Recently the White House assured us that president Bush has "consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem." But perhaps it all depends on what the meaning of "contributing" is. After all, here's Dick Cheney:
I think there's an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we're in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that's part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera.
So Cheney is not in agreement with the latest IPCC report (PDF) which clearly said that humans are the chief contributor to the problem, the cause of most of the warming. If the Bush administration doesn't accept this, then it still cannot be said to be accepting of the current scientific consensus.
Journalists need to re-calibrate their questions so that they can get clarification on this key point.
- Log in to post comments
Chris,
You just don't understand. The IPCC report isn't science. It's part of a massive left-wing power grab. At least that's what my friendly neighborhood denier tells me.
President Bush has "consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem."
We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Journalists need to re-calibrate their questions so that they can get clarification on this key point.
Haha. Good 'un Chris.
They need to recalibrate on all kinds of key points. There are so many points they need to recalibrate on, it looks like a bed of nails.
Anyone wants to start a pool on what tiny news item will cause 24/7 distraction when the Libby verdict is handed down?
Best,
D
"Journalists need to re-calibrate their questions"
I think what they really need to recalibrate is their "bogometer" , which should go off in response to a bogus argument.
It should go off whenever Cheney opens his mouth. Indeed, they could use pretty much any one of Cheney's statements to calibrate it.
But alas, their bogometer has yet to go off even after 6 years of being veritably inundated with bogus arguments. Just one case in point: journalists' continued failure to challenge Cheney on his claim of a link between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden on 9/11.
Dano,
The stories (and people) that the American media focuses on are so bizarre, they are virtually impossible to predict ahead of time.
The only thing that one can say ahead of time about them is that they will be bizarre and a total waste of air time -- to say nothing of a waste of the pre-frontal lobe.
In comparison to most of these focus stories, a "Man bites dog" story would be "ho-hum-run-of-the mill".
The only thing that one can say ahead of time about them is that they will be bizarre and a total waste of air time
I disagree DT. They are not a waste of time, they are a needed distraction away from weighty and important matters. Why have the mass of voters waste their beautiful minds on thinking about the weighty things our leaders are doing?
Best,
D
I was looking at it from my personal standpoint, not that of our leaders. I consider OJ gossip to be an utter waste of time.
If you take our leaders' view, on the other hand, as you have done, such stories certainly might be useful (as a distraction) -- and there is undoubtedly collusion in some cases between those in power and the media to present such stories as at opportune moments (the Libby verdict).
But I doubt that's true in all (or even most) cases.
The media undoubtedly focus on these stories in many cases for no other reason than that many Americans eat them up -- which boosts the ratings.