Why is it so easy to speak in false platitudes about Global Warming? The only other issue that appears to me to be so falsely spoken of is stem cell research. When the media talks about stem cells, they invariably refer to embryonic stem cells, avoiding completely the fact that adult stem cells exist, and that adult stem cells are the only stem cells with which cures have been effected, of which there have been several. When it comes to global warming, it's hard for the media to admit that although global warming exists, and that although we should clean up our environment, that not everyone thinks we need to clean up the environment because it will reduce global warming.
I'll admit it's easy to make assumptions. I do it more than my fair share of the time. However, I want, anyway, to point to an egregious example of the Deseret Morning News having done just that. Here is the thesis statement of the DesNews article.
By enormous margins, Utahns want alternative fuels developed in a fight against global warming.
I say Hogwash! Bull-chicken!
Utahns want alternative fuels developed because it makes sense to have a cleaner environment and to be less dependent on foreign fuel sources. It's an interesting logical jump to think that they only want it because they are afraid that the sky is falling.
Here were the poll questions.
1. Do you agree or disagree that Utah should be looking for alternative fuels and or energy technologies?
90% agreed somewhat or strongly that we should be. Of course we should. I'm surprised it wasn't 99% or so.
2. Will making major changes in our energy sources and use be good or bad for the economy?
The graphic shows the same percentages for the responses to this question as to question #1, so I'm not sure if it was a mistake, but I think most people would agree that it would be good for the economy. Then, after asking those two innocuous questions, the third question was:
3. A number of energy alternatives have been proposed as possible solutions to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Do you support or oppose government incentives and investments to encourage the following. (Several alternative energy sources are then listed. All of them receive at least majority marks in favor.)
Global warming is a fact. Greenhouse gases are a fact. The problem is the linkage of the two. Many scientists think that man has very little to do with global warming, but you wouldn't know that with all the propaganda going around.
Poll questions are strange sometimes, and sometimes strangely worded on purpose. Since the question was loaded in such a peculiar way, the response must be given with focus on (a) the reduction of greenhouse gases, or (b) that we find alternative energy sources.
I think Utahns were responding to the (b) part of the poll question. This is why their numbers were an affirmative majority in all cases. Because it makes sense to have cleaner, more reliable energy. But it does not make sense to infer that they want it because they think the sky is falling in 50 or 100 or however many years.
I wish the pollsters would have asked a more forthright question: "Do you think that man is causing global warming?" (They would have gotten an answer containing much different percentages). I think they probably want you to think that that was the question they asked, when it wasn't even nearly so.