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.

[catsnknots]

Should Australian newspapers publish climate change denialist opinion pieces?

Yes both sides of the argument need to be put forward regardless of what you feel and what triggered this thought was the work I am currently doing at Uni. 

One of the subjects is Research Skills and Assessment Piece Writing. 

It clearly states that even if you do not agree with the other side of the argument  being put forward your assessment will be marked down for not including an opposing argument. 

It went on to explain why.... if you have a well educated opinion it means nothing if you don't show that you went beyond your opinion and explored others opinions. If you want to produce a credible piece of work that will undergo scrutiny of your peers then you need to prove that you researched both sides. 

I have not looked into any of this subject recently but last night I did happen to read a small grab from a CSIRO global warming article that a friend sent to me. The little disclaimer at the bottom of the article said that this was just a computer simulation and could not be relied upon. I think that about sums it all up.... it is a computer generated scenario. The never ending  drought and the "fact" that our dams would never be full again theory that we were told we were going to live with because of computer generated models was smashed after the great flooding we had two years running.... This is why we need two sides of an argument..... see how wrong that projection was? We in fact need to be prepared for many scenarios but if you had it Flannery's on his assumptions and opinions you would only ever prepare for drought. 

[izabsmiling]

Doesn't an opinion stop being 'just' an opinion when evidence supports it to be fact ?

If something has the evidence to back it up as scientifically known fact wouldn't publishing content that suggests it is not be ignoring evidence,be misleading and would the Newspaper itself not be publishing lies ? 

At what point does the scientific evidence 

become as accepted as the scientific evidence of the harm smoking ciggarettes ?

[izabsmiling]

those may be a questions which will have different answers depending on the individual...the Newspapers don't have the right to choose their own answer as far as I can see ?

[izabsmiling]

Science academies make climate change declaration

Thursday 27 February 2014 

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0227/507207-climate-change/

Climate change is already widely accepted by scientists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations-backed group of scientists, said in a report in September that it was more certain than ever that humans were causing rising temperatures and that heat waves, droughts and other threats would intensify.

But there has also been a backlash, including in the US where industry-friendly conservative lawmakers have questioned the science as they oppose laws to curb carbon emissions blamed for climate change.

A separate study released in Washington by the Global Legislators Organisation, a London-based global group of lawmakers focused on development, found that legislation was "progressing at a rapid rate" around the world. But it also pointed to reversals, including efforts by Australia's new conservative government to roll back a carbon tax.

The group said national legislation was vital to reaching a UN-backed goal of sealing a new treaty on climate change at a 2015 meeting in Paris. The report found that 61 out of 66 countries studied had passed laws to promote clean energy.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0227/507207-climate-change/

I read something recently and I suppose that it is true of many things...

It went something like; the worse thing is that man-made global warming isn't as equally bad for everyone

[k0llectable5]

I know very little on the topic.  But one thing I do know is "Climate Change" or "Global warming" or whatever the latest buzzword they want to give the theory that  "man is destroying the earth," is more political than anything else.  It has always been a political issue.  Why? because it is government bodies and government grants that prop up the industry.  And thats what it is, a multi billion dollar a year industry that needs to be funded so as to keep the research flowing. (Most scientific reasearch is hungry for funding...)

I watched a doco recently called "The great Global Warming swindle" It really does have it's fair share of criticisms and rightfully so and some people have debunked certain parts of the show.  BUT what it proved to me more than anything else is this is an issue of diehard cpaitalists versing left leaning greens.  (Clearly it is a documentary produced my diehard capitalists)

And the ending does raise a great point about the development (or lack thereof) in parts of Africa.  They want nothing more than to have electricity and running water in their homes.  But now more than ever with the push for green energy they are being advised against burning coal and to move towards other (much more expensive) forms of power.  ie Solar and wind farms. Imagine everytime you want to cook a meal for your family you have to build a fire in your house sometimes using animal dung.....

[chuk_77]

what makes fact, a fact though? Who determines it to be fact? Their opinion?

For example I could say as a fact that am*3 is mean and back it up with proof in her posts. But that doesn't make it fact its still me opinion based on what i see, others may not see it that way at all 

*disclaimer: I do not think am*3 is mean I was using her as an example because I dont think she would mind and she was on this thread...fingers crossed.(Sorry am)

[izabsmiling]

The existance scientific evidence is fact 

to say that there isn't the evidence to support Global warming would be ...a lie ?

[izabsmiling]

Do any big businesses (heavy polluters) fund skeptics ?

Cheaper for them to keep polluting  than have  people accept the scientific evidence of global warming 

could save them paying a tax for doing it and much much more 

[chuk_77]

its no longer global warming though, so that fact was a lie yes?

[izabsmiling]

I think the editor in #46 says it better than I can and he of course knows his professional responsibilties better than I do .