1. I happened to listen to @NPR for a few hours this morning, and I heard three stories that are very much connected to #climatechange without anyone on the radio mentioning climate change even once.
It was surreal and disturbing.
[thread]
2. The first story was about the current drought in Oregon. It focused on a rancher who is currently paying to have 18,000 gallons of water a day trucked in to water his livestock. (Yes, you read that right.)
3. The story discussed how much this water and its transport was costing the rancher; how long this drought has affected ranching in the West; and what the ranchers might do if the weather doesn't eventually return to normal (as if it would one day return to normal).
4. Not once did the segment report that #climatechange makes drought more likely. Not once did it calculate and report the carbon footprint of ranching, let alone ranching that needs to truck in 18,000 gallons of water per ranch per day. It performed full-on #ClimateSilence.
5. The next segment that should have been connected to climate change was broadcasted during a show about "networks." This segment interviewed some Ted-talking Frenchman who works on self-driving cars.
6. This fellow waxed very eloquent about roads covered in self-driving cars whose algorithms would be able to adapt to traffic conditions in real time, circulating so smoothly that they would seem like "blood cells" moving in liquid flow.
7. Neither the Frenchman nor his interviewer discussed how the necessity of electrifying these cars might have influenced his vision of the planet veined with rivers of autonomous vehicles. Again, #climatesilence.
8. And, finally, @nprnews reported on the unprecedented rains in Japan that have killed dozens of people and forced 1.6 million people to evacuate their homes. (1.6 M is basically the population of Barcelona. Could you imagine Barcelona empty? Ok, then.)
9. How hard would it have been to mention in one sentence that #climatechange makes precipitation events like this more likely? Not hard.
How responsible would it have been to add that sentence to the news segment? EXTREMELY responsible.
10. We are undergoing climate change RIGHT NOW. It is global. Its signal is emerging in all sorts of events. It is part of the news ALL THE TIME.
Yet we almost never hear about it, except in the "science section," or the "environment section," or the whatever niche section.
11. And this is @NPR we're talking about here! Radio for the Birkenstock crowd!
I often wonder how my dear friends, lefties all (almost all), seem not to feel climate change slowly bearing down upon them, and then I realize: they almost never hear about it.
First point: Nesbit reported that his research shows that trying to inoculate teenagers against tobacco advertising by telling them that smoking will make them die before their time doesn't work. But....
2/n
Telling teenagers that they're being targeted and manipulated by tobacco companies who are shamelessly trying to addict them actually *does* make them much less likely to take up smoking.
3/n
I really wanted to like @NathanielRich's @NYTmag piece about 70's & 80's climate politics. It does put AGW front-and-center for once. But I'm crushed to say that Rich suppresses important facts, covering up how organized climate denial created our current predicament.
[Thread]
For just one example: let's look at how Rich narrates the role of the scientist William Nierenberg in writing and disseminating “Changing Climate,” the @theNASciences report released in 1983.
2/n
This is how Rich credentials Nierenberg (N)👇🏽. He doesn't report that N was a physicist, not a climate scientist. Nor does he say that N worked on the Manhattan Project. He hides the parts that undermine N's expertise on climate & that suggest N used science politically.
When I first saw this image a few weeks ago, I noted in passing that Morano's book was filled with lies.
Some guy in Norway (since blocked) challenged me to identify 4 or 5 lies in the text. And because I'm a woman of my word ---> thread👇🏽
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @ClimateDepot view original on Twitter
From page 45. Note the lack of citation.
Where are the peer-reviewed papers by “renowned climatologists” arguing that a tripling of CO2 concentrations would have only minor impacts on temperatures? They don’t exist. Because this claim is a lie.
2/n
From page 47. This claim is also a lie. Current warming is over 100% attributable to human activity.
The citation leads not to a scientific study, but to congressional testimony by Dr Will Happer, a Emeritus Prof of Physics, who specializes in optics, and who...