But it's so hard to get any real information. Here's an example of an opinion piece on global warming: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/?ic
Now, this was written by the founder of The Weather Channel. Granted, it's just a blog post and therefore understood to be very opinionated, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful. But it's not. Why?
"I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change."
I don't care if you're the founder of The Weather Channel or the founder of the Hair Club for Men. Hearing that you've personally "read dozens of scientific papers" and so on and so forth doesn't help anybody else believe what you're saying. I'm not going to take what you say based on faith, just as nobody else should. He doesn't even mention any specifics, let alone point me to them so I can come to the same conclusions as him. Until you link me to some of these studies, I can safely assume that you're making this up, which sounds like par for the course for a weatherman anyway.
Here's an example of an in-depth article which lays out ways of analyzing the issue of global warming so that a real debate can be had: http://www.slate.com/id/2176156/pagenum/2/
This Slate writer/economist goes into great detail about how whether or not you agree with Al Gore, Al Gore has done little more than bring up the issue of global warming -- he hasn't really given people the proper information about it to get a debate going. This author then goes about trying to correct that mistake.
He concludes by bringing up The Stern Report, a review of the economics of global warming done in Britain. According to him, the Stern Report basically concludes what Al Gore concludes, but only after going into much greater depth than Al Gore does. Of course, one thing I still have a problem with is that he neglects to link to the Stern Report in his article, but at least he cited it so someone can check it out for himself.
This is in no way the defining essay on the state of modern news, but it's an introduction to what I find most frustrating in trying to educate myself: useless articles with no apparent basis in fact. Sure, my example of a bad article was a personal blog post, but isn't that the trend anyway? And "mainstream" news is rarely better; I'm not going to go into it right now, but how often do you hear any real science in an article about global warming? It's just about whether Bush is going to call Gore to congratulate him on his Nobel Prize or not. Or think about how often we hear about the "latest polls" during the election race. Who cares? That's not responsible reporting -- I'm not trying to pick my candidate based on how many other uninformed people told you they're picking that person. I guess it's a pipe dream to think I'll get more information about the candidates, though, since giving out information usually just hurts them in the polls anyway.
Anyway, this post has been way too serious and pseudo-intellectual, and since I'm sick and poorly educated, now me brain hurt, and as a direct result your brain is bound to hurt too. So for some serious laughs check out www.fark.com, which is not your average news aggregate site. And on the plus side, it also offers a scathing look at the sloppy condition of your average media today. Plus sometimes boobies! (You can usually blame Fox News for those.)
I don't care if you're the founder of The Weather Channel or the founder of the Hair Club for Men. Hearing that you've personally "read dozens of scientific papers" and so on and so forth doesn't help anybody else believe what you're saying. I'm not going to take what you say based on faith, just as nobody else should. He doesn't even mention any specifics, let alone point me to them so I can come to the same conclusions as him. Until you link me to some of these studies, I can safely assume that you're making this up, which sounds like par for the course for a weatherman anyway.
Here's an example of an in-depth article which lays out ways of analyzing the issue of global warming so that a real debate can be had: http://www.slate.com/id/2176156/pagenum/2/
This Slate writer/economist goes into great detail about how whether or not you agree with Al Gore, Al Gore has done little more than bring up the issue of global warming -- he hasn't really given people the proper information about it to get a debate going. This author then goes about trying to correct that mistake.
He concludes by bringing up The Stern Report, a review of the economics of global warming done in Britain. According to him, the Stern Report basically concludes what Al Gore concludes, but only after going into much greater depth than Al Gore does. Of course, one thing I still have a problem with is that he neglects to link to the Stern Report in his article, but at least he cited it so someone can check it out for himself.
This is in no way the defining essay on the state of modern news, but it's an introduction to what I find most frustrating in trying to educate myself: useless articles with no apparent basis in fact. Sure, my example of a bad article was a personal blog post, but isn't that the trend anyway? And "mainstream" news is rarely better; I'm not going to go into it right now, but how often do you hear any real science in an article about global warming? It's just about whether Bush is going to call Gore to congratulate him on his Nobel Prize or not. Or think about how often we hear about the "latest polls" during the election race. Who cares? That's not responsible reporting -- I'm not trying to pick my candidate based on how many other uninformed people told you they're picking that person. I guess it's a pipe dream to think I'll get more information about the candidates, though, since giving out information usually just hurts them in the polls anyway.
Anyway, this post has been way too serious and pseudo-intellectual, and since I'm sick and poorly educated, now me brain hurt, and as a direct result your brain is bound to hurt too. So for some serious laughs check out www.fark.com, which is not your average news aggregate site. And on the plus side, it also offers a scathing look at the sloppy condition of your average media today. Plus sometimes boobies! (You can usually blame Fox News for those.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment