From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:59:34 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>>You have the portrayal of Global Warming a bit skewed. Every news report
>>I have ever heard on Global Warming admit that it is a theory.
>
>Then you haven't many.  It can only thing of one article in the mainstream
>media that reported the facts as fairly as you have below.  That was
>recently in News Week.  More often Global Warming is presented as an
>unavoidable fact that we can only avoid by drastically changing our ways.

You seem to only be reading and listening to reports which are biased
against how you feel. There are reports and magazines from many people
who feel just as you do, and these make sure that Global Warming is
presented as a THEORY. Your original comment led me to think that you
were implying that Global Warming is ALWAYS presented as an unavoidable
fact.

Most of the reports I read and take seriously on scientific issues are
not in Time or Newsweek, or are presented on the NBC Nightly News. I
get such information from Science, Nature and other such pretigious
scientific journals. And a clear majority of the articles which have
been published on Global Warming in those publications represent the
point of view that Global Warming IS happening.

>>None of them say that the "gloom and doom" future is a DEFINITE
>>possibility, they merely say that it IS a possibility,
>
>That is certainly *not* a fair characterization of the majority of the
>reports I've seen or heard.  Usually there is no question that increased
>carbon dioxide will lead to warming, the only question is much and how
>disastrous it will be.

That is not a fair analysis of what I said. Most stories I have read
show that there has been an increase in atmospheric levels of CO2 since
they have been measured and that there has been an observed increased in
global temperature since it has been observed. Some point out that it is
an interesting correlation, a few scientists definitely equate the two
together, not all do, but virtually all agree with both of the observations.

>>What atmospheric scientists disagree on is the amount the average global
>>temperature will rise,
>
>No it is more than that . . . they don't agree *that* it will rise.

You responded to my statement out of context. The atmospheric scientists
I was referring to are the ones who agree with the data that the average
global temperature has been rising for the past 100 years.

>Well, almost right.  CFC's, long thought to be greenhouse gasses, were
>recently shown to actually act to cool the atmosphere, although not
>significantly.

I missed that report. Care to cite a reference? I'd like to look it up.

>  That has been widely reported, even in the mainstream
>media.  Also, there is no observed rise in average global temperature to
>explain.

If you believe the data from the University of East Anglia and the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, average global temperatures have risen some
0.5 degress C in the past 100 years.

>Speaking of media distortions, what is the most important greenhouse gas?
>We all know, carbon dioxide right?  Not even close.  Water vapor is the
>most important greenhouse gas and it accounts for 98% of the greenhouse
>effect.  All the rest, methane, and carbon dioxide among them, account for
>only 2%.  It isn't clear that carbon dioxide is even a significant
>greenhouse gas.  After all, the trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the
>atmosphere have increased, but the temperature hasn't, at least no
>significantly.

My turn. "Most important greenhouse gas" is not a *fair* charactization.
Surely, as anyone who has done even elementary reading on the subject, say
in National Geographic, that water vapor is most definitely a greenhouse
gas. But the amount of water vapor in the air isn't really changing very
much. THAT is what makes Carbon Dioxide the "most important" greenhouse
gas. Here is an excerpt from "Under the Sun  -- Is Our World Warming?"
in National Geographic (October 1990),

"Back in the last glacial age, some 20,000 years ago, world temperature
averaged about nine degrees colder than today. The Carbon Dioxide level
was only 190 to 200 parts per million, ancient ice samples from Greenland
and Antarctica show. As the ice melted back, the CO2 level gradually rose
to about 280 ppm by the beginning of the industrial age. 'By the middle of
the coming century -- in our children's lifetime,' Elmer [Elmer Robinson,
director of the Mauna Loa Observatory] had said, 'the level will reach 550
or even 600 at its current rate of rise.'"

>At least do your math right . . . I said the Reagan years: using Carter's
>last full year in office, 1980, as a base, through to the year of Reagan's
>last budget, the income of the poor increased 7.7% and the rich 22.1%.

OK, I missed matching your comment of "the Reagan years" and that your
data started with 1978. Still, using the typical governmental mentality,
the diparaty in the growth of income of the poorest with the richest
can be expressed as the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
It's purely a matter of semantics.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc