DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> why dont they talk about it? at least a lil'
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 43, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/09/2004 10:25:37 PM · #1
and when i say that i mean in mainstream media. why dosnt CNN spend just 1/8th the amount of time talking about global warming or the environment as they do the martha stuart trial? is martha stuart more important than the environment that keeps humans alive?

The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare

With the possible exception of another world war, a giant asteroid, or an incurable plague, global warming may be the single largest threat to our planet.
 03/09/2004 10:31:18 PM · #2
Because you falsly assume that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, BBS, Fox News or any other "News Channel" are actualy news providers... When in fact they are nothing but venues to sell ads.

Covering things like, I don't know the truth or global warming doesn't keep viewers glued to their TV sets which in turn would throw advertiser dollars down the toilet...
 03/09/2004 10:38:36 PM · #3
good answer ;)
 03/09/2004 10:42:28 PM · #4
From the NASA page:

Twenty-five years ago if you made a trip to the local library and perused the periodical section for articles on global warming, you’d probably have come up with only a few abstracts from hardcore science journals or maybe a blurb in some esoteric geopolitical magazine.

Maybe because 25 years ago the experts were predicting a coming ice age?

(Neither here nor there, pro nor con - just an observation.)
 03/09/2004 10:44:03 PM · #5
The second sentence: (shouldn't have been so quick with that post button)

As an Internet search on global warming now attests, the subject has become as rooted in our public consciousness as Madonna or microwave cooking.

But wait, I thought we were busy lamenting that global warming didn't get enought coverage...?
 03/09/2004 10:46:58 PM · #6
The third sentence:

Perhaps all this attention is deserved. With the possible exception of another world war, a giant asteroid, or an incurable plague, global warming may be the single largest threat to our planet. (emphasis mine)

Lime jello may be the single largest threat to our planet too. As may be Madonna, microwave cooking, or John Kerry. Lots of things may be...

... I'll stop now...

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 22:47:46.
 03/09/2004 10:51:41 PM · #7
OK, this is the last one, really - from the bottom of the first page (and ignoring the arguements on the side against global warming):

In truth, the future probably fits somewhere between these two scenarios. But to gain an understanding of global warming, it is necessary to get to know the science behind the issue.

So that makes you're label on the link just a wee bit misleading.... You've learned well from the mainstream media. :)

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 22:52:31.
 03/09/2004 10:53:56 PM · #8
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.
 03/09/2004 11:05:32 PM · #9
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
and when i say that i mean in mainstream media. why dosnt CNN spend just 1/8th the amount of time talking about global warming or the environment as they do the martha stuart trial? is martha stuart more important than the environment that keeps humans alive?

The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare

With the possible exception of another world war, a giant asteroid, or an incurable plague, global warming may be the single largest threat to our planet.


After the Janet Boob,we have GAY Weddings,Marta Stewart and now Howard Stern!
And if you remember before all of that the focus was on unfounded WMD's and war in Iraq,false inteligence etc....

They are intentionally looking for something else to talk about right now and I noticed MSNBC spent 5 out of 6 hours today talking about Marta!

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 23:13:15.
 03/09/2004 11:11:38 PM · #10
I am not an environmental expert whatsoever... but I had a meteorology professor (a man who has spent his lifetime analyzing weather patterns)explain it to me this way: we have only been tracking temperature changes for the last few hundred years but our planet cools and warms in 10,000 year cycles and the hole in the ozone layer has been around since we turned our instruments on - so we don't know if it's always been there and is supposed to be there... We are warming, but maybe we're supposed to be. Maybe it's the earth's natural cycle. Just a thought.
 03/09/2004 11:12:31 PM · #11
Originally posted by pitsaman:
After the Janet Boob,we have GAY Weddings,Marta Stewart and now Howard Stern!
And if you remember before all of that the focus was on unfounded WMD's and unnecessary war in Iraq,false inteligence etc....

They are intentionally looking for something else to talk about right now and I noticed MSNBC spent 5 out of 6 hours today talking about Marta!


Ah, so the Bush administration, in league with all the secretly conservative media (they hide it so well), rigged Janet Jackson's outfit (it was, after all, a "wardrobe malfunction"), blackmailed the SF mayor into marrying gay couples, set up Marth Stewart, and finally corrupted Howard Stern and made him air depraved, pornographic filth on his program in the middle of the day just so Clear Channel would have an excuse to cut of less than 1/20th of his market.

Damn, that GW is one clever dude! No wonder I like him. ;)

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 23:13:36.
 03/09/2004 11:13:32 PM · #12
who said the bush admin did this?
 03/09/2004 11:15:55 PM · #13
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
who said the bush admin did this?


....so there's someone even more sinister and devious who was upset that the "focus was on unfounded WMD's and war in Iraq,false inteligence etc...."? Sorry, I guess I leaped to a conclusion... :)

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 23:16:39.
 03/09/2004 11:20:14 PM · #14
I heard an interesting thing on NPR saturday. We are more closely at a threat to global COOLING. It comes after the warming. According to this fellow, if there is enough of a rise in fresh water, then that apparently will push the Gulf Stream farther south which in turn will end up cooling more of the Earth than warming.
So the earth know how to compensate, as it has over the last billion years, it will keep going, no matter what.
George Carlin had an interesting theory. Maybe the earth allowed humans to advance and porliferate, so that it could make styrofoam, and then when the earth had as much styrofoam as it wanted, it would shake us off like an old ratty coat. The earth can go on without us, not us without it.
 03/09/2004 11:22:05 PM · #15
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
who said the bush admin did this?


