EDITORS NOTE: This issue is one of Time Magazine’s noteworthy issues on climate change (see
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
In 2006 Time Magazine published a Doomsday Global Warming story on their cover. The article is noteworthy for it's exceptionally detailed and well written descriptions of the impending climate apocalypse. However like every other doomsday climate change prediction it was a work of fiction. Read more in our article Global Warming Be Worried Be Very Worried. 2006).
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
Time Magazine has an editorial bias that leans hard to the left, and is often seen pushing very progressive social and political agendas. The quality of the writing is also usually above average, making a powerful impact on the weak minded or impressionable readers, making it an extremely powerful propaganda tool in spreading left leaning ideas and talking points. See noteworthy articles from Time Magazine. Time Magazine has editorial slant that leans hard to the left, and reading this article you can really “feel” this authors frustration that everyone hasn’t accepted that climate change is real, and that we need to move forward with the liberal agenda that’s required to solve it. The opening paragraph sets the tone for the whole article:
No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth. Never mind what you’ve heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us…
The author spends the first few paragraphs talking about how there are more hurricanes and how they are getting worse, when the scientific data says the exact opposite, less hurricanes are making landfall
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
Climate change alarmists like to scare people into believing their agenda by claiming increased greenhouse gases have increased the number of hurricanes making landfall, the problem is they're wrong. Since 1950 the number of hurricanes making landfall in the United States has been declining. Learn more in our article Are More Hurricanes Making landfall in the United States. Are More Hurricane Making Landfall). Many people, including this author, assume because we see more news footage of hurricane damage on TV, that more hurricanes are happening, and that they are getting stronger. There are two reasons for this, the first is greedy real estate developers, and corrupt local governments and building departments, are allowing housing and developments to be constructed in areas previously deemed too high risk. We discuss this in greater detail in our article It' hard to deny the footage on the news showing the damage caused by a hurricane making landfall, but this isn't proof that climate change is increasing the strength and and intensity of hurricanes. The increased damage you see is more often caused by greedy developers, and corrupt local governments, allowing communities to be built in areas that were previously deemed too high risk, and not making plans to deal with urbanization. Read more in our full article about Are Hurricanes Getting Stronger.Are Hurricanes Getting Stronger. The second reason is
A list of Main Stream Media News Sources that push political or social agendas, government propoganda or spread Fake News. See more articles about Main Stream Media Main Stream Media spreads
A look at flagrant examples of Main Stream Media News Sources spreading deceptive information and Fake News. See examples of Fake News Fake News with
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
One of the most important life lessons you can learn is that Main Stream Media has no problem using deceptive coverage of a news event to push an agenda they agree with. This is especially true of their coverage tropical storms, hurricanes, and flooding which is used to make you believe the climate change agenda. In this article we'll show you proof of how they are lying to you, see How Main Stream Media Exaggerates Hurricane Coverage Deceptive Hurricane Coverage. Main Stream Media is a willing accomplice in spreading the Climate Change Agenda.
In the 4th paragraph the author declares there’s no longer any debate, and even skeptics agree climate change is real;
Environmentalists and lawmakers spent years shouting at one another about whether the grim forecasts were true, but in the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it. If there was any consolation, it was that the glacial pace of nature would give us decades or even centuries to sort out the problem…
Anytime someone declares something is true, and offers no proof, and demands that you accept that belief unquestioningly, there’s a very good chance they’re lying. We discuss this more in our article on The phrases 'settled science', 'trust the science' and 'scientific consenus' are used to trick you into believing what the 'experts' tell you is 'true'. They want you to accept these statements as unquestionable facts, and not to do your own research. Any time some one tells you something is 'settled science' or there is 'scientific consenus' something is true, there's a good chance they're lying to you . Read more on our full article about Settled Science and Scientific Consensus"Settled Science" and "Scientific Consensus".
