicate global warming but the statistical anomaly of so many extreme events does. Thats an important distinction that almost no one outside of the field (or statistical analysis) seems to get very well.
Also the le is ty. I doubt anyone is losing sleep over really bad crop yields. I don't disagree that crop losses and agriculture changes are some of the biggest if not THE biggest problems to be faced regarding AGW but the idea that its "terrifying" is just ridiculous. Its ty hyperbole that does more harm than good.
The Rolling Stone magazine sure has lost integrity over the years. It doesn't surprise my that the hype tripe.
It's not terrifying but there isn't much else to resort to. It's quite simpler to know the direction the climate is heading...but that doesn't grab public attention.
You have complete narcissistic fools like WC making up new ways to violate conservation of Energy to top it off. If it ain't flashy, the public doesn't read it.
Consumerism is the way to get into the American public view. It's been done with gas prices already.
If you look at who wrote the article, you can breathe a sigh of relief -- it's just sci-fi.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
