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

Amsterdam Defies Last-Minute Lobbying to Become First Capital City to Ban Fossil Fuel Ads

ByEllen Ormesher

onJan 23, 2026 @ 09:43 PST

The world’s largest outdoor advertising company warned city councillors of “far-reaching consequences” hours before the landmark vote.

After Decades of Deflection, ExxonMobil Moves to Reshape Global Climate Accounting

BySharon Kelly

onJan 23, 2026 @ 09:12 PST

For decades, ExxonMobil argued consumers, not oil giants, should take responsibility for fossil fuel pollution. It’s now backing Carbon Measures’ accounting scheme, which moves pollution “liabilities” to buyers’ books.