Here
and
Now

opinions

Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

11 Comments
By Marlowe HOOD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


11 Comments
Login to comment

"Balance" in the media is a joke, to be honest. What really matters is how much power is behind any position. In the case of climate change denial, it has been a huge amount of power behind something that is inaccurate science. 97% vs. 3% of don't knows and the odd opponent is not balance.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

We are running out of time to turn around global warming. The people behind Big Oil and Coal, or at least their descendants, will suffer the same fate as the rest of us if nothing is done, and soon.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Climate has been changing naturally for centuries, CO2 only makes up 400 parts per million there's no way that's a threat, its what plants breath relax everyone the worlds not gonna fall to pieces.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

 CO2 only makes up 400 parts per million there's no way that's a threat

As you're repeating your claims, I might as well repeat my response:

0.04 percent may sound small, but the key question is what is the likelihood of infrared radiation leaving the earth encountering a CO2 molecule. If you consider that if all the CO2 in the atmosphere were in a single layer, that layer would be over a meter thick, I think we can say that's a lot of CO2.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The Kochs and other climate change deniers have spent upwards of half a billion dollars since 2002 in an effort to undermine science and scientists that empirically show the burning of fossil fuels to be the primary driver of human-induced climate change, and the greatest threat to the Earth . Anyone interested in knowing the backstory should read Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The man made climate change is a SCAM.

Even if it wasn't no amount of Spin/lip service and handing governments money will make any difference anyway.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It has been long obvious to any with real scientific background that the entire climate change farce has been another attempt by liberal and fantasy based media pundits to create another power base by skewing and over dramatizing some rather basic natural shifts and trends that have been part of the planet's long history. I don't even bother reading any of the doom saying coverage and like the LGBT farce, just marvel that modern media has become so much the tool of rather amazingly gullible and ignorant junk.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And what's your "real scientific background"?

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The sky is falling. ....

Now gimmie all yar money. ..quick !

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Largely capitalism, specifically industry, only makes a profit because it passes on the full costs of doing the business to society, the rest of us, and the environment.

It's just been the way of capitalism since it was perverted in the C19th to exclude what are called "externalities" or external costs. Very read costs but ones that don't appear on the spreadsheet.

I've always thought that the "global warming or not" debate missed the point and was engaged in merely as it was a distraction from the great problem.

Stopping all and any non-renewable, non-sustainable, non-biodegradeable industrial products entering the ecosystem.

Industry's waste, by-products and, ultimately, garbage.

We need to be working towards a point where NOTHING that is not renewable, sustainable or quickly and easily biodegradeable should be entering the ecosystem ... and then to focus on remedial action removing the 150 plus years of industrial era pollution.

Your corporation makes smoke or gas? You pay to remove it or pay to stop it entering the eco-system. It's your - not society's, not the environment's, not some other species - problem.

Your corporation rips up a tree or some other natural resource you did not actually make, you pay to replace it and make it good after.

Funnily enough, this kind of full cost, circular economy was what Adam Smith conceived of as capitalism, not the theft, vandalism and short termist despoilation that passes for it today ... getting rich by dumping responsibility for it all on to future generations.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

CO2 only makes up 400 parts per million there's no way that's a threat

And ozone only comprises 0.000004% of the atmosphere, even much less than the 0.0360% CO2

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

But oh, what's 0.000004% ozone gonna do? It's so small percentage - surely there's no way the loss of ozone in the atmosphere is a threat. Heheh, get ready for SPF 1,000,000

It's not the percentage that matters - it's what the substances do

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites