Opinion
I'm a Climate Change Enthusiast!
And I didn't pick up that phrase from Fox News. I read it in none other than the nation's paper of record—The New York Times—in a horrendous little piece
on how the east coast snowstorms have restoked the "debate" on climate change.
Use of the trivializing "climate-change enthusiast" tag fits right in with author's framing of the story as just another he said, she said debate in which both sides must be given equal attention. Which, in this case, means that fringe nutjobs are portrayed as having viewpoints as valid as those of climate scientists who are backed by vast scientific consensus.
In fact, the piece devotes significantly more words to the nutjobs. The climate change skeptics cited in the article include Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), the Virginia Republican Party, Matt Drudge, and Rush Limbaugh. Yet only two climate scientists are sourced: Joe Romm and Jeff Masters. Not a word is said about which group has more credibility.
And guess what else the NYT piece missed? Warmer years tend to have more snowstorms.
The real news here is that there are still so many people in high places who are ignorant enough not to understand the difference between climate and weather. A single storm is weather, and does not, by itself, reveal anything about long-term climate trends.
And if you ask me, it's also newsworthy that rather than being subjected to mass ridicule for their ignorance, these people have millions of fans and supporters. Apparently there's no shortage of Americans who haven't bothered to learn much about the gravest environmental threat humanity has ever faced.
Could highly successful people like Inhofe be that clueless about such a major issue? No, it's more plausible that they know better but are playing to their political base. I'm not sure which is more wretched.
Use of the trivializing "climate-change enthusiast" tag fits right in with author's framing of the story as just another he said, she said debate in which both sides must be given equal attention. Which, in this case, means that fringe nutjobs are portrayed as having viewpoints as valid as those of climate scientists who are backed by vast scientific consensus.
In fact, the piece devotes significantly more words to the nutjobs. The climate change skeptics cited in the article include Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), the Virginia Republican Party, Matt Drudge, and Rush Limbaugh. Yet only two climate scientists are sourced: Joe Romm and Jeff Masters. Not a word is said about which group has more credibility.
And guess what else the NYT piece missed? Warmer years tend to have more snowstorms.
The real news here is that there are still so many people in high places who are ignorant enough not to understand the difference between climate and weather. A single storm is weather, and does not, by itself, reveal anything about long-term climate trends.
And if you ask me, it's also newsworthy that rather than being subjected to mass ridicule for their ignorance, these people have millions of fans and supporters. Apparently there's no shortage of Americans who haven't bothered to learn much about the gravest environmental threat humanity has ever faced.
Could highly successful people like Inhofe be that clueless about such a major issue? No, it's more plausible that they know better but are playing to their political base. I'm not sure which is more wretched.
