Earth Day seems to have passed without what had become a customary media blitz. Yes, it was mentioned, but the hype has definitely been toned down.
Could it be due to the economy? Tight finances drive consumers away from luxury “green” products. Without marketing dollars for these “green” products, media corporations, including the news media, are not going promote something without getting paid.
Or could it be the public opinion polls that indicate that the public is slowly being educated about man-made global warming? Earth Day used to be about picking up trash and planting trees, but about a decade ago recipients of global warming research grant money really made a big push into Earth Day. The newest opinion polls indicated that a growing plurality of Americans are realizing that climate is subject to natural changes and that the much promoted “90% confidence” of the IPCC may just be part of a confidence game to secure more funding.
As George Will has accurately pointed out, global ice extent is well above the historic (30 year) median. At this writing, Artic ice extent is at a 7 year high, despite poorly researched articles in news media publications like the Washington Post that predict increasing losses.
To be clear, (As the President likes to say), the Post article spoke about ice “volume” and the loss of “multi-year’ ice that is older than two years.
Is ice older than two years critically important to the Artic, or will the same reporters write an article next year about the critical loss of ice older than three years?