Another Noble Journalistic Attempt at Balance

onSep 25, 2006 @ 07:45 PDT

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.

By Richard Littlemore

uk/UAE Influence on Reform Should be Investigated – Report

ByAdam Barnett

onSep 23, 2026 @ 02:12 PDT

The Gulf petrostate is forging alliances with radical right-wing parties across the world.

Analysis

Q&A: Amy Westervelt on the Corporate Poisoning of the Information Aquifer — and How to Undo the Harm

ByMatthew Green

onSep 21, 2026 @ 12:34 PDT

The acclaimed climate accountability journalist says bold steps are needed to reverse the insidious impact of decades of industry propaganda on the public square.

Series: Holding the Advertising and Public Relations Industry Accountable for Greenwash and Climate Misinformation

Series: Advertising & PR Industry

Suncor Helped Lead Climate Denial Group Spreading ‘Uncertainties’

ByGeoff Dembicki

onSep 21, 2026 @ 07:18 PDT

With a U.S. Supreme Court decision looming on whether the company can be held liable for climate deception, internal documents show a campaign to question science.