The notion that equal weight should be given to all opinions is a noble ideal. Unfortunately, some of those opinions are not coming from experts in the field.

I took notice of the link to the article by David Evans in The Australian. First, 'The Australian' is commonly known as 'The Government Gazette' and their opinions page is extremely right wing. Secondly, Dr David Evans has a degree in ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, not climate change. The fact that he is on the Australian Greenhouse Office should give you an idea about what that organization was about.

Climate change has moved beyond a debate based on science. When it was first brought up in the 80s, oil and coal companies spent millions creating dissenting reports on how the world is actually COOLING. That uncertainty allowed the world to take no action for 20 years. Now that the evidence of melting Arctic sea ice can no longer be ignored, they want to create uncertainty for another 20 years on the basis that 'CO2 does not cause Global Warming'.


THAT is not science. What next? Give equal weight to opinions by flat-earthers? Astrologer? Church of Scientology?

Maybe global warming is a good thing?we seem to have milder winters in the northeast .so if it's thanks to global warming then how do we increase it?

Ronin,

What upsets me the most I think is that there is still a large amount of real scientific debate to be done on global warming. The debate however is not about "whether" but "how", e.g. hurricane frequency. I have no doubt that warmer will occur and we are going to have to adapt in various ways. When the deniers hijack the real debate to peddle there agenda it prevents a more serious analysis of what steps we should be considering, such as what is a reasonable flood wall height.

Regards,

Blueshift

Global warming stopped in 2001. Funny, that.

JonFrum:

Global warming stopped in 2001. Funny, that.

That is a position that can only be characterized as disingenuous or dishonest; which is it, JonFrum?

Temperature trends are revealed over multi-decadal time scales, so the trend you'd like to assert is too short to resolve the claim you make. People who are knowledgeable about climatology know this, which is why this claim has yet to appear in any journal paper.

Maybe if the flat temperature trends continue for another thirty years - you know, like the warming trend of the last thirty - you will have a basis for this claim. As it stands now, however, that assertion is simply more denier propaganda.

Ronin,
It seemed to me the author wasn't arguing that equal time MUST be given to dissenters, but rather that it was unacceptable to take the position that dissent needed to be hidden from the public.

Denier propaganda? Let them be damned! Or rather, as Dr. Hansen recommends, they should be put in Eco-gulags until they see sign confessions. How dare someone profane the spirit of Gaia with scientific "facts"? Facts are secondary to how much we love the Earth.

We should all buy carbon indulgences from the Great Scientist himself, the Prophet Gore. Only then will our eco-sins be washed away.

Oh DeadDrift, you have convinced me! I will never stray again from decrying industry, no matter what the thermometer reads! Even if it snows in summer in Hawaii! Even if glaciers wipe out homes in Baja California. Even if the freeze continues for centuries and the planet becomes one large ball of ice (deja vu, hasn't that happened before?). A mere 11 years of no warming and more recent cooling, or even a million decades, cannot dissuade a true believer Global Warmism! 30 years? Fie! Never! Even if all Dr. Hansen's temperature predictions from the 80s has been disproven... we have our faith to keep us warm.

Remember: We've always been at war with Eastasia!

Care to provide some links to data that isn't clearly cherry picked?

Ronin,

You try to discredit Dr. Evans by noting that his degree is in electrical engineering, not climate change. But there is no such thing as a degree in climate change. And your resorting to ad hominem attacks right off the bat does not speak well for your argument. It is especially puzzling that you try to discredit Dr. Evans's op-ed by tying the newspaper it appeared in, "The Australian," to the Aussie government, considering that the Aussies now have a leftist, ostensibly Green prime minister. Your subject line reads: "Please do some research before writing." Ahem.

Frank Lee

Frank Lee:

You try to discredit Dr. Evans by noting that his degree is in electrical engineering, not climate change. But there is no such thing as a degree in climate change.

Are you serious? Are you aware of a field called "Metereology" or "Atmospheric sciences"? You are either very ignorant, or you just want to take advantage of an absolutely minor wording slip by Ronin.

Well, let me explain this to you, Frank Lee.

I will go slowly.

You see, Ron seems to think that the Australian must have interesting views on global warming because (i) he has a university degree; (ii) he claims to have changed his mind; and (iii) he once worked for an institution that had "greenhouse" in its name.

But, you see, his views on global warming are arguably a lot less interesting once you know that (i) his degree has nothing to do with climate science; (ii) and he got his views published in a cranky politically motivated newspaper (not, say, Science).

Now, Ron somehow forgot to mention this. Maybe he did not bother to check, but heard about this guy second hand and thought, well, I'll just toss him in. Or, Ron did check, and decided to mislead us.

Your choice.

No. libertyforall.

Ron is arguing that, at least in the case of global warming, journalists are not doing their job unless they present the views of the deniers.

I believe Ron is being disingenuous (see my post above). I believe he would argue differently if the subject were astrology versus astronomy, or flat earth versus spheroid earth, or maybe even science versus young-earth creationism.

That is, he is not really for dissent per se. Just for skepticism about global warming, on which he "has no strong views" himself.

Ron puts global warming deniers in the same camp as 9/11 conspiracy theorists in his article... people with views not accepted by the mainstream. He takes the CJR to task for arguing journalists have an obligation to not shut out dissenters in the same issue that they argue it is irresponsible to provide ANY space to warming dissenters without adding the caveat that the dissenters are clearly wrong. He has a problem with those in the media deciding that global warming is a scientific truth. Global warming is NOT a scientific truth. What can be said is there is a high probability that human induced greenhouse gasses have at least contributed (and will continue to contribute) to increased global temperatures. You will find many scientists arguing how much the human factor is, what the end results might be, what effect (positive or negative) we can have on it from various policy changes, etc. If a scientist argues global warming will be a good thing, is he a dissenter too? What about a scientist that believes in global warming but believes the future increased temperatures will be minimal? What are newspapers allowed to publish? Your flat earth example is not a good one as there is no related, valid scientific debate that can be had as can with global warming.

Reporting science is a tricky thing. Scientists don't speak in the absolutes that make good headlines, and articles in the main stream media are usually written by journalists without any formal training in the area they are reporting. To be honest, I'm not really sure there is a good way to inform the general populace on discussions within the scientific community without creating confusion. I'd be happy if members of congress could at least take a scientific look at scientific issues, but I fear that too is asking far too much.

For example, both McCain's and Obama's energy advisors are mostly lawyers with some economists... very little to no input is given from engineers and scientists. That's reassuring!

Traugott,

Yes, I pointed out a wording slip. But what a wording slip. Calling Dr. Freud!

Lloyd,

If skeptics are barred from such publications as "Science" for being flat-earthers, then it seems meaningless to hold it against them for publishing in a journal other than "Science."