Forbes online recently published an article titled, New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole in Global Warming Alarmism.
I won't go into the merit of the study under discussion here; there are other researchers and commentators that offer a critique of the referenced study. The issue I'm pointing out is how language is used to manipulate the reader.
I'll first paraphrase the story. To simplify things, let's divide the speed of global warming into, fast, medium, slow, and none. “Fast” change would mean the Earth is warming fast, and “slow” means it's warming at a very gradual rate .
The article is saying that the new study rules out the “fast” rate of warming. This implies that if warming is taking place, it's either medium or slow. The study, as interpreted by the Forbes author, is saying that the warming rate is not at the higher-end of the change spectrum, but something slower.
But rather than use the word “fast” or something similar, Forbes chose to use the word “alarmist”, which has negative connotations. Instead of saying, “fast-change computer models”, they use “alarmist computer models”, for example (as if computers panic or something). “Alarmist” implies an excessive concern or paranoia on the part of global warming experts or believers.
Forbes could have used neutral language to describe the change rate, but instead select an emotionally-charged word that characterizes researchers when it should only be characterizing the study or the planet. And they use “alarmist” fifteen times (including derived words). It's not just an isolated slip of the hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment