BCT Editorial – 5/1/07

This page was last updated on May 6, 2007.

All for one; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 1, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“In the run up to Earth Day, two Mansfield University researchers surveyed 920 Pennsylvanians over the age of 18 about their willingness to take 10 specific steps to reduce global warming.

“The good news is that more state residents are aware of the danger of global warming.

“In 1999, five in 10 Pennsylvanians surveyed said they felt global warming was occurring. In 2007, seven in 10 thought it was occurring. (Global warming naysayers can’t blame the increase on former Vice President Al Gore. Only 13 percent of those surveyed had seen his film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’)”

[RWC] Come on, guys, we’re not that stupid. Does the Times want us to believe Mr. Gore is a manmade global warming evangelist only in his movie? As I noted in previous writings (here, here, and here), Mr. Gore is even “teaching” his religion to schoolteachers so they can spread the faith.

Of course, the primary reason is the constant unquestioning exposure in the mainstream media and in the entertainment industry.

“The bad news is that many residents don’t want to get involved in combating global warming. When people were asked about taking 10 specific steps to reduce global warming. Only three steps received support from more than half of those surveyed. (And those were 51 percent, 52 percent and 55 percent.)”

[RWC] Note the editorial didn’t tell us what those “10 specific steps” were. According the Mansfield University website, they were “Use fluorescent light bulbs, compost kitchen scraps, take reusable bags to the grocery store, buy things from environmentally friendly companies, wash dishes by hand, own a hybrid car, purchase a solar power system for their home, allow their washed clothes to air-dry, purchase a windmill, and remove meat from their diet.” The items that got over 50% were “take reusable bags to the grocery,” “use fluorescent light bulbs,” and “buy things from environmentally friendly companies,” respectively.

You have to ask yourself, why didn’t the editorial disclose these facts? You know the answer, of course.

I have one last point in this section. While compact fluorescent bulbs may consume less energy per lumen, they aren’t exactly environmentally friendly because they contain mercury, and whether they break in your house or in a landfill, they present a hazardous material issue. Indeed, a Maine woman recently learned this lesson the hard way. She broke a bulb and after being directed to various government agencies, she was given an estimate of about $2,000 to clean up the broken bulb! If you think that’s exaggeration, read the Maine DEP answer to the question, “What if I break a fluorescent bulb in my home?”

“The researchers concluded that state residents believe that global warming exists but are waiting for government and science to solve the problem rather than take steps to solve it themselves.

“That won’t cut it. Tackling global warming is going to take a combined effort from government, science and individuals.”

[RWC] From what I’ve seen from the manmade global warming gang, the last thing they want to discuss is science. Instead, they prefer to talk about “consensus.”

“We’re all in this together.”

[RWC] In typical fashion, the editorial draws no distinction between natural and manmade global warming.

One final point. Did you note the editorial doesn’t mention what the Times is doing to combat alleged manmade global warming? I suspect if the Times had a good story to tell in this area, the editorial would have mentioned it to show the Times wants to lead by example.