I believe my point is there is no consensus, but only political positionsthat promote a contrived faith-based view of some future climate catastropheif we don't "act now!" It's not a matter of understanding both campsbecause at this point I'm not sure scientists even know what the camps are. Climatehas changed pretty dramatically in the past without ANY human intervention,seems like a leap of political faith to say that human activity isresponsible for changes today. As for voices, before we proclaim there is aconsensus out there I believe responsible journalism might prove itsaudience well served to determine WHO that consensus is and what theirmotives are for that consensus. Who is going to profit from theirconsensus? 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 saidthat global climate change is human cause, I couldn't find anything on WHOthese scientist were. A red flag went up immediately, and I believe someresponsible 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 beforethey search out the who, what and the why. And that sure sounds like anadvocacy game to me.
My comment on the carbon footprint of SOF, it would be an interestingchallenge to estimate how much carbon the mere transmission of the SOFweekly program via the public airwaves adds to the atmosphere. Many of themember stations are running well over a million watts of power, notinsignificant when you add it all up.
More information about text formats