|
juliaoceania -> RE: UN on Global Warming (4/4/2007 9:37:21 AM)
|
They are saying that we can have an impact on the gloom and doom, it is not hopeless... basically they are saying there is a way out if we take steps to prevent it. From your article...
quote:
"It is legitimate to use those words in specific scenarios," he told Reuters. "But does that mean that the whole climate change debate should be about doom and gloom? No, because we are finding that we can do something about it."
and later on it states
quote:
Such appeals often lead to denial, paralysis, apathy and even perverse reactive behavior," he wrote in a letter to the journal Nature. He said U.S. media used less startling language.
"Campaigners, media and some scientists seem to be appealing to fear in order to generate a sense of urgency," he wrote. "If they want to engage the public in responding to climate change, this is unreliable at best and counter-productive at worst."
and then it goes on to say
quote:
The IPCC's main conclusion in its February report was that it was more than 90 percent probable that mankind was to blame for most global warming since 1950.
It wrote: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Anthropogenic means caused by humans.
Some U.N. agencies use clearer language.
"The matter is serious," according to the U.N.'s Climate Change Secretariat in Bonn. "Predictions of future climate impacts show that the consequences could vary from disruptive to catastrophic
I am wondering if you read the entire article expecting that we wouldn't, or if you only read the headline thinking that the article would agree with your worldview?
Can't always judge a book by its cover
|
|
|
|
