Another Noble Journalistic Attempt at Balance

on

Here’s quite a good Denver Post piece that tries to find the journalistic middle ground, with three scientists (Bill Gray, Roger Pielke and Chris Landsea) arguing against the climate change consensus and four (Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen, Christopher Essex and Chris Folland) arguing that it is.

The reporter did a good job canvassing some of the complications of climate change science and gave the last word to the consensus:
“The American government might not agree,” Folland said. “Most American scientists do.”

But the article still leaves an impression that scientists are lined up pretty evenly on both sides – which is a fiction. Regardless of the good work, and the likely good intentions, this ends up being just another victory for those who hope to delay a sensible social or policy response to climate change.

As long as the North American public continues to believe there are significant scientific issues unresolved – as long as President G.W. Bush can get away with saying “I think there is a debate about whether it’s caused by mankind or whether it’s caused naturally” – the risks of climate change will continue to get worse.

Related Posts

on
The Ferguson Group is one among dozens of companies working both sides of the climate crisis, according to research by campaigners.
on
The Free Cities Foundation promotes free-market projects backed by Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, and Marc Andreessen.
on
The group claimed victory after regulators recommended delaying landmark rules that would eventually phase out gas water heaters in 2.8 million homes.
on
With only two months until a $20B CCS proposal pushed by the oil industry is finalized, local communities say they haven’t been consulted.