Then we get to a really vivid descriptions of the consequences of climate change, arctic ice and glaciers melting, followed by rising sea levels:
But glaciers, it turns out, can move with surprising speed, and so can nature. What few people reckoned on was that global climate systems are booby-trapped with tipping points and feedback loops, thresholds past which the slow creep of environmental decay gives way to sudden and self-perpetuating collapse. Pump enough CO2 into the sky, and that last part per million of greenhouse gas behaves like the 212th degree Fahrenheit that turns a pot of hot water into a plume of billowing steam. Melt enough Greenland ice, and you reach the point at which you’re not simply dripping meltwater into the sea but dumping whole glaciers. By one recent measure, several Greenland ice sheets have doubled their rate of slide, and just last week the journal Science published a study suggesting that by the end of the century, the world could be locked in to an eventual rise in sea levels of as much as 20 ft. Nature, it seems, has finally got a bellyful of us…
The next paragraph contains a quote from a scientist:
Things are happening a lot faster than anyone predicted, says Bill Chameides, chief scientist for the advocacy group Environmental Defense…
There’s an important detail here, he’s a chief scientist for an environmental advocacy group. Bill is probably just like everybody else, he needs his job to pay his mortgage, car payments and support his family. He also knows if he says the wrong thing in a public statement he will be out of job. I’d like to think that scientists are willing to put facts above an agenda, but I know in the real world that’s just not how things work. The question of whether scientists are willing to lie with scary predictions if they think it will make the world a better place was answered by Steven Schneider in 1976 (see
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
Whether you believe climate change is real or not comes down to one question, do you believe scientists would lie to advance an agenda? In 1976 Stephen Schneider the lead scientist of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest..."
Read more in our article Would Scientists Lie To Advance The Climate Change Agenda. Would Scientists Lie To Advance The Climate Change Agenda)
Further into the the author brings up the “Rising Temperature” argument:
Of the 20 hottest years on record, 19 occurred in the 1980s or later. According to NASA scientists, 2005 was one of the hottest years in more than a century.
The problem is the temperatures used in these statements, aren’t temperatures that are ever recorded on a thermometer, they are calculated averages obtained after NASA “adjusts” the data. That adjustment is where all the “voodoo math” that creates the “warmest year on record” happens, for a more in-depth explanation see our article
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
need text Learn more in our article Is The Earth Getting Warmer. Is The Earth Really Getting Warmer.
The author goes on about how glaciers melting is bad and will raise the sea level
Dumping that much water into the ocean is a very dangerous thing. Icebergs don’t raise sea levels when they melt because they’re floating, which means they have displaced all the water they’re ever going to. But ice on land, like Greenland’s, is a different matter. Pour that into oceans that are already rising (because warm water expands), and you deluge shorelines. By some estimates, the entire Greenland ice sheet would be enough to raise global sea levels 23 ft., swallowing up large parts of coastal Florida and most of Bangladesh. The Antarctic holds enough ice to raise sea levels more than 215 ft…
The problem is NASA also says glaciers growing is bad and proves climate change. If glaciers shrinking and growing are both bad, why are we even using glaciers as way to measure anything? Honestly it’s impossible to take the scientists at NASA seriously, when they contradict themselves to push an agenda.
At this point the article turns into a Doomsday Porn Novella with vivid descriptions of the inevitable climate apocalypse. Here we are over years after the article was written, and none of the predictions are even close to coming true, so it’s hard to take the author seriously. That said, credit where it’s due, as a work of fiction, the visual descriptions are powerful and moving, so it’s a very well written piece of fiction.
Articles like this are important because Time Magazine is regarded as a trustworthy and authoritative news source by many people. Since the editorial slant of the magazine is hard left, it often exposes people to new progressive social and political agendas. Additionally the quality of writing for Time Magazine is above average, and the author’s gift of prose let’s them make a strong impact or compelling argument on impressionable people. Time Magazine has a lot more impact than people think.