It's not just climate change. Even in the best media sources, like the New York Times, reporters present false balance on just about everything. I suppose false balance beats no balance (re: Fox News and MSNBC).
But I stumbled upon this post over at Think Progress and found the graphic below kind of entertaining.
While the spirit of this graph rings true to my mind, to acquiesce to modern standards of balance, I suppose I should offer that others (denialists?) may feel the opposite.
To be clear: I don't think the graph has an actual empirical basis.
Now, I wish they would do one on the costs of mitigating climate change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Renewable energy not as costly as some think
The other day Marshall and Sol took on Bjorn Lomborg for ignoring the benefits of curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed. But Bjorn, am...
-
It's been a long haul, but my coauthor Wolfram Schlenker and I have finally published our article with the title of this blog post in th...
-
The other day Marshall and Sol took on Bjorn Lomborg for ignoring the benefits of curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed. But Bjorn, am...
-
A couple months ago the New York Times convened a conference " Food for Tomorrow: Farm Better. Eat Better. Feed the World ." ...
No comments:
Post a Comment