Hot under the collar on climate change story

Most of you who keep up on such things no doubt saw this story on Drudge today. If you haven't, read as much as you can stomach or the rest of this post isn't going to make a lick of sense. (As if it would have in the first place, right?)

In a single beaming missive on Speaker Pelosi's visit to China, this story is both a shining example of lazy, sensational journalism (though that sounds conflicting, they are one and the same, I can assure you) and typical politician fare (usually of the Left variety).

First, the journalism. It is point of fact that Drudge posted this story with its correct headline, if by headline one means the most important/impactful takeaway message of the story. "Pelosi calls for China's help on climate change" is the stuff of a regurgitated press release (I know - I used to receive them and write them). Virtually no reader in the U.S. cares what Pelosi is telling the Chinese about what the Chinese need to do to combat climate change (as if they'd help at all - but that's another post); what they do care about is how this woman, third in line for the presidency, will force Americans to combat climate change.

Telling readers via headline that the story they are about to read is nothing more than a fairly benign report about how Pelosi is building a coalition to fight climate change is at best lazy, and at worst dishonest and agenda-advancing. As Drudge points out, the upshot of the story is Pelosi's declaration that, "every aspect of our lives must be subjected to inventory" to combat climate change. That statement completely counters the notion that this is a story ostensibly focused on the Chinese. What, exactly, does the most powerful woman in the nation mean when she implies Americans' lives will be altered considerably in the name of this issue? Regardless of one's feelings on the topic, every American should want to know how their every day life will change. Some may welcome new enviro-friendly regulations and punishments for infractions, but they'd still want to know about them. We evidently don't get any follow-up of that sort from this dynamic reporter. If it's not laziness, it's promotion of an agenda, and neither are acceptable.

Whatever the cause, its effect is shown when a sentence like this passes for objectivity: "(China and the United States) are the biggest emitters of carbon gases that are causing warming temperatures." What irks me most here is that this could be made objective (if even selectively so) by adding two words: "scientists say." A good reporter attributes every statement of fact, especially on an issue as contentious as climate change. This writer states that carbon is warming the earth in the same manner that the sky is blue - no need to qualify this for this reporter; it is a fact. The notion that there are still some highly intelligent people - even *gasp* professional scientists - who disagree with the human-emitted-carbon-leading-to-warming-catastrophe theory is never given a drop of ink.

Moreover, writing the sentence as, "that scientists say are causing warming temperatures" lends credibility to the story. Placing the onus of proof on the numerous scientists who have argued for this theory at least partially absolves the reporter from the burden. This writer does his readers and himself a disservice by failing to attribute. This failure is quite suspect, but perhaps not unexpected.

And while we're on the topic of completely unsurprising surprises, is anyone still in denial that it is only a matter of time before politicians mangle this issue into another power-grab, if they've not already done so? Let me clue you in on a startling secret: Your Congress really doesn't care all that much about you. Sure, there are notable exceptions, this guy and this guy come to mind immediately. But on the whole, your suffering is only a concern to the political elite so long as they lack for a scapegoat they can ride to re-election. As soon as they can pass the buck convincingly, how you and I are impacted by their decisions matter little. How else do you explain this and this?

As to the broader issue of global war - er - climate change (indeed, how much of a consensus can it be when we need to develop euphemisms!), I am probably like most Americans when I say I come down somewhere in the middle. I am not convinced by the cherry-picking of facts by the likes of Al Gore, but believe the issue is of such importance it would be prudent to err on the side of caution. But here again, the elitists in Congress fail to take a pragmatic approach: While so far all the initiatives we've heard are penalty-based, I prefer the method offered by other notable conservatives that is reward-based. Let's make it attractive for companies and individuals to act in an environmentally responsible way by creating more rewards - tax cuts, expensing, etc. Don't wield an iron fist and create an envirocracy in which no one is compelled to do what you want. As the saying goes, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath. There is too much money at stake for the government in the form of federal fines and backroom payouts to give this legs. So, you and I will likely watch with shaking heads as we're handed a new set of rules from people who have no empathy for the implications of said rules, while the dutiful media does its best to stay awake and cover all the news that's fit to regurgitate.

You feel me?

AF