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]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

The existance scientific evidence is fact 

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

---

Most of the evidence of the global warming argument is from computer generated models... that is why i don't agree with what they predict. 

Then you have people like Flannery telling us we will never have full dams again and the next year we had dams so full that they were threatening the live and homes of people downstream... 

That is my problem with the evidence being presented. 

[chuk_77]

if they did and did not have to print a retraction then obviously whether you like it or not, they can

[catsnknots]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@chuk_77 wrote:

example of fact not always being fact...

for decades there were 9  planets in our solar system. Turns out that was not a fact after all now there are no longer 9 so for all that time it was not a fact as it was incorrect yes?

---

It was the scientific consensus of the time .

---

Exactly... that is why you must ALWAYS question the facts. 

[catsnknots]

---

@freakiness wrote:

---

@catsnknots wrote: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. 

---

Flooding and drought is more complex.  Deforestation causes the cycle to be more severe than in previous times when less land was completely cleared.

The waterways eco systems need to be repaired to lessen the impact of flood and drought cycles.

---

Then why did Flannery say that we would never have full dams again thanks to climate change???? 

[catsnknots]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

Congats Catmad, A Newspaper can publish a  statement such as "there is no evidence to support man-made climate change" ?

---

I would not go to a newspaper for my scientific research. 

[lakeland27]

 flanerry is just one. why concentrate on him ?  he is one of a majority of consensus so conclusive the argument is lost. the case is made. the data backs them up (hard data not modelling) ..

[izabsmiling]

---

@chuk_77 wrote:

if they did and did not have to print a retraction then obviously whether you like it or not, they can

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Isn't Ethical Jounalism a good thing in your opinion ? I really like the concept...without it what's the point 

Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance - Journalists' Code of Ethics

Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. Alliance members engaged in journalism commit themselves to

Honesty 
Fairness 
Independence 
Respect for the rights of others

[silverfaun]

The links are not necessary to your initial  argument which is, “should sceptics be heard or published ”?

Yes! they should” is the majority answer, no part of your argument addresses that ONE question.

[izabsmiling]

---

@catsnknots wrote:

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

Congats Catmad, A Newspaper can publish a  statement such as "there is no evidence to support man-made climate change" ?

---

I would not go to a newspaper for my scientific research. 

---

that doesn't answer my question 

[lakeland27]

it is morally wrong to lie for whatever ends with so much at stake. it is murdoch though. no moral or ethical platform there.