Global Warming Censored
Networks Stifle Debate, Rely on Politicians, Rock Stars
and Men-on-the-Street for Science

 

SIDEBAR

Exec. Summary | Full Report | PDF Version

                                     A Costly Compromise…

By Genevieve Ebel, Researcher

     “The science is clear that we are damaging the globe and that global warming is a fact,” declared New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in an interview with Harry Smith of CBS’s “The Early Show” on Dec. 13, 2007.

     Of course, Bloomberg is no scientist – and there are hundreds of scientists who disagree about those supposedly “clear” conclusions, including Dr. Timothy Ball, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. John Christy, and Dr. Roy Spencer just to name a few.

     That didn’t matter to Smith, who turned the conversation to the United Nations Climate Conference in Bali. Smith pressed Bloomberg with the question, “Can the world afford to wait?” on the issue of climate change.

     Bloomberg’s answer was a dangerous compromise. “Some countries of the developing world say ‘Look, we’ve got to feed our people. That’s our highest priority.’ The developed world says ‘Well our people are always – already eating, but we’ve got to make sure we don’t damage the environment.’ And the great challenge is to find something with both sides can go part ways,” he said.

     So, developing countries would be forced to “compromise” in ways that could jeopardize lives. By contrast, developed nations would be forced to bear a huge cost burden that would take a major toll on those economies – and the global economy as a result.

     In an interview on May 14, 2004, with NPR’s Richard Harris, Dr. John Christy confirmed the high cost to developing nations. He said that “this particular scientific issue has impact on people’s lives in terms of will they have access to energy if certain regulations are provided. If dealing with it causes the wealthy countries to lose wealth because of higher costs for energy, then the third world would find itself in worse shape.”

     The Business & Media Institute found that 90 percent of the network stories within the study window ignored the monetary cost of global warming “solutions,” from higher fuel economy mandates to climate change legislation.