- The Washington Times - Saturday, May 12, 2001

The Media Research Center, a media watchdog group, recently noted that press coverage of the "global warming" issue has been overwhelmingly biased in favor of the most apocalyptic scenarios ginned-up by U.N. bureaucrats and various "environmental" groups. The MRC says that a top-heavy 97 percent of all comments about global warming on the four major networks newscasts from Inauguration Day to Earth Day in April slanted their coverage in such a way that the viewer might logically conclude that the problem is both real and caused by human activity. The MRC describes as typical this lead-in on the CBS Evening News: "Global temperatures on the rise, glaciers retreating, storms more frequent and severe a looming crisis, say many scientists, of the greenhouse effect."

What´s interesting about this is not the liberal bias of the media that´s a well-known given. Rather, what´s newsworthy about the global warming debate is the way the media have been spoon-fed politicized conclusions in U.N. "summary reports" about global warming.

The latest of the "summary reports" is the most dire of them all stating with dogmatic certainty that we can expect to see worldwide temperature increases of up to 5.8 degrees centigrade, enough to cause massive flooding of low-lying coastal areas and wreak devastation across the globe. However, there´s no need to grab your raincoat and head for higher ground. As Paul Georgia of the Competitive Enterprise Institute points out, records "show that the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period from around 1000 to 1300. The 20th century was cooler than the Medieval Warm Period, and the warming that has occurred could easily be explained by a natural emergence from the Little Ace Age (1300-1850), an episode that also mysteriously disappears from the data set used as the basis for the U.N. "summary report."

Mr. Georgia (and the MRC) note that the media and global warming backers love to cite the "new and stronger evidence" in support of catastrophic global warming, but that "the evidence comes from computer-generated climate models, which, of course, isn´t evidence at all." This, clearly, is a rickety basis upon which to formulate public policy.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide