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.

[izabsmiling]

From the OP 

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...

[azureline**]

I tried, really I did but it gave me a headache

[izabsmiling]

no worries Az..I tend to get them from the interpersonal biff type posts

[silverfaun]

---

@am*3 wrote:
This is about should a newspaper publish opinion pieces, letters to the editor that claim there is no human influence on climate change. Right?

Not who is right or wrong (scientists or skeptics) nor about media moguls or political parties.

Now that the majority of posters have expressed their opinion that newspapers should post climate change skeptics opinions if they want to..the topic is being expanded into other areas? Why I wonder?

While the op states they don't mind if this discussion going off into other areas, what about the other posters who do want to continue the discussion on the topic in the opinion piece quoted in the OP?

---

---

YES...................................You are  correct, sorry for shouting.

This is the op and it hasn't once been addressed even though the MAJORITY of answers say "YES" all sides of an argument should be openly and freely discussed and published".

What the original post is suggesting is that sceptics should not be heard or published and even jailed for criminal intent even when all the science is not, I repeat not in, so why should debate be shut down? Why should part of the community be  told to shut it.

That is the question.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

Silverfaun, I do not support  anyone spreading opinion/lies which could harm our health,our environment ,ours/or anyones quality of lives and welbeing,mislead for ulterior motives (ie political.business ) ..they do not have my support ever

---

Neither do I......

[monman12]

IS, I said previously it was an interesting topic. It no longer remains such,  now that it has been tainted with political garbage.

nɥºɾ

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

---

@catsnknots wrote:

---

@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. 

---

True scientists are always skeptics.............about everything........

[lakeland27]

sceptics not skeptics  scepticism is good. skepticism is misspelled misinformed mistaken..

[izabsmiling]

---

@monman12 wrote:

IS, I said previously it was an interesting topic. It no longer remains such,  now that it has been tainted with political garbage.

nɥºɾ

---

MM,  In #72 (a couple of pages back) I posted this 

 MM,Just curious to know .. if you were responsible for what was published in a particular Newspaper would you be OK with other people having a chuckle at you for your part in propagating views which go against 97% of the scientific Community ?

I am interested to know your response to that question if you should care to give one .

and as far as politics there is poltics in the opening posts 

[izabsmiling]

 MM,Just curious to know .. if you were responsible for what was published in a particular Newspaper would you be OK with other people having a chuckle at you for your part in propagating views which go against 97% of the scientific Community ?

I am interested to know your response to that question if you should care to give one .

and as far as politics there is poltics in the opening posts 

[izabsmiling]

---

@am*3 wrote:
Should Australian newspapers publish climate change denialist opinion pieces?

This is what I thought the discussion is about.

---

Hello Am*3,

the opening post is there to read and the links there to read the full article 

at the bottom of my opening post I made a specific point of typing 

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