So you're saying the Daily Mail isn't biased?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Mike Malloy controversial comments
- Thread starter raccoonradio
- Start date
So you're saying the Daily Mail isn't biased?
Sure. That story was a year ago. Since then, the ice cap has had a relapse, according to the UN:
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/...intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-wg1
This is the report referenced in the Daily Mail article.
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/...intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-wg1
This is the report referenced in the Daily Mail article.
You do realize that this back and forth of the ice cap is absolutely natural, right?
I can find you 1000 stories of both sides of this debate. Which is what is supposed to happen. One side just refuses to even have the debate, and anyone (in this case radio hosts) that question the party line are demonized as "anti-science".
I do. However, last year's regrowth is the only recent example, and it surprised everyone.
I know. So can I. My point is that talk radio isn't giving it a fair discussion. But as others say, it's better to preach to the converted. So that's what happens.
For the record, I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just a radio guy. If the world ends tomorrow, I don't want to know. My insurance is all paid up.
No one else is either. Why should radio be different? Go to a bunch of different places and average out the difference if you want to get to the truth.
No, a lot of newspapers and magazines are presenting both sides. That Daily Mail story you posted was OK, except it was a year old, and aimed at a ten year old. TV reporting is pretty fair. And as you said, Coast To Coast. But as you also said, it's boring.
Of course it's boring. There is nothing fun or sexy about science. That's just how it is. Not everything you talk about is going to be fun and sexy. That's part of the problem. As they say in music radio, sometimes you have to play a ballad.
Global warming is a fascinating subject, actually. Scientific American had an article about ten years ago where a guy showed (from analyzing ice cores from Greenland) that man-made global warming probably started with the spread of agriculture about 8000 years ago, because agriculture produces methane.
When one considers that the natural state of the Earth is to be in an ice age, and that during ice ages there are generally massive droughts and wider desertification -- both of which would not be too conducive to growing things that feed people -- I wonder how much humanity really wants to turn the clock back (if they really could) and let the ice age happen through global cooling.
Of course, pollution doesn't benefit humanity. And clean energy is much better than dirty energy. When I read of the acidification of the world's oceans, it's downright scary.
Even so, overpopulation, dwindling resources like potable water, the possibility of food shortages and dwindling energy resources -- those are the things that I think are more pressing problems than climate change, if only because their impact could be felt sooner than that of global warming.
To connect this all with radio -- the only program I've heard on radio that even touches these facts is Coast To Coast. If FM networks like NPR have covered it, I don't know. But on the AM band (where I hear some NPR shows, and the CBC, and most of the talk shows out there), the only program that seems to air both pro- and anti- global warming viewpoints is Coast To Coast.
And, like Big A says, it's boring to a lot of listeners because it's science. But what does that say about the average listener? Why should science -- especially something that possibly concerns the future of humanity -- be "boring"? What does this say about a lot of people?
When one considers that the natural state of the Earth is to be in an ice age, and that during ice ages there are generally massive droughts and wider desertification -- both of which would not be too conducive to growing things that feed people -- I wonder how much humanity really wants to turn the clock back (if they really could) and let the ice age happen through global cooling.
Of course, pollution doesn't benefit humanity. And clean energy is much better than dirty energy. When I read of the acidification of the world's oceans, it's downright scary.
Even so, overpopulation, dwindling resources like potable water, the possibility of food shortages and dwindling energy resources -- those are the things that I think are more pressing problems than climate change, if only because their impact could be felt sooner than that of global warming.
To connect this all with radio -- the only program I've heard on radio that even touches these facts is Coast To Coast. If FM networks like NPR have covered it, I don't know. But on the AM band (where I hear some NPR shows, and the CBC, and most of the talk shows out there), the only program that seems to air both pro- and anti- global warming viewpoints is Coast To Coast.
And, like Big A says, it's boring to a lot of listeners because it's science. But what does that say about the average listener? Why should science -- especially something that possibly concerns the future of humanity -- be "boring"? What does this say about a lot of people?
A
Avid Listener
Guest
There's another aspect to any climate change discussions. Once the subject comes up, the most natural, logical progression of the conversation is going to include (1) why is it happening and (2) what should we do about it. There are too many tree-huggers who have cried "wolf" for so long that they have no credibility. As soon as they start in with their litany of getting rid of personal transportation and moving everyone into cities and all their other descriptions of some sort of collectivist utopia, those of us who value our liberty to make our own choices are going to push back. Next thing you know, we're back to the kind of passionate, rough and tumble, interesting arguments that some of us find invigorating, but that the fuddy-duddies denounce. Since the fuddie-duddies tend to be in charge of discussion venues, including talk radio, we get what we get.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
There is no "both sides." Global warming is a fact. It is not politics. It is not a matter of opinion. Any news source trying to present "both sides" is guilty of false equivalency.
The founders never intended for ignorant, uneducated, working class people to have opinions on important matters - especially when they clearly remain incapable of forming valid opinions. But politicians and talk show hosts pander to the unwashed and they are gullible enough to believe it.
Keep in mind that some people also believe the Bible is fact. That's the other side. You have Bill Nye on one side, and God on the other.
Ummmm, doesn't that fall under freedom of speech? Maybe you mean to say that they never intended for those people to influence public policy. But that wouldn't be right, either, as I'm pretty positive that all the participants on the right side of the American Revolution weren't worldly, educated aristocrats, and some of them likely supported the revolution based on misconstrued facts and faulty opinions. So the unwashed do indeed have the right to an opinion on climate change or anything else. It's up to the public policymaking process to determine whose opinions prevail.
