Booth, W. (2006). Al Gore, Sundance's Leading Man. Washington Post.
Boreistein, S. (2006). "Is It Too Late To Stop Global Warming?" Retrieved May 1st, 2008, from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0403-01.htm.
CBS News. (2007). "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/07/tech/main3143742.shtml." Retrieved 23rd June, 2008, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/07/tech/main3143742.shtml. Climate Hot Map. (2001). "Global warming: early warning signs." Retrieved May 1st, 2008, from http://www.climatehotmap.org/.
Conant, E., Stein, S., Clift, E., Philips, M. (2007). "The Truth About Denial." Retrieved 21st June, 2008, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/page/6.
Cooler Heads Coalition. (1999). "Ice Sheet Retreat is Natural and Inevitable; Global Warming May Lower Sea Levels; Isle of the Dead: The Death Knell of Global Warming." Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from http://www.globalwarming.org/node/87.
Eco Bridge. (n.d). "Evidence of Global Warming." Retrieved May 2nd, 2008, from http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm#Glaciers.
Goodman, E. (2007). "No change in political climate." Retrieved 22nd June, 2008, from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
Hertsgaard, M. (2005). "It's much too late to sweat global warming." Retrieved May 5th, 2008, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL.
Lawson, N. (2008). "The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change." Retrieved April 14th, 2008, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557374&in_page_id=177.
Lindzen, R. S. (2006). "There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming." Retrieved 20th June 2008, from http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB115127582141890238.html.
Lobe, J. (2004). "Damage From Global Warming Becoming 'Irreversible'." Retrieved May 4th, 2008, from http://www.countercurrents.org/en-lobe160304.htm.
Monbiot, G. (2006). "The Denial Industry." Retrieved 22nd June, 2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2.
New York Times. (2008). "Global Warming." Retrieved May 2nd, 2008, from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier#.
Oreskes, N. (2004) BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Retrieved 21st June 2008, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Pielke Jr, R. A., Sarewitz, D. (n.d). "Winning and Losing the Global Warming Debate." from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/hp_roger/debate.html.
Rosenthal, E., Revkin, A.C., Barringer,F. (2007). "Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’ " Retrieved 22nd June 2008, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1.
Watson, P. J. (2007). "Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax." Retrieved April 14th, 2008, from http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Inconvenient Gore
Al Gore is an example of global warming as an issue which involves communication, media and science. He helped raise the profile of global warming, especially with “The Inconvenient Truth”. Gore used the scientific community to justify his position and the media to communicate that position to us the general public.
His funding of the project is a source of criticism towards his position on global warming. Like any other movie, An Inconvenient Truth relied on private funding. As a result the scientific research is a combination of private and state funded. The problem with private funding is that it could lead to a biased view, ultimately engineering answers rather than finding answers. Ironically, he himself has made accusations against large corporations for privately funding research to sow doubt inthe minds of the public about the credibility of global warming. How is his "documentary" any different? Would he really include information that did not support his view? Maybe he's just been more efficient at putting his agenda across. Al Gore tackles the issue of global warming from many mediums, using both traditional and new mediums.
He communicates his position primarily through the movie, but he has also published books, and has an official website. The more people talk about his work across those different media, public attention grows.
Gore’s high profile in the public and media has attracted a lot of criticism. Richard S. Lindzen criticizes Gore for pursuing a “moral crusade” rather than educating the masses about the real dangers of global warming. His concerns are echoed in William Booth’s article. According to Booth, Gore treats an inconvenient truth not as a message to the people about global warming but rather as a personal project that he wanted to get off the ground.
Global warming is a highly debated topic with many sides to the story. Gore presents one side of the argument; he combines both academic scientific data as well as mass media techniques to communicate his position. However, it is easy to assume that Gore is the champion of environmental politics and global warming. Consider the points I’ve raised so far; Gore presents his views using popular mass media movies and books. Sure he’s getting the message out there, but he is also selling his face and name to the public. He is one of many individuals out there in the world using science and media to enforce their own views.
Personally I think global warming is happening. But I realize now doing so much reading that I may have simply been foolishly absorbing all of what the media has been telling me without really considering all of the players and factors behind the claims.
On the internet, there are many millions of these views floating about, we cannot simply accept them face value.
