about the universe forum commander Shop Now Commanders Circle
Product List FAQs home Links Contact Us

Friday, December 11, 2009

Have the Proponents of Global Warming Lost

This is Steven Petrick Posting:

The answer to the above question would seem to be an unqualified "no". I say this based on casual conversations in check out lines. The people around me are utterly unaware that there is such a thing as "The Climate Research Unit", much less that its E-Mail files were hacked. In essence, the fact that the Main Stream Media has chosen not to mention it is some of the best "damage control" the individuals working their could have hoped for. It has been nearly two weeks since the story broke on the internet, but mainstream America seems totally oblivious to it.

I admit that my sample size is necessarily small, and composed of the odd older generation person purchasing groceries, and college and high school age cashiers with a sprinkling of twenty- and thirty-year old customers and managers. The near universal response has been, however, "hunh". Some of them were already global warming skeptics (particularly this year when temperatures so far have been consistently below average locally). Some of them were of the church of man-caused global warming, and were startled at the very concept that the priests would lie, but as good acolytes, they pretty much just allowed themselves to be "troubled".

A few were convinced that I was making the whole thing up because . . . well it was not in the papers or in the news on ABC, CBS, or NBC.

There was a partial divide in that those who made their living "out of doors" were more likely (apparently, at least in my sample) to believe Global Warming was a lot of hooey (because they were exposed to the recent winter blasts directly), while office workers and students (people who could spend at lot of time indoors) were more likely to be devotees of the Church.

As with so many things, what stories the editors choose to allow escape to the General Public can have a radical effect on a people's view and understanding of a world, but none of these editors would accept being called "propagandists", but ultimately it is what they are when they choose to censor what the public learns rather than telling the truth and allowing the public to decide.

In this case, what they have decided is quite obvious, and yet they wonder why newsmen frequently show up in surveys as people not to be trusted (I think they come in just ahead of elected officials).