Story cites report that states carbon output must be 'near zero to avert danger' without including a challenge to that claim.
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/10/2008 5:37:39 PM
Global warming “solutions” covered by the mainstream media keep getting more and more radical. But this time, there’s much more involved than using a different type of light bulb, taking the bus to work or using less toilet paper.
A front page story in the March 10 Washington Post cited two separate reports recently warning of “danger” if worldwide carbon output wasn’t reduced to “near zero.”
“The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades,” wrote the Post’s Juliet Eilperin.
Near-zero output is such a radical solution that even the author of one of those reports admitted as much.
“The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?” asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the Post story said. “The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about.”
The other report in Eilperin’s story suggested the Earth could warm by more than seven degrees. That is a higher temperature than even worst-case scenario alarmist Mark Lynas said is unlikely, a scenario detailed in his recently released movie “Six Degrees.” Eilperin referred to a report by Oregon State University professor Andreas Schmittner.
The Rest Here: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080310172905.aspx