His funding of the project is a source of criticism towards his position on global warming. Like any other movie, An Inconvenient Truth relied on private funding. As a result the scientific research is a combination of private and state funded. The problem with private funding is that it could lead to a biased view, ultimately engineering answers rather than finding answers. Ironically, he himself has made accusations against large corporations for privately funding research to sow doubt inthe minds of the public about the credibility of global warming. How is his "documentary" any different? Would he really include information that did not support his view? Maybe he's just been more efficient at putting his agenda across. Al Gore tackles the issue of global warming from many mediums, using both traditional and new mediums.
He communicates his position primarily through the movie, but he has also published books, and has an official website. The more people talk about his work across those different media, public attention grows.
Gore’s high profile in the public and media has attracted a lot of criticism. Richard S. Lindzen criticizes Gore for pursuing a “moral crusade” rather than educating the masses about the real dangers of global warming. His concerns are echoed in William Booth’s article. According to Booth, Gore treats an inconvenient truth not as a message to the people about global warming but rather as a personal project that he wanted to get off the ground.
Global warming is a highly debated topic with many sides to the story. Gore presents one side of the argument; he combines both academic scientific data as well as mass media techniques to communicate his position. However, it is easy to assume that Gore is the champion of environmental politics and global warming. Consider the points I’ve raised so far; Gore presents his views using popular mass media movies and books. Sure he’s getting the message out there, but he is also selling his face and name to the public. He is one of many individuals out there in the world using science and media to enforce their own views.
Personally I think global warming is happening. But I realize now doing so much reading that I may have simply been foolishly absorbing all of what the media has been telling me without really considering all of the players and factors behind the claims.
On the internet, there are many millions of these views floating about, we cannot simply accept them face value.
Leading the global warming debate
It’s hard to deny global warming is something that seems so inevitable, and the general consensus, scientific or not, is that it is at least a possibility. Temperature increases as well as other scientific facts are hard to ignore. But how do we know this? It is the role of the mainstream media that fuels our ambitions to ‘know’ about what is happening to our world.
In the last couple of years the level of attention on the subject has been gigantic. Now we have public camps and divisions where people are either skeptics or faithful zealots of global protection and sustainable development.
How can we assess the impacts of the mass media? Do we now fully believe that we the grassroots movements can change the world? Or are the ‘denialists’ right in that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to change the world without the powerful oil cartels and corporatists that dictate the global economy? After all they are the ones that invest in the world and our interests in their products.
For the purpose of this blog, we can look at two major players – the scientific community and the media. The former provide information and data to justify global warming, and the media transfer those findings to the general public.
But these groups are not as homogenous as we might think. There are the privately funded scientists who are paid by corporations to carry out research, while others are publicly funded by the states. Within the media, there is also a funding difference; the corporate funded and independent media. There is another level of difference which is the medium; traditional medium which includes television/film, radio and print; and the new medium primarily focusing on digital technology, the paradigm of which is the internet.
And all of those divisions do beg the question: If there is so much conflict within these groups how do we know who is right? Do they all have their own personal agendas for whichever direction their leaning towards in the subject of global warming? Or are they intentions really truthful?
It’s too easy nowadays with the mass influence of the media to think that well, I see all those famous people and the stuff on the news saying how global warming is a threat, and it’s real and it’s here, then “oh crap” we’re all in trouble. But there’s also the reverse thinking which is that global warming is just another idea popularized by the mainstream media, which I can't deny is a valid point considering all of coverage devoted to the issue.
Maybe the idea now is stop debating whether it's true and start thinking about whether we can do something to prevent. But that's probably where governments are expected to do the hard work, because as individuals it is hard to think that we really would make much of a difference, even if we really do believe in global warming and its dangerous impact on the earth.
"Global warming is an extreme collective action dilemma, with the actions of one person having a negligible effect in the aggregate. Informed persons appear to realize this objective fact. Therefore, informed persons can be highly concerned and reasonably pessimistic about their ability to change climate outcomes."
In the last couple of years the level of attention on the subject has been gigantic. Now we have public camps and divisions where people are either skeptics or faithful zealots of global protection and sustainable development.
How can we assess the impacts of the mass media? Do we now fully believe that we the grassroots movements can change the world? Or are the ‘denialists’ right in that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to change the world without the powerful oil cartels and corporatists that dictate the global economy? After all they are the ones that invest in the world and our interests in their products.
For the purpose of this blog, we can look at two major players – the scientific community and the media. The former provide information and data to justify global warming, and the media transfer those findings to the general public.
But these groups are not as homogenous as we might think. There are the privately funded scientists who are paid by corporations to carry out research, while others are publicly funded by the states. Within the media, there is also a funding difference; the corporate funded and independent media. There is another level of difference which is the medium; traditional medium which includes television/film, radio and print; and the new medium primarily focusing on digital technology, the paradigm of which is the internet.
