Alarmism vs. Skepticism
How we judge global warming depends on 3 factors: the media, the politicians, and the scientific data that is filtered down to us. These three factors contribute to our views on anthropogenic climate change. It takes two to fight, so there are obviously 2 sides to the argument. On one extreme there are the alarmists, those who wish to scare us into believing in global warming. On the other hand, there are the skeptics who are not willing to listen to any side of the global warming argument. Some of the alarmists and skeptics are quite famous while some are universally hated. The fact that these people have such a heavy presence in the public mind only adds to the confusion of the general public.
And confusion is exactly what the oil and gas companies need to prove their point that global warming is just a theory not a cold, hard fact. This uncertainty furthers their profits and makes the consumer feel less guilty about the impact of the purchase of the oil and gas company products.
On the other end of the spectrum, the alarmists aren’t helping further the cause of ending climate change. They are making it look ridiculous. Take for instance the BBC documentary, Hot Planet. It makes a complete laughingstock of global warming. The film shows scenes of cities being wiped out by floods. While this event may occur in the distant future, this representation is clear misinformation because this future is extremely improbable in the near future. And while alarmism may work on some people, it only strengthens the arguments of the skeptics.
What the public needs is cold, hard facts, not watered down reports or exaggerated accounts. The public needs the truth.
If all the American people know all of the facts they will never make a mistake.