The public is inundated on a daily basis by the modern media with example of how global warming is causing phenomena that will kill us all if we don’t act right now. Over at Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft takes note of yet another example of this type propganda. While this example may be a minor one, it does serve to demonstrate the messaging that is being done.
In July 2009, the San Francisco Chronicle ran with a story with a headline of “Get ready for even foggier summers.” The article begins as follows.
The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it’s about to get even foggier.
That’s the conclusion of several state researchers, whose soon-to-be-published study predicts that even with average temperatures on the rise, the mercury won’t be soaring everywhere.
“There’ll be winners and losers,” says Robert Bornstein, a meteorology professor at San Jose State University. “Global warming is warming the interior part of California, but it leads to a reverse reaction of more fog along the coast.”OK, so global warming is going to cause more fog in San Fran. Got it. However, today the Telegraph UK has a story with the headline “Fog over San Franscisco thins by a third due to climate change.” The tagline and text of the article begin:
The sight of Golden Gate Bridge towering above the fog will become increasing rare as climate change warms San Francisco bay, scientists have found.
The coastal fog along the Californian coast has declined by a third over the past 100 years – the equivalent of three hours cover a day, new research shows.
And it is not just bad for scenery, the reduction in the cooling effect of the fog could damage the health of the huge Redwood Forests nearby.Wait, what? So now global warming, excuse me climate change, is causing less fog? The full text of the actual articles aren’t as bad as the headlines and opening text. The idea that human activity that is causing potential changes in fog percentages is questioned.
Overall though the 10-seconds sound bites are certainly contradictory. And the accompanying messaging is exactly what one would expect. The second article clearly states that decreased fog levels could severely damage the nearby Redwood Forests. I’ve been to those forests multiple times, they are absolutely spectacular. I would hate to see them go away. So the impetus for action is certainly there–save the redwoods! But what if the fog level is going up and not down as first article suggests? Does that mean the redwoods are going to thrive?
From the comments at Gateway Pundit:
A theory is supposed to serve as an explanation of known facts and as a way to make predictions. It seems that just about every weather phenomenon that’s worth noting at all was somehow the result of AGW, and at the same time AGW keeps making predictions that aren’t coming true. It’s because of this that the climate-science community has come to look like an order of priests threatening the populace with dire warnings of how the gods are going to start punishing them all if they don’t start living right, or how the gods will send a dragon to eat the sun if the people don’t work harder.
I’m not sure I could say it much better than that, so I’ll end there.