[The thoughtful comment below is from David Adam, Environment correspondent for The Guardian was made in response to Mike Hulme's letter to Nature on press coverage of the IPCC report in the UK media. -RP]
Alarmist and proud of it
(Alarm: to fill with apprehension; to warn about danger, alert)
David Adam
Environment correspondent
The Guardian
Some definitions from the Collins English dictionary
Catastrophic: a sudden, extensive disaster or misfortune
Shocking: Causing shock
Terrifying: extremely frightening
Devastating: to confound or overwhelm
Can anyone explain to me why any of those are inappropriate for a report than said human society will ‘most likely’ raise temperatures by 4C by 2100 unless it takes drastic action (my words, but how else would you desribe a complete overhaul of the lifestyles of millions, if not billions of people) to cut emissions?
here’s another:
news: interesting or important information not previously known.
attacking newspapers for picking out the bits of the report that appear to take the debate forwards (the effects of carbon cycle feedbacks for example, which only seem to be shifting the estimates in one direction) is as pointless and idiotic as complaining that a library won’t sell you fish.
does the 2006 report not paint a picture that is “worse” than the 2001 report?
again, to the dictionary:
worse: the comparative of bad
Mike accuses us of “appealling to fear to generate a sense of urgency”
Guilty as charged. Is it not frightening? Is it not urgent?
Alarmist and proud of it
(Alarm: to fill with apprehension; to warn about danger, alert)