Whether a source is slanted to the right or slanted to the left, I always look to other, more nonpartisan, reputable sources to either confirm or deny the validity of the article (or display a bit of both). I may label myself as a progressive, but if I read an article from a liberally-slanted source which sounds a little fishy to me, I'm going to do anything but confirm it on the spot, even if I want to believe the article's claims. This is why I often times resort to fact-checkers. No, they may not be perfect, but I'm going to believe the words of an individual who has thoroughly researched an article or statement, gets paid to do so, and attempts to be as objective as possible with his or her analysis, over an op-ed piece, a talking point on a cable news network or radio show, a chain email, or a single quote. I write all this because, over the weekend, word broke of a study which claimed that we could be heading for another mini ice age in the next 40 years. Of course, not even five seconds after this study's findings were released, slanted media outlets decided to exaggerate the findings to prove their long-held beliefs were accurate.
Conservative outlets published articles with the following headlines:
- "Global Warming? 'Mini Ice Age' on Its Way" (Newsmax.com)
- "Scientists warning of global cooling once again!" (American Thinker)
Liberal outlets published these articles:
- "Sunspot cycles won't cause a 'Mini Ice Age' by 2030" (Slate)
- "Media Reports The World Will Enter A 'Mini Ice Age' In The 2030's. The Reverse Is True." (ThinkProgress)
The truth of the matter is both liberal and conservative media outlets are overreacting to the study's headlines. The study wasn't suggesting that global warming is a hoax and that this predicted mini ice age would disprove it. So those in the liberal media need to calm down, collect their breaths, and realize their long-held beliefs weren't disproved; and those in the conservative media need to calm down, stop exaggerating, and realize their long-held beliefs weren't proved.
To garner a more balanced perspective of the study's findings and what they mean going forward, Adam Vaughn of The Guardian released an article, entitled, "Weak sun could offset some global warming in Europe and US - study."
Vaughn starts the article by writing:
"Global warming in northern Europe and the eastern US could be partially offset in future winters because of the sun entering a weaker cycle similar to the one which enabled frost fairs to take place on the river Thames in the 17th and 18th century, according to new research.
However, the study said any potential weakening in solar activity would have only a small effect on temperature rises at a worldwide level, delaying the warming caused by emissions from cars, factories and power plants by around two years."
The author then added:
"'Even if you do go into Maunder minimum conditions it's not going to combat global warming, the sun's not going to save us,' said lead author Sarah Ineson at the Met Office...
Climate change means such sights in the second half of the century would not occur, since the sun's cooling effect would only reduce manmade temperature rises in northern Europe and the eastern US by 0.4-0.8C. Such offsetting was not a 'large signal', Ineson said, although the study found there would be more frosty days in those regions than there would be without the weaker solar activity."
Not long after, Vaughn wrote the following:
"Globally, a grand solar minimum would reduce temperatures by just 0.1C between 2050 and 2099. Manmade climate change, by contrast, is expected to bring temperature rises of around 3.75C in the same period if drastic action is not taken to cut carbon emissions...
'This research shows that the regional impacts of grand solar minimum are likely to be larger than the global effect, but it's still nowhere near big enough to override the expected global warming trend due to man-made change,' said Ineson."
Lastly, as if the writer was predicting that conservative media outlets would attempt to cherry-pick and exaggerate findings from the study, Vaughn closed with this:
"Asked if the findings of her study gave European and US political leaders an excuse for weaker action on cutting emissions, Ineson said the reaction should be exactly the opposite, as it did not change the bigger picture on climate change."
So, my fellow liberals, please try not having any conniptions when seeing the rather misleading headlines regarding this study and continue fighting against the dangers of global warming. As for conservatives, please try reading more than just the headlines to studies before claiming the study supports your beliefs when it does anything but that.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/23/weak-sun-could-offset-some-global-warming-europe-us-study
Conservative outlets published articles with the following headlines:
- "Global Warming? 'Mini Ice Age' on Its Way" (Newsmax.com)
- "Scientists warning of global cooling once again!" (American Thinker)
Liberal outlets published these articles:
- "Sunspot cycles won't cause a 'Mini Ice Age' by 2030" (Slate)
- "Media Reports The World Will Enter A 'Mini Ice Age' In The 2030's. The Reverse Is True." (ThinkProgress)
The truth of the matter is both liberal and conservative media outlets are overreacting to the study's headlines. The study wasn't suggesting that global warming is a hoax and that this predicted mini ice age would disprove it. So those in the liberal media need to calm down, collect their breaths, and realize their long-held beliefs weren't disproved; and those in the conservative media need to calm down, stop exaggerating, and realize their long-held beliefs weren't proved.
To garner a more balanced perspective of the study's findings and what they mean going forward, Adam Vaughn of The Guardian released an article, entitled, "Weak sun could offset some global warming in Europe and US - study."
Vaughn starts the article by writing:
"Global warming in northern Europe and the eastern US could be partially offset in future winters because of the sun entering a weaker cycle similar to the one which enabled frost fairs to take place on the river Thames in the 17th and 18th century, according to new research.
However, the study said any potential weakening in solar activity would have only a small effect on temperature rises at a worldwide level, delaying the warming caused by emissions from cars, factories and power plants by around two years."
The author then added:
"'Even if you do go into Maunder minimum conditions it's not going to combat global warming, the sun's not going to save us,' said lead author Sarah Ineson at the Met Office...
Climate change means such sights in the second half of the century would not occur, since the sun's cooling effect would only reduce manmade temperature rises in northern Europe and the eastern US by 0.4-0.8C. Such offsetting was not a 'large signal', Ineson said, although the study found there would be more frosty days in those regions than there would be without the weaker solar activity."
Not long after, Vaughn wrote the following:
"Globally, a grand solar minimum would reduce temperatures by just 0.1C between 2050 and 2099. Manmade climate change, by contrast, is expected to bring temperature rises of around 3.75C in the same period if drastic action is not taken to cut carbon emissions...
'This research shows that the regional impacts of grand solar minimum are likely to be larger than the global effect, but it's still nowhere near big enough to override the expected global warming trend due to man-made change,' said Ineson."
Lastly, as if the writer was predicting that conservative media outlets would attempt to cherry-pick and exaggerate findings from the study, Vaughn closed with this:
"Asked if the findings of her study gave European and US political leaders an excuse for weaker action on cutting emissions, Ineson said the reaction should be exactly the opposite, as it did not change the bigger picture on climate change."
So, my fellow liberals, please try not having any conniptions when seeing the rather misleading headlines regarding this study and continue fighting against the dangers of global warming. As for conservatives, please try reading more than just the headlines to studies before claiming the study supports your beliefs when it does anything but that.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/23/weak-sun-could-offset-some-global-warming-europe-us-study
Comments
Post a Comment