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]

Any person could always boycott any newspaper, website, blog or other onlne media that allows climate change deniers to publish their opinions. 

For myself, I just wouldn't read that article in a newspaper (who reads every article in a daily newspaper anyway?) which doesn't mean I think the newspaper shouldn't be allowed to publish these 'alternative' opinions.

[cherry*135]

I actually can't see why it even needs to be asked really. If we know the scientic facts and our media know their obligations it should just be done...I suppose it's the resistance some have to accept (for one reason or another) scientific evidence.

That is your opinon and many others. Can you accept that not everyone in the world holds that same opinion, and would like to voice their differing opinion on the subject?

The newspapers have a choice of what they publish, choosing not to publish something because certain sectors of the public don't agree with it, isn't right either.

[izabsmiling]

I actually don't think it matters what I think if they aren't permitted to publish lies ...they shouldn't do it 

[silverfaun]

---

@am*3 wrote:

I actually can't see why it even needs to be asked really. If we know the scientic facts and our media know their obligations it should just be done...I suppose it's the resistance some have to accept (for one reason or another) scientific evidence.

That is your opinon and many others. Can you accept that not everyone in the world holds that same opinion, and would like to voice their differing opinion on the subject?

The newspapers have a choice of what they publish, choosing not to publish something because certain sectors of the public don't agree with it, isn't right either.

---

I totally agree with you on this one. The warmists say the "science is in" nothing could be further from the truth.

Demonizing and barring a group who do not agree with this science is not right,  the people have a right to speak, they are not criminals or heretics though the warmists like to brand them as such and worse.

Calling them  liars and they shouldn't be heard or read is appalling and the people who call for that should be called out for the madness that that is.

I don't know all about global warming and I sure don't want to stop scientists still searching and working on their thesi but the science is NOT in and saying it is is madness in itself.

[izabsmiling]

Silverfaun, as this is about what newspapers can publish it was their professional standards I was posting about .

To me it's straight forward  ..the media are obligated to adhere to theit own guidelines and NOT publish/givie us lies and misinformation.

the existance of Man-made Global warming is not merely 'opinion'...it is science

[izabsmiling]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

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 

---

Silverfaun , I will repost this..

What other option does he have as a professional ?

[silverfaun]

So it's not just ordinary people who write letters to the editor who should be jailed or shut down for the greater good,   we are now faced with the liars and cheats in the very highest of academia of science who are lying and spouting fake data.

So..... The science is in??? I don't think so when at the very top of "the so called 6000 scientists" ) never correct in the first place as most of them are weather forecasters and economists) spouted by Gillard all through her failed political life, are they lying and cheating and faking data ? many are and did.

The great poo bah of global warming science Peter Gleik is a liar and a fake.  This is the reason why ALL people should question and inquire, not just drink the Kool Aid  poured by liars and fakes.

Every voice should be heard amd every opinion freely published otherwise how will be be informed of just who is lying to us:

So now we know the identity of the Fakegate fake.

His name is Peter Gleick, he has a PhD from Berkeley, he's the winner of a MacArthur genius award, he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and he runs a Californian research organisation called the Pacific Institute which advises, inter alia, on "integrity" in science. (H/T Roddy Campbell, Jabba The Cat)

Funny, that, eh? Before we examine a little more closely what he's done, let's just read a bit more about his Institute's passionate commitment to integrity, shall we?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100138560/peter-gleick-the-johann-hari-of-climate-...

[izabsmiling]

Simple question ..Should Newspapers be able to publish what is recognised as factually incorrect information ?

[izabsmiling]

---

@silverfaun wrote:

So it's not just ordinary people who write letters to the editor who should be jailed or shut down for the greater good,   we are now faced with the liars and cheats in the very highest of academia of science who are lying and spouting fake data.

So..... The science is in??? I don't think so when at the very top of "the so called 6000 scientists" ) never correct in the first place as most of them are weather forecasters and economists) spouted by Gillard all through her failed political life, are they lying and cheating and faking data ? many are and did.

The great poo bah of global warming science Peter Gleik is a liar and a fake.  This is the reason why ALL people should question and inquire, not just drink the Kool Aid  poured by liars and fakes.

Every voice should be heard amd every opinion freely published otherwise how will be be informed of just who is lying to us:

So now we know the identity of the Fakegate fake.

His name is Peter Gleick, he has a PhD from Berkeley, he's the winner of a MacArthur genius award, he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and he runs a Californian research organisation called the Pacific Institute which advises, inter alia, on "integrity" in science. (H/T Roddy Campbell, Jabba The Cat)

Funny, that, eh? Before we examine a little more closely what he's done, let's just read a bit more about his Institute's passionate commitment to integrity, shall we?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100138560/peter-gleick-the-johann-hari-of-climate-...

---

Peter Gleick and Pacific Institute emphasize water conservation

By Heather Somerville

But Gleick, 57, got tripped up in heated climate politics in 2012 when he admitted to using a fake name to obtain internal documents from the libertarian Heartland Institute, an anti-regulation group that works to minimize or refute global warming. He took a four-month leave of absence and was reinstated after the Pacific Institute cleared him of wrongdoing. The incident gained national attention, and Gleick was forced to resign from the chairmanship of the American Geophysical Union's ethics committee.

The Heartland Institute continues to push for criminal charges.

Gleick proved he "has no moral qualms about committing serious crimes to advance an ideological agenda," said Heartland spokesman Jim Lakely. No one "should take seriously anything he has to say about the climate. To the extent he's shaped public opinion, he's actually decreased the public's understanding of the climate."

Gleick is not remorseful: "The science of climate change is incredibly strong," he said. "There is a remaining small group of deniers who try to misuse the science but I think are really afraid of the policy debate about what to do about climate change. Like the tobacco industry, I think history will show them for what they are."

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25218738/peter-gleick-and-pacific-institute-emphasize-water-c...

 Anyone can search climate skeptics  and big business ....

IPCC report: sceptic groups launch global anti-science campaign

19 September 2013

Leading scientists will soon tell the world they're 95% certain that humans are driving global warming. Sceptics are busy trying to sow any doubt

Conservative groups at the forefront of global warming skepticism are doubling down on trying to discredit the next big report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In recent weeks, they've been cranking out a stream of op-eds, blogs and reports to sow doubt in the public's mind before the report is published, with no end in sight.

"The goal is to inform the public, scientific community and media that the upcoming IPCC report doesn't have all the science to make informed judgments," said Jim Lakely, a spokesman for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Chicago that has been spearheading the efforts.

Heartland gained notoriety last year after running a billboard campaign comparing climate change believers to "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, which caused several corporate donors to withdraw support for the group.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25218738/peter-gleick-and-pacific-institute-emphasize-water-c...

[izabsmiling]

Heartland Institute's Leaked Documents Reveal Climate Skepticism Efforts

2-15-2012

The documents showed how heavily Heartland relies on a single person it identified only as "Anonymous Donor." In the past six years, the man has given $14.26 million to the institute, nearly half its $33.9 million in revenue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/heartland-institute-leaked-documents_n_1282824.html

I wouldn't mind knowing the name of this anonymous donor