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.

[monman12 · Accepted solution]

Interesting topic .

Leaving aside the  science,  I see the problem to be the desire of the media to present a "balanced" coverage (50-50 ?) of a subject that when actually  examined by the scientific community produces a consensus of around 97%. Thus, with a vastly over represented  picture from a minority  presented by the media, their audience might (do?), without scientific knowledge,  imagine that the subject  is not as scientifically certain as the figures would indicate.

The media thrive on controversy (and nuts) i.e. a non scientifically credentialed person like Monckton  will quickly produce headlines with his utterances,  whereas the head of CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Division,  Dr Bruce Mapstone, who?

To address the OP topic we should consider our own CS microcosm,  kernel SRBA,  and the other "deniers",  and wonder  whether the breakdown by numbers and column inches here would reflect the scientific community opinion as a whole:  97% - 3%.

I still though  would not restrict the right for the nuts to propagate their views, I do love a chuckle or two.

nɥºɾ

[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 ?

[freakiness]

---

@monman12 wrote:

Interesting topic .

Leaving aside the  science,  I see the problem to be the desire of the media to present a "balanced" coverage (50-50 ?) of a subject that when actually  examined by the scientific community produces a consensus of around 97%. Thus, with a vastly over represented  picture from a minority  presented by the media, their audience might (do?), without scientific knowledge,  imagine that the subject  is not as scientifically certain as the figures would indicate.

The media thrive on controversy (and nuts) i.e. a non scientifically credentialed person like Monckton  will quickly produce headlines with his utterances,  whereas the head of CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Division,  Dr Bruce Mapstone, who?

To address the OP topic we should consider our own CS microcosm,  kernel SRBA,  and the other "deniers",  and wonder  whether the breakdown by numbers and column inches here would reflect the scientific community opinion as a whole:  97% - 3%.

I still though  would not restrict the right for the nuts to propagate their views, I do love a chuckle or two.

nɥºɾ

---

It reminds me of the anti vaccination argument.  

For a while much of the media was giving equal time to both sides of the argument even though one side was based on science and the other not.  

Now they're giving more time to pro vaccine voices & science because the sciencists have evidence and to back their argument and the numbers to outweigh the anti vaccs crowd.

[cherry*135]

Why isn't there outrage about newspapers printing horoscopes then? They aren't based on fact. Some people read them and enjoy them others think they are rubbish.

Newspapers print a lot of stuff that is not true..they jump in to try to be the first to report on a tragedy etc and don't research the story properly first and print incirrect information.

[*mrgrizz*]

the roll of a newspaper is to sell advertising space

[izabsmiling]

---

@am*3 wrote:
Why isn't there outrage about newspapers printing horoscopes then? They aren't based on fact. Some people read them and enjoy them others think they are rubbish.

Newspapers print a lot of stuff that is not true..they jump in to try to be the first to report on a tragedy etc and don't research the story properly first and print incirrect information.

---

horiscopes ?

They do not influence the world and all of it's people...now or in the future

[freakiness]

---

@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.

[chuk_77]

the media cant be blamed for what you choose to beleive. Its your responsibility to figure the truth and take what is written with a grain of salt. A reporters job is mearly to write a peice that will catch attention to sell the media

[izabsmiling]

nor can I expect a Newspaper to do what it shouldn't do just because I want it or think they should can I ?

[chuk_77]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

nor can I expect a Newspaper to do what it shouldn't do just because I want it or think they should can I ?

---

**bleep** that that even mean?