Who to believe?
Right, any body paying attention to the news knows about 'global warming'.G8 leaders have talked about it, newspapers have printed stories on it, news anchors have blabbered on about it... And mainstream perception is that it's real, and it's caused by CO2 emissions.
And then just step back - does the fact that most of us ordinary folks that get this information from an article or television, does it make it true? It's complete word-of-mouth dissemination. A scientists says this, a climatologist says that... how do we know it's genuine? Yes, other scientists may scrutinise their findings, but yet do other scientists scrutinise the scrutinisers?
I watched a programme called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' where the subjects poked holes at global warming. One acedotal evidence constantly cited was that random solar activity was the cause, not man-made emissions. This is the first time I've heard such deviant information from a mainstream source. So I'm like, who the fuck's telling the truth? I'm sure the professionals who appeared on this programme have just as much qualifications and authority than those who propogate global warming. Sure, you can be cynical and say power companies are behind it trying to spread propaganda. But even critics need to be scrutinised too.
Truth is, unless we're all scientists or experts on climate change, we may never know. And that's a sad consequence of our knowledge-based economies, there's just simply too much information out there to absorb. And hmmmm, whose job is to assemble information in a neat little package for public consumption? That's right, your friendly neighbourhood journalist, who's simply too much in a rush or lazy to get the proper facts.
I think there should be a minimum amount of time journalists should spend on a story, along with a minimum amount of sources contacted and then scrutinised by other journalists and experts before publishing. Whoo, hate to be in that job.
posted by Ed @ 10:28 PM
Comments: 0
