Denial or seeking to deny man-made global warming

[izabsmiling]

Aptly enough imo Prince Charles refered to climate change deniers as the headless chicken brigade .

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Should Australian newspapers publish climate change denialist opinion pieces?

Should Australian newspapers, like Fairfax, publish opinion pieces that deny or seek to cast doubt on man-made global warming

Should Fairfax — or other media publishers — give a platform for climate change denialist opinion pieces?

The most recent example is Fairfax publishing a piece by John McLean, a member of the International Climate Science Coalition.

In the opinion piece, McLean repeats various lines designed to create uncertainty about the recent report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and to impute a sinister motive on IPCC members of political and scientific deception.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jan/04/climate-change-climate-change...

When Fairfax saw mining billionaire Gina Rinehart buy a large stake in the company, the chairman Roger Corbett upheld the board's support for the charter of editorial independence. This was opposed at the time by Rinehart, although Rinehart board appointee Jack Cowin signed it.

Coincidentally, Rinehart is a big supporter of ICSC policy advisor Christopher Monckton and in a 2011 interview expressed her disbeliefthat "a small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" could lead to global warming.

The Rinehart shareholding controversy even saw Fairfax mastheadslaunch a new slogan "Independent. Always."

A part of the charter is that editors behave according to the Australian Journalist Association's code of ethics, the first standard being that journalists:

Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts.  Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.

At the same time that Reddit /r/science decided to ban climate denialism, the L.A. Times also decided to introduce an editorial policy for its letters pages. Editor Paul Thornton wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jan/04/climate-change-climate-change...

How does publication of  such fit with Australian Journalists Code of Ethics ?

Should we follow the lead of other Countries ?

nb please feel free to expand on this title and opening post in the manner which is the norm with general discussions.

[cherry*135]

That quote is from an opinion piece also.

This past week was in Oct 2013.

The LA TImes decided not to accept/publish Letters to the Editor from some climate change skeptics.

Paul Thornton -- the letters section editor for the Los Angeles Times -- who said he wouldn’t publish some letters from those skeptical of man’s role in the planet’s warming climate, saying that denying climate-change “is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”

Which is not the same as this (from the quote in previous post) :  it decided to ban climate change deniers from its pages

[cherry*135]

If someone feels so strongly about climate change and/or climate change skeptics, I would expect them to be able to refer to climate change under the same label throughout their whole published opinon piece. 

[cherry*135]

Again this seems to mainly apply to 'Letters to the Editor'

Sydney Morning Herald

Oct 2013

Herald editor-in-chief Darren Goodsir recently reiterated the paper's stance on global warming. "The Herald believes unequivocally in human-induced climate change," he told an audience at David Suzuki's City Talk. "It is an established fact. What we are much more interested in is not the sideshow over whether this phenomenon exists or not, but on how it should be tackled."

We do not ban writers whose views suggest they are climate change deniers or sceptics. We consider their letters and arguments. But we believe the argument over whether climate change is happening and whether it is man-made has been thrashed out extensively by leading scientists and on our pages and that the main debate now is about its effects, severity, and what society does about it.

Climate change deniers or sceptics are free to express opinions and political views on our page but not to misrepresent facts. This applies to all our contributors on any subject. On that basis, a letter that says, "there is no sign humans have caused climate change" would not make the grade for our page

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/climate-change-a-note-from-our-letters-editors-20131021-2v...

[izabsmiling]

By Paul Thornton

October 8, 2013

Before going into some detail about why these letters don't make it into our pages, I'll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I'm no expert when it comes to our planet's complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts -- in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.

And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a body made up of the world's top climate scientists -- said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.

Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-letters-20131008,0,871615.story#ixzz2...

He sounds like a logical man 

[boris1gary · Accepted solution]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

To me it's like them publishing content which denies or seeks to deny that smoking can't be harmful to a person health...

we know that science has established facts and that to publish publish the above would be factuallly incorrect and a possible danger to the public...It would be negligent 

---

iza, well you never know, with the repeal of 18c on the cards and the conservatives cry of "defending free speech", maybe we will see tobacco companies allowed to advertise the health benefits of smoking, never say never. 

[cherry*135]

He is referring to Letters to the Editor.  Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page

Should Australian newspapers publish climate change denialist opinion pieces?

The letters to Editor page doesn't include opinion pieces published throughout newspapers. 

[cherry*135]

How do you get from climate change skeptics writing opinion pieces and/or letters to the editors in newspapers to 

 smoking (and paid advt's by multinational companies) ??

[izabsmiling]

and think Phillip Morris and objections to plain packaging as well..

Boris, some may say your post was off topic but nevermind ...I like it 

[cherry*135]

I will leave you to discuss the dangers of smoking then.

Newspapers publish horoscopes.

[izabsmiling]

Am*3, please see my post at the beginning of the thread ..up near my opening post..boris was replying to that.