The Commons Blog: National Geographic Sounds the Alarm

National Geographic Sounds the Alarm

Posted by Andrew Morriss · 3 September 2004 · Environmental Alarmism

My copy of National Geographic just arrived with a cover story on"Global Warming: Bulletins from a Warmer World" and a cover shot of a forest fire (maybe it is warming things up?). You can see it here. You can take the alarming interactive quiz to test your climate IQ.

In a particularly sanctimonious editorial, the editor says he's expecting a lot of letters in response to the 74 pages of stories on global climate change but "these three stories cover subjects that are too important to ignore. From Antartica (above) to Alaska to Bangladesh, a global warming trend is altering habitats, with devastating ecological and economic effects." Bill Allen, the editor, bravely says that "I can live with some canceled memberships. I'd have a harder time looking at myself in the mirror if I didn't bring you the biggest story in geography today."

I haven't had time to read the entire 74 pages, but just flipping through it I see that not one of the large type quotes expresses any skepticism and plenty promote alarmism. I remember when National Geographic could be relied on for stories of a quality that matched the quality of its photography. It is sad to see a once thoughtful journal descend to eco-alarmism.

TrackBack (199)

I think if any story warrants 74 pages of a national geogrpahic issues it's global warming. How is it alarmism? Unless you're the bush administration, or hiding under a rock, it's pretty much common knowledge that the earth is ever so slightly warmer than it used to be.

Unless of course you're just ignoring the mountain of evidence and record breaking tempatures and strange weather patterns all over the earth.

Posted by: Ryan Johnson at September 4, 2004 12:10 AM

The Earth is possibly getting warming. If so this probably has little to do with human activities. Or perhaps it does. This we do know : pollution is not a good thing, whether it causes warming or not.

So the questions I would ask:

Can we use our resources now and pay a pollution price to create something better in the future? If not what kind of civilization would we live in?

What goals are we creating? The status quo is not going to last;the US, China and almost all nations are going to increase in energy consumption and increase in pollution output.

We talk of progress, but unless there is a goal or purpose there is nothing to progress towards.

So, instead of talking arguing about global warming, lets talk about where we want to be and how to get there.

Posted by: Mr. Kahn at September 4, 2004 06:43 AM

Contrary to the popular press' reporting, there is not scientific unanimity that climate change is happening due to man's influence. The National Geographic simply got it wrong stating it as a 'fact'--but that's not the issue, really. The real issue is what are appropriate mechanisms to deal with the probability (as measured by the scientific uncertainty) and whether one-size fit's all government mandates do any good or are actually more harmful and/or lead to unintended consequences. The 'rich' nations usually targeted are actually less carbon intensive than developing nations when corrected for output (much of which goes-- charitably-- to the developing nations)and per capita--sames true for most pollutants.

Posted by: Tom Tanton at September 4, 2004 08:59 AM

Going the same way as "Scientific American"...

Posted by: Sean at September 6, 2004 12:18 AM

There is something delicious about the juxtapositon of the words "Antarctica (above)."

Posted by: BlogDog at September 6, 2004 08:01 PM

Hey, I got 88 % (got the oil consumption question wrong). That must make me an expert on GW right? So when do I get to pronounce on the fatuity of both the science and the suggested response to it?
Oh, right. Yeah. I do have a blog.
:-)

Posted by: Tim Worstall at September 7, 2004 09:10 AM

By Author:

By Category:

By Month: