I'm not wild about gotcha journalism. But geez I'd love to ask some of the people writing about climate some basic questions. What are total CO2 emissions per year? What percentage is due to the US? To China? To coal? To power generation?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @michael_nielsen
I don't disagree, but climate coverage isn't too different from other popular science topics. Popular science writing seems to have always provided just a cursory summary. Think Time mag story on medicine vs a SI story on baseball recruiting. Maybe thats what readers can bear?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dbenyamin
Popular science is mostly for entertainment, & it doesn't bug me that it's mostly written that way. Climate is, notionally, about the future of civilization - certainly, many ppl writing about it write that way, even if they're not actually writing seriously.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @michael_nielsen
I wouldn't agree about such distinction -- it may be entertainment for you, but for many it is the most prominent src of info. Don't articles about say, high fat or economic collapse strike a similar tone?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dbenyamin @michael_nielsen
This got me to thinking: we have licensed professionals, such as MDs and CPAs, to turn to for opinions past the headlines. Is there an equivalent for responsibly handling your environment? If you want professional opinion, who do you turn to?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There's a tonne of books written by well informed people about climate. And, of course, there's the IPCC report, too. Not clear the situation is much worse than for medicine, say, in that regard.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.