And all of those divisions do beg the question: If there is so much conflict within these groups how do we know who is right? Do they all have their own personal agendas for whichever direction their leaning towards in the subject of global warming? Or are they intentions really truthful?
It’s too easy nowadays with the mass influence of the media to think that well, I see all those famous people and the stuff on the news saying how global warming is a threat, and it’s real and it’s here, then “oh crap” we’re all in trouble. But there’s also the reverse thinking which is that global warming is just another idea popularized by the mainstream media, which I can't deny is a valid point considering all of coverage devoted to the issue.
Maybe the idea now is stop debating whether it's true and start thinking about whether we can do something to prevent. But that's probably where governments are expected to do the hard work, because as individuals it is hard to think that we really would make much of a difference, even if we really do believe in global warming and its dangerous impact on the earth.
"Global warming is an extreme collective action dilemma, with the actions of one person having a negligible effect in the aggregate. Informed persons appear to realize this objective fact. Therefore, informed persons can be highly concerned and reasonably pessimistic about their ability to change climate outcomes."
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Human Race - Planet Earth killers?
I've recently realised that my notion of global warming probably wasn't very accurate. See, I think I've often wrongly associated global warming with every other negative aspects of what has been happening around the world these last couple of years. Naively, I perhaps wasn't all that informed about what global warming really is and what it means. To me it was just another environmental problem, like pollution, just presented on a much grander scale.
So here's the deal. Simply put the Earth is heating. It is becoming warmer than it was years ago, causing all kinds of things to melt, like glaciers; not to mention sea levels are rising; warmer seas are causing coral bleaching; and even tropical diseases are spreading because of global warming. Greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions are said to be the main reasons for these climate changes, some of which are actually naturally produced. Of course human activity has inevitably greatly increased production of these gases.
So here's the deal. Simply put the Earth is heating. It is becoming warmer than it was years ago, causing all kinds of things to melt, like glaciers; not to mention sea levels are rising; warmer seas are causing coral bleaching; and even tropical diseases are spreading because of global warming. Greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions are said to be the main reasons for these climate changes, some of which are actually naturally produced. Of course human activity has inevitably greatly increased production of these gases.
When you look at what they're telling us is happening, it does all seem pretty terrifying. But the truth is it can't be that simple. No one can say with absolute certainty that all of these are the cause of global warming. Sure, they may be factors, but that's different than saying it's because we drive our cars to the shop up the road and leave the lights on that all of this is happening.
In reality you can't deny that there is a probability that some of these things, for example ice sheets retreating, is just nature taking its course. And admist the global warming hysteria, there has been an effort to support that claim. When the Earth cooled, scientists claimed we were about to face an Ice Age. Safe to say, it hasn't happened. Yet. Now, the opposite is happening, and there is a widely spread notion that we are responsible for the increasingly negative environmental changes. But how much of that really was inevitable? After all, isn't it just normal that after centuries of occupying a planet, it is bound to be 'worn out'?
Admittedly we may have hastened the process with technological progresses, growing populations, etc.., but we can't honestly believe that while we're sustaining lifestyles and continuously evolving, the Earth would remain just as it was. Nothing lasts forever, why should we expect our planet to? Everything eventually, well... depreciates, I guess you could say. And the plain fact is, no one can or wants to put their lives on hold, stop building factories or use their car, just so the planet survives longer.
I know it sounds like I'm exonerating the human race from the possible destruction of the planet Earth. I'm not. I'm simply saying maybe this is actually supposed to happen - eventually. Not so much the end of the world part, but more so the climate change and natural disasters. Yes, human activity factors into it, but of course we do, we 're living on it! We're bound to leave traces of our existence. And yes, we could take a hell of a lot of more care of our planet. But that doesn't rule out the fact that some aspects/evidences of global warming is just the work of mother nature herself and/or the cycle of life. The question is, how fast are we going to make it happen?
That being said, I'm still trying to do and live right by our planet - to an extent.
Friday, May 2, 2008
When it all began
Having had no internet (nightmare!) for the past two weeks did give me a lot of time to think about how I wanted to approach the topic of global warming. To be honest, I think it's an enormous subject to approach that I'm probably not even all that informed about. So I won't and don't pretend to know or understand everything about it.
