Add new comment

I believe my point is there is no consensus, but only political positions
that promote a contrived faith-based view of some future climate catastrophe
if we don't "act now!" It's not a matter of understanding both camps
because at this point I'm not sure scientists even know what the camps are. Climate
has changed pretty dramatically in the past without ANY human intervention,
seems like a leap of political faith to say that human activity is
responsible for changes today. As for voices, before we proclaim there is a
consensus out there I believe responsible journalism might prove its
audience well served to determine WHO that consensus is and what their
motives are for that consensus. Who is going to profit from their
consensus? I did a Google search to see if I could find a list names of the
"climate scientists" delegates at the Paris climate meeting last year who basicall said
that global climate change is human cause, I couldn't find anything on WHO
these scientist were. A red flag went up immediately, and I believe some
responsible journalist would want to pick up on that and run with it. But,
what I'm afraid is happening is journalists are bowing to a position before
they search out the who, what and the why. And that sure sounds like an
advocacy game to me.

My comment on the carbon footprint of SOF, it would be an interesting
challenge to estimate how much carbon the mere transmission of the SOF
weekly program via the public airwaves adds to the atmosphere. Many of the
member stations are running well over a million watts of power, not
insignificant when you add it all up.