The “heretical take” that I sent out yesterday riled some of my subscribers, in part because the source is (ferociously) right-wing, and in part because the piece itself contains misinformation. Since I asked for any corrective material that people ought to see, I was glad to get this link from my old friend Brad Friedman: https://skepticalscience.com/. It seems quite sound, so I encourage all those interested in this issue to go there (and if anyone has problems with that piece, I hope they’ll let me know).
Now, I myself have problems with the global warming narrative, but not because I don’t believe it’s true. It seems to me that the oceanographic evidence alone is strong enough to make the case. What troubles me, rather, is how the New York Times et al. highlight only that environmental threat, while blacking out or playing down or laughing off the many other grave environmental dangers facing us.
For example, there’s Fukushima—or, rather, where is Fukushima, in the NYTimes or anywhere else? From those outlets you would never know what that ongoing disaster has already done to the Pacific Ocean, which is not just gradually rising due to climate change but also increasingly and lethally polluted with cesium and other radioactive contaminants—which, according to Reuters, have been found as far north as Alaska’sBering Strait. (I sent that piece out last month.) While “climate change” is everywhere we look throughout the media, Fukushima is nowhere to be found.
Likewise, from “our free press” you would never know that WiFi is an environmental danger, grave enough to move the governments of France and Germany to ban its use in schools. Worse, the corporate media has totally blacked out the likely catastrophic impact of 5G, which all of them are avidly promoting on behalf of the huge advertisers pushing it. The same commercial bias explains the media’s long criminal silence on the carcinogenic effects of cell phone use—just as they once blacked out the growing medical consensus on the dangers of cigarette smoking, except that this black-out is even worse, in that the risks of cell phone use are (very quietly) acknowledged by the cell phone companies themselves, in the fine print of their product information.
And while we’re all bombarded endlessly with news about the threat of climate change, and its impact on the oceans, there’s very little news about the range of poisons, other than the nuclear outflow from Fukushima, that have long since salted all the waters of the world: pesticides, chemical fertilizers, detergents, good old-fashioned sewage—and oil. While going on and on about what fossil fuels will do to Earth’s temperature, “our free press” has long since clammed up completely vis-a-vis the toll of the BP oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico:https://grist.org/business-technology/what-bp-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-the-2010-gulf-of-mexico-spill/
And then there’s glyphosate, a terrifying danger, here and now, to the environment and our food safety, as well as GMO’s. While “our free press” has now and then, and quietly, reported on the former, they’ve actively denied that there is anythingto fear from GMO’s. (The Time’s Jane Brody is, as usual, as staunch denialist on this controversial subject.) That glyphosate has had a catastrophic impact on marine life in those ever-rising oceans is a fact that’s also been blacked out by “our free press.”
These are only some of the erasures long effected by the media’s over-emphasis on climate change per se; and, through its one-eyed emphasis on fossil fuels as the primary cause of global warming, “our free press” has totally blacked out the mammoth US military contribution to the problem. How many people know that the Department of Defense is the worst polluter on the planet? https://www.projectcensored.org/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-polluter-on-the-planet/And how many people know that corporate agribusiness—which is to say, the crap they scarf down at McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s—also has contributed enormously to climate change? The emphasis on fossil fuels alone has largely whited out the fact that animal agriculture accounts for some 15% of globing warming. (On this subject I recommend the documentary Cowspiracy, which, although it exaggerates the environmental impact of agribusiness, is still an important exposéof an environmental threat with which the top green groups have been bizarrely unconcerned.)
Such are my concerns about this issue. Please feel free to weigh in.