The New York Times has an
article that touches on two of the topics covered recently on SFB: the dispute between Denmark and Canada over Arctic land, and global warming resulting in melting of the polar icecaps. The tone of the article, however, is ridiculous. Not only does it play up the "virgin territory and natural resources worth hundreds of billions of dollars" that a watery Arctic represents, it completely omits any mention of what this phenomenon actually means. The most revealing passage is this:
"Indeed, not everyone agrees that warming of the Arctic merits concern. No one knows what share of the recent thawing can be attributed to natural cycles and how much to heat-trapping pollution linked to recent global warming, and some scientists and government officials, particularly in Russia, are dismissive of assertions that a permanent change is at hand."
Ah, so an overwhelming majority of scientists who say that the world is warming due to human contributions and that we're in some serious trouble don't matter? So long as you can find a few quack scientists and partisan hacks who'll toe the line, you've got a story?
I'm sorry, but this sort of reporting strikes me as highly irresponsible and just plain unethical. The average Joe reads this article, and all he gets out of it is "Wow, the Arctic is huge business! Hundreds of billions of dollars
and more time at the beach? Man, global warming rules!" Current estimates of damage from hurricane Katrina sit at $125 billion. Multiply that by the number of coastal cities worldwide, and you've got a rough idea of the
real economic effect of global warming and rising sea levels.