Here is something revoltingly annoying to do with global warming arrogance, bullying and prejudice. I first got wind of it from Sean of Is It Getting Warmer?, who learnt of it from the Climateer, who posted a link to the original article below. Take a look…
From Cosmos Magazine:
Climate reporting “too balanced” say scientists
Thursday, 19 April 2007
MELBOURNE: Airing the views of climate change sceptics in the media may only be serving to keep the global warming controversy boiling, argue scientists.
Leading climate change experts have warned the World Conference of Science Journalists in Melbourne, Australia, that a balanced view does not always reflect the consensus of the research community.
Kevin Hennessy, a lead scientist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said yesterday that media attention on “the view of a handful of climate change sceptics” amplifies their opinions and “implies that there is little agreement about the basic facts of global warming”.
Hennessy is also with the marine and atmospheric division of Australian government research body, CSIRO.
Speaking in a session about climate change reporting, he said editors and journalists have a duty to ensure that facts are presented in context. Balanced reporting, he said, “perpetuates the public’s perception that scientists are in disarray, which is misleading in the case of climate change”.
Geoff Love, secretary of the IPCC and former deputy director of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, said that IPCC assessment reports from 1990 through to this year are strong evidence of “the coming together of the scientific community.”
Emphasis on the sceptic view does not help public understanding of climate change, said Love.
Media coverage has not always reflected the consensus of the majority of the scientific community, said Ian Lowe, president of the Australian Conservation Foundation a non-profit environment group. “That only makes the public and political discussion more difficult,” he said.
The problem is compounded by a lack of reporting on climate change, according to Chris Mooney, a U.S.-based science journalist attending the conference. Although the 2006 hurricane season attracted a lot of media attention, Mooney presented statistics from the United States showing that climate change has never been a priority in the media.
The situation is similar in Africa, said Ochieng’ Ogodoa a Kenyan correspondent for London, U.K.-based news web site SciDev.Net. Articles about deaths caused by floods or other natural disasters, and political scandals related to climate change tend to get precedence, he said.
To summarize, Hennessy of the IPCC is saying that anthopogenic global warming theory should be the only view discussed. It is authoritatively correct because the IPCC says so and therefore is not to be disputed or doubted. Opposing or alternative views are automatically wrong and not to be mentioned – to do so is heresy.
Therefore, the media should be responsible by airing only opinions that agree with the IPCC’s stand on global warming. (Not that the media don’t already seem to be doing that – at least here in Malaysia, every piece of news except for my opinion letters automatically assumes human-cause global warming to be a proven fact.)
To paraphrase: “I, Hennessy, am correct. Those with contrary views are wrong. Only the IPCC has the right to speak its views in the media. End of discussion.”
It this not the very definition of dogmatism that is usally directed at religious faiths? (See my news-printed tirade against dogmatism, in this case seen in so-called ‘religious pluralism’.)
Anyone who questions the ‘sole, absolute, objective truth’ of global warming is branded as an unscientific heretic who probably believes the Earth is flat too. Cuh, ad hominem attack and straw man argument 2-in-1.
The ‘global consensus’ of scientists that the IPCC chose to suit its own stated purposes are the only ones who are reputable – all critics are dishonest, not interested in real science and have sinister oil-company sponsored agendas.
Don’t think it’s really that bad? Just see what they did to scientist and global warming skeptic Bjorn Lomborg. Both Ann Coulter and Michael Crichton repeatedly decry the intolerant, bigoted, pseudo-religious overtones of global warming. The GW fearmongers may deny it, but just look at their behaviour and tell me if the accusations are baseless.
I ask you, is this what science and the scientific community have become? Dogmatic adherence to your own theories at the exclusion of all others. Whoever shouts the loudest, creates fact and determines reality.
Wasn’t it not too long ago that the medieval Church tried to silence Copernicus’ contrary views of the universe? The very same silencing of critics by religious institutions – that is so outcried by true-blooded scientists - is being repeated by the so-called neutral, unbiased researchers at the IPCC.
But I shouldn’t make such torrid comparisons between anthropogenic global warming belief and religion. After all, at least there are such things as religious tolerance and inter-faith dialogues going on these days. Even the Church later came to accept the heliocentric theory on the strength of observation.
But it is unimaginable that the global warming fearmongers – Henessy and the IPCC included - would ever give any credence to skeptics who are just asking for more solid evidence and less rhetorical steamrolling.
Nay, global warming mind-controllers like Hennessy are no mere religionists. With their intended iron-fisted control of media, censoring of opposing voices and condemning critics as enemies of the people… They are the very model of 1984 big-brother Iron Curtain Communists.