I came across two articles today that deal with the same subject, from the same report. However, the difference in their reporting is quite remarkable.
This is nothing new, skeptics or deniers will use the same data sets and the same reports to bolster their claims, and proponents will do the same, each cherrypicking their data to report on.
Here they are:
Efforts to support global climate-change falls: Poll (Windsor Star)
The BBC does a poor job of reporting the serious decline in support, while the Windsor Star came acrossed as much more “real”.
In other news, Al Gore was on Oprah tonight, pushing his documentary. That’s fine, except at the end the greenwash was once again, promoted, telling us to buy fluorescent light bulbs and change our furnace filters. As one person said:
I am convinced the embodied energy to produce, package, and ship and considering the real duty cycle, and the mercury content, make them a firm net negative for the environment, energy savings and health. We should be looking towards LED and halogen.
Meanwhile, greenhouse gases are at an all-time high and show no signs of letting off.