....so there's someone even more sinister and devious who was upset that the "focus was on unfounded WMD's and war in Iraq,false inteligence etc...."? Sorry, I guess I leaped to a conclusion... :)


I'm just noticing a change in MSNBC behavior in connection with/poll numbers/general viewers filling about the whole thing...
 03/09/2004 11:24:08 PM · #16
Originally posted by kellian:
I am not an environmental expert whatsoever... but I had a meteorology professor (a man who has spent his lifetime analyzing weather patterns)explain it to me this way: we have only been tracking temperature changes for the last few hundred years but our planet cools and warms in 10,000 year cycles and the hole in the ozone layer has been around since we turned our instruments on - so we don't know if it's always been there and is supposed to be there... We are warming, but maybe we're supposed to be. Maybe it's the earth's natural cycle. Just a thought.


This is what I'm thinking. I agree. I think its just another thing for environmentalists to get their panties in a bunch. Most environmentalist don't even know what they want, its a mob mentality. They hear something is wrong so they protest it. I saw a tv show on HBO or Showtime that had people sign a petition against Dihydrogenated Oxygen. Saying things like "It's in styrofome and babies diapers. It is used to manufacture everything that pollutes our environment." They signed a petition against water.
 03/09/2004 11:25:56 PM · #17
But in case of Global warming :

I'm a nature lover!I love spending long time outdoors,with animals ,birds, mountains,lakes etc...
By soul a Green left type person.
No such thing a global warming..
Maybe global cooling(earth is getting older and colder) naturally!
 03/09/2004 11:26:40 PM · #18
Originally posted by jdw91479:
...They signed a petition against water.


Heehee. that is great. Love to see more of that. and as before, the earth will continue, not us.
 03/09/2004 11:27:18 PM · #19
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I'm just noticing a change in MSNBC behavior in connection with/poll numbers/general viewers filling about the whole thing...


And I was just kidding around with your comment. There has definitely been way more coverage of Martha than is called for. No doubt there are a lot of things that drive what MSNBC and any other network covers - we all just have our own observations about what issues prevail. I'd say ideology and money are definitely struggling there at the top.

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 23:27:39.
 03/09/2004 11:30:22 PM · #20
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by jdw91479:
...They signed a petition against water.


Heehee. that is great. Love to see more of that. and as before, the earth will continue, not us.


It was the talk show that the magicians Penn & Teller had on for a few episodes.
03/10/2004 01:12:21 AM · #21
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by jdw91479:
...They signed a petition against water.


Heehee. that is great. Love to see more of that. and as before, the earth will continue, not us.

If you poll people on the contents of the Bill of Rights (without labeling it) they vote against that too ...
 03/10/2004 04:10:24 AM · #22
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by jdw91479:
...They signed a petition against water.


Heehee. that is great. Love to see more of that. and as before, the earth will continue, not us.

If you poll people on the contents of the Bill of Rights (without labeling it) they vote against that too ...


Is this a recorded or documented example, or just hyperbole? I've heard this put forward before in these same terms - "If you..." and "...they [would]..." - but don't know whether it's something that's actually been done. I'm not sure that I can believe - or maybe I just don't want to believe - that people in general could be that ignorant, but I guess that's the results of a generation of outcome-based education. Oh, yeah, different thread... :)
 03/10/2004 04:33:49 AM · #23
Yes, I know the study has been done, I think by a respectable independent polling organization (multiple oxymoron candidate there), but probably some years ago. I will try and find an actual citation if you insist.

It is obvious and well-known that any poll or survey can be constructed to give the appearance of objectivity while almost forcing the desired result. I don't think that's what this one was.

Petition-writers use the same tactics to dupe people into signing to put things on the ballot which will ultimately be detrimental to themselves and their "class." Probably the most eloquent example of this is California's Proposition 13, which was advertised as providing "security" for seniors who owned their homes, but was really a multi-billion (or trillion by now) dollar dodge to let corporate property owners essentially pay 1978-level taxes on their holdings in relative perpetuity, while ordinary homeowners pay at current rates in a highly inflated market. Two neighbors with similar houses often pay taxes at a two- or three-fold difference in rate, merely because of WHEN they bought the property.

Message edited by author 2004-03-10 04:35:02.
 03/10/2004 06:13:00 AM · #24
The insurance industry is worried about global warming:
CNN

And insurers are hardly known for risk taking ventures.

It's well known that human habitation affects weather patterns, why is it so hard to believe that it can change the climate?

The problem is that we cannot scientifically prove whether the current trend in global temperatures is completely due to human habitation or not. The reason for this is that we have no way to remove ourselves from the equation. We cannot re-run the last 10000 years of the Earth's history without humans around to determine the effect we have on the weather. Therefore we must rely on guesses and hypothesis. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.

Personally, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

03/10/2004 07:09:34 AM · #25
Originally posted by mbardeen:
... Personally, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

But that makes you sound so ... conservative. No, wait, they're the one's who want to burn all the oil ... it gets so confusing.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 07:01:29 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 07:01:29 PM EDT.