I don't know about you, but it feels like five years ago global warming was seldomly mentioned, perhaps only more so within the scientific and environmental communities but definitely not so much within the general population. Whereas now, "global warming" is a term tossed around daily as an explanation for negative changes of the environment. in 2001 a map was released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chance (IPCC) which highlighted areas in which various types of natural changes linked to global warming were occuring. Even then mother nature was no longer taking all the credit - or blame - for seemingly natural occurences like warm weather, sea rise, melted glaciers. Of course between then and today, we went from "likely" to "very likely" as the primary culprits for those bad changes.
If anything, this is an indication that we have known for some time that there was something wrong happening with our planet and that we were somewhat responsible for that. So why did it take years and a losing president candidate turning to filmmaking to finally get the word out that we were 'killing' the Earth? Because now, there is a sense of urgency and panic to rescue it, when it is possibly too late. Then again, one has to wonder if those years really would have mattered, especially as no one can fully determine the extent of the damage, not in an exact capacity.
The hype surrounding global warming for me really began of course with Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth . There's really no better way to inform mainstream audiences about what's happening to the Earth than through movie theatres with the Ex Vice President of the USA as its mastermind. Personally I have yet to see it. Let's just say I wasn't exactly keen to spend $10 just to feel depressed about all the harm we humans have done to the Earth's health and consequently feel very gloom about our future on this planet. But don't worry, I plan to catch it on cable.
I don't know about you, but it feels like five years ago global warming was seldomly mentioned, perhaps only more so within the scientific and environmental communities but definitely not so much within the general population. Whereas now, "global warming" is a term tossed around daily as an explanation for negative changes of the environment. in 2001 a map was released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chance (IPCC) which highlighted areas in which various types of natural changes linked to global warming were occuring. Even then mother nature was no longer taking all the credit - or blame - for seemingly natural occurences like warm weather, sea rise, melted glaciers. Of course between then and today, we went from "likely" to "very likely" as the primary culprits for those bad changes.
If anything, this is an indication that we have known for some time that there was something wrong happening with our planet and that we were somewhat responsible for that. So why did it take years and a losing president candidate turning to filmmaking to finally get the word out that we were 'killing' the Earth? Because now, there is a sense of urgency and panic to rescue it, when it is possibly too late. Then again, one has to wonder if those years really would have mattered, especially as no one can fully determine the extent of the damage, not in an exact capacity.
The hype surrounding global warming for me really began of course with Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth . There's really no better way to inform mainstream audiences about what's happening to the Earth than through movie theatres with the Ex Vice President of the USA as its mastermind. Personally I have yet to see it. Let's just say I wasn't exactly keen to spend $10 just to feel depressed about all the harm we humans have done to the Earth's health and consequently feel very gloom about our future on this planet. But don't worry, I plan to catch it on cable.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
End of the World? Can we stop it?
Over the past few years, global warming has become a heated topic. There was Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", supposedly packed with lies; the massive Live Earth event, which ended with all of the venues being heavily littered at the end of it; and now it seems every single disaster happening around the world is the result of global warming.
The question is, is this whole Go Green thing just a trend? I mean, haven't we known for a long time about Co2 pollution?... Are just starting to panic and realise that maybe it's too late to 'save the Earth' so we're all rushing to try and do something now? And, more importantly, can we really repent ourselves?
Personally, I try and be eco-conscious, but let's face it. I doubt me turning off my lights, boiling a full kettle of water is what's going to save the world. And there are people who just don't feel it's relevant to them: I would know, I live with a few of them.
I guess I just want to look into this Global Warming 'thing'. It's a big topic, and I probably don't understand a lot of the reasons why we think the Earth's not going to be such a nice place to live in in ten years. But it can't hurt. Who knows, maybe the world isn't doomed just yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FVZSUsT-Ws&feature=related
The question is, is this whole Go Green thing just a trend? I mean, haven't we known for a long time about Co2 pollution?... Are just starting to panic and realise that maybe it's too late to 'save the Earth' so we're all rushing to try and do something now? And, more importantly, can we really repent ourselves?
Personally, I try and be eco-conscious, but let's face it. I doubt me turning off my lights, boiling a full kettle of water is what's going to save the world. And there are people who just don't feel it's relevant to them: I would know, I live with a few of them.
I guess I just want to look into this Global Warming 'thing'. It's a big topic, and I probably don't understand a lot of the reasons why we think the Earth's not going to be such a nice place to live in in ten years. But it can't hurt. Who knows, maybe the world isn't doomed just yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FVZSUsT-Ws&feature=related
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)