Who would you believe?

Doing my daily check on the "Church of Climatology" I came across these gems.

First: OMFG!!!!!!!!!!! The sky is falling faster than we thought! We are doomed. DOOMED I tell you!

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has upped its assessment of the risk posed by climate change, estimating that it could cause up to $250 billion of economic losses over the next 10 years.

WEF's assessment of the risk of water shortages, tropical storms and inland flooding was also increased, along with a rash of other potential disasters such as a global pandemic, international terrorism and civil war.

Explaining why it has increased its assessment of the risk of climate change since its last report in 2006, WEF pointed to evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are growing faster than expected. (emphasis mine)

"international terrorism and civil war" Climate change effects even the worst of the worst that man has created. It is that EVIL! Wonder what this is doing to the suicide rates around the world. I'll bet it is not helping and is no doubt climate change is increasing the effects of it too. Any government out there want to fund me to do a study on this one? Perhaps someone at the UN?Yawn

Second: Mass communication and climate change

The quick dispersion of information, thanks to technology, has not seemed to cultivate the sense of urgency required to transform information into action. In fact, the media has often been implicated in desensitizing the general public and transforming us into passive observers of distant wars and natural disasters.

In this context, the options available to us for communication can facilitate apathy as well as inspire action.

As Columbia University graduate student Frances Ue observes: "The media is a powerful tool that has the potential to inform, yet many citizens display a certain level of apathy towards environmental disaster. The population must be convinced that global warming is a problem worthy of their concern."
(emphasis mine)

Could it be that the MSM and politicians alike have fed us so much bull in the past, that some of the public simply won't believe them anymore?

Thirdly: This one drives home the message that should be getting out to the public. Presented with facts not hysteria.... Although not dedicated to the so-called climate change, it is very much related and shows how science should be presented. Dangers of disinformation Pseudoscience

Fallacies infect every debate about the environment and affect policy, taxpayers' money and victims' lives.

Scientists ask questions, formulate hypotheses, design experiments, look at the evidence, modify the hypotheses and probe further. Then activists, news media and politics take over.

For years, the public has been fed a lusty diet of climate doom and gloom, cooked and served by alarmists who use the language of science to push an agenda. Now, every politician of every stripe must embrace the "climate consensus" or be branded a callous skeptic.

Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria. (emphasis mine)

So who would you believe? It is your choice....

Update: ABFreedom has an interesting one over at his blog on how some countries will more than likely opt out of Kyoto in 2012.Check it out!