Oh no, the planet's getting warmer, thank god for air conditioning!

By: N. Long

For the first time in the year 2007, I find myself turning on the air conditioner in my room. It's Sunday, May 6th, and the temperature in my hometown of Millbrae has reached a whooping 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Ok, so it's not that hot, but the crappy insulation in my room, combined with the mid-afternoon sun, made me feel like I was in a sauna. So I cranked up the AC, causing whatever damage to the environment that air conditioners cause, sat back, and contemplated the idea that Al Gore might be right about global warming.

On March 13, a New York Times article, quoting from many global warming skeptics, attacked Al Gore's representation of global warming. A few days latter, Fox News correspondents, quoting the Times article, continued the assault on Gore. The specific nature of the attack is not important, so much as the attack itself. When discussing the issue of global warming, the media has consistently attempted to provide both sides of the story. As responsible journalist, anchors, reporters, and commentators alike have attempted to create "balance" in their reporting. However, in their enthusiasm to be fair and accurate, have journalist actually created a bias?

Jules and Maxwell Boykoff of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a media watchdog organization, argue that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming, telling both sides of the story can actually be "informational bias." While the large majority of environmental scientist along with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agree that "global warming is a serious problem that must be addressed immediately," a "small group of global warming skeptics" have their views greatly amplified by the news media. Given the large number of scientist and officials that agree on the effects of global warming, it might be upsetting for them to see a small group get just as much airtime. Nevertheless, so long as that small group exists, their side of the story must be told.

The United States is a democracy. And in a democracy, the vote of the majority rules. However, both sides of a story must be heard. Even if one side is seemingly illegitimate and without merit, it has a right to speak. Then, and only then, can a vote take place. It is true that the majority of scientist believe that the Earth's temperature is rising. All but one peer-reviewed scholarly publication on the subject of global warming has supported this belief. However, so long as there is one publication on the other side, there exists a debate. And as responsible journalist, anchors, reporters and commentators have a duty to tell both sides of the story.

Today was the first truly hot day of the year in Millbrae, but as the AC started to kick in, and I felt my body cool, I thought to myself, why should I care? Which brings up another problem with the global warming agenda. According to the leading global warming scientists, by the year 2100, the temperature of the Earth "could rise by as much as 10.4 degrees," which could cause sea levels to "rise by as much as 35 inches." First of all, by the year 2100, I'll dead. I don't plan on having children, so I don't really care what happens that far into the future. Secondly, when scientists use the phrase "by as much as," it usually means that they are talking worst-case scenario. Remember the millennium bug? Scientists were spot on about that one. The bottom line for me, and probably a few other people as well, is this. I will work to stop global warming if it benefits me, or has no effect on me. In 2003, I was still an undergraduate and just beginning in real estate. I needed a new care and didn't have much money. I looked into buying a Toyota Prius, thinking I could help the environment and save money on gasoline at the same time. Turns out, the Prius would have cost several thousand more than the Toyota Corolla, which I ended up buying. The average savings on gasoline would almost certainly never nullify the difference in initial price. The features on the two cars were virtually the same, so basically, I would have to pay to help the environment. Not gonna happen. Al Gore can preach all he wants, but so long as it is more cost effective to buy the Corolla, most people are going to but the Corolla. Don't believe me? Check the stats. As for the temperature in my room, all I can say is, thank god for air conditioning.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200703260011

http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/dh_media_warm.htm