And the great middle ground: the millions upon millions who still adhere to a religion but say that the Bible is primarily allegory.
You post that in a way that seems to say that: "I have settled the issue.... here is the reality!"
The dictionary says: a story in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation
There is part of Christianity which argues for a LITERAL reading of the Bible. And there are some people who adhere to what I read into your post: The Bible is just a bunch of teases and hints with no reality.
But if you are going to round up "millions and millions" you are going to have to include a whole boat-load (or is that an ARK-LOAD?
) of people who read part of it literally or close to literally, and an even bigger boat-load of people to say: "It may be allegory.... but it is trustworthy allegory... so be loyal to the best you can make of the allegory because somehow they all got gathered together by ancestors as the very best they could pass along to us.Declaring that some people accept this book that sells quite well as just a bunch of fairy tales thus it has nothing to say to us about cultivating and preserving the planet is not a declaration that will not fly.... with the millions and millions.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Read up on the founders. They were worldly, educated, aristocrats. No the grunts in the army were not but they were just expected to follow orders, just like today. Freedom of the press only applies to those who own one. Free speech doesn't guarantee anybody will pay attention. The right to vote was restricted to White, men who owned real property - that is, the elite. And the constitution was deliberately written to protect the government and the elite which controlled if from "the tyranny of the mob."
Politics may deal in opinion. Science does not. So there is no room for opinion on whether climate change is occurring. What to do about it as a political question and there is room for opinions on that. But the media does everyone a disservice when they treat science as a matter of one person's opinion is as good as anybody else's. Climate change is real. Cigarettes will ruin your health. So will pollution, fat and sugar. But some interests make money off all that and some people won't face reality.
Once the elite realized how gullible and easily led the masses are, they let them vote. And gave them talk radio to make them feel important. It's a harmless exercise and makes them happy, so why not?
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Regarding whether or not climate change is a fact or not is one thing. NASA orbital satellites have confirmed planetary temperature increases in an unmistakable trend. The planet is most definitely growing warmer than it was previously. However, the planet I'm referring to Mars. In case some of your aren't aware of this, the only self-propelled vehicles on Mars are solar powered.
There are several points of contention that are not settled, proven facts.
1. It is not proven that it is humans releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that is the primary, or even an important part of global warming.
2. It is not a proven fact that the only solution to the problem of man-made global warming is for us to all change to an enforced collectivist urban lifestyle, relying on only public transportation and otherwise minimizing our carbon footprints.
3. It is not a proven fact that if the overall temperature of the earth does increase that won't result in increased rainfall in currently arid regions that could turn the Sahara Desert into a lush, wet, cropland. It's also not a proven fact that if the entire world gets warmer, regions like Northern Canada and Siberia will become temperate farmland, capable of growing even more food than we get from the Great Plains. But though those things aren't proven facts, they are just as scientifically possible as any other outcome from global climate change, regardless of the reason for it.
The bottom line is that even if it is proven that the earth is getting warmer, it is not proven that such an event might not be a good thing in the long run. It is not proven why it is happening, so any suggestions of possible remedies are somewhat ludicrous.
Now, does anyone think that enough people are going to want to listen to people argue over those unresolved issues in sufficient numbers to generate the kind of ratings required to keep talk show hosts on the air?
There are several points of contention that are not settled, proven facts.
1. It is not proven that it is humans releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that is the primary, or even an important part of global warming.
2. It is not a proven fact that the only solution to the problem of man-made global warming is for us to all change to an enforced collectivist urban lifestyle, relying on only public transportation and otherwise minimizing our carbon footprints.
3. It is not a proven fact that if the overall temperature of the earth does increase that won't result in increased rainfall in currently arid regions that could turn the Sahara Desert into a lush, wet, cropland. It's also not a proven fact that if the entire world gets warmer, regions like Northern Canada and Siberia will become temperate farmland, capable of growing even more food than we get from the Great Plains. But though those things aren't proven facts, they are just as scientifically possible as any other outcome from global climate change, regardless of the reason for it.
The bottom line is that even if it is proven that the earth is getting warmer, it is not proven that such an event might not be a good thing in the long run. It is not proven why it is happening, so any suggestions of possible remedies are somewhat ludicrous.
Now, does anyone think that enough people are going to want to listen to people argue over those unresolved issues in sufficient numbers to generate the kind of ratings required to keep talk show hosts on the air?
Somehow, it's motivated you and a few others to post comments on a message board for several days, so something about it must be compelling.
You act as is this doesn't include you.
You don't even need to go that far. There are three questions to answer when it comes to climate change:
1. Is it happening? Almost no one disputes this.
2. Did humans cause it? There is more dispute about this part, and from reputable sources.
3. If we did cause it, can we do anything to reverse it? This is even more murky and disputed. No one knows the real answer to this.
The problem with climate change is that it's being used as a political weapon to punish people who don't vote right. It's no coincidence that the areas being targeted by the EPA right now are in red states.
Until we stop attacking people with the issue of climate change instead of looking for real solutions, this issue will continue to be contentious.
Really? The two states being hit hardest are Washington and New York. Idaho, Maine, and Alaska have the smallest numbers to hit.
And this isn't some new thing. It's been going on for 40 years, through many different administrations.
It's been my experience that when you use the law to punish someone for how they voted, it usually backfires. It's not going to bring them over to your side. I don't think I'm the only one who notices that. So punishment is not a very plausible motivation. It won't bring about the desired result. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Look around the world. Which countries have signed on to this, and which ones haven't?
Last edited:
- Status