Is it always necessary to present both sides of the argument?

It is not up to the press to decide what we should hear about and not hear about. It is their job to report the news.

That is why there is so much revulsion at the MSM, and why much of the news has propagated to blogs. I don't want historically challenged and intellectually deficient children at the BBC and Guardian making decisions about what I should and shouldn't hear about.

Here is a good set of articles compiled by a journalist who appears to be considerably less lazy, less arrogant, and much better informed than Dan Fagin.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/pages/climate-change-the-deniers.aspx

This was posted at Real Climate (AGW crowd) recently
www.realclimate.org
"May I suggest a solution to the problem of journalists and the public not being able to asses the relative weight and merit of professional opinion behind the various aspects of climate science" ect....
Pretty scary this is another reason to become "skeptical". BTW a newer term is "AGW critic" I think a pulitzer prize may be in the offing for an investigative journalist soon. Shift in sentiment mainstream media see Tierney blog NYtimes

Good advice IMHO. Any chance of applying it here?

If both sides of the argument are to be presented, whether on global warming or any other topic, it is necessary to establish that the facts on which such "argument" is based are correct. In practice, most science relies on observation, measurment and interpretation. Choosing facts selectively - it is unusually warm outside here for this time in February, therefore global warming is happening - is highly misleading and could be countered with - it was unusually wet and cold last week, therefore it is not. In practice, neither piece of information has much bearing on the subject.

I want to again extend kudos for a job well-done to Fehlinger on this second installment. I think her interview does a fine job of focusing our attention where it belongs. She also does a fine job of emphasizing both the role that journalists should play, and the common pitfalls that we so often see in media coverage of this issue.

These last two pieces, taken together, give me the impression that Ms. Fehlinger and her staff "kicked butt and took names" about the direction of her series. I, for one, appreciate this new direction and the courage I imagine it took to put it in place.

Again, kudos to Ms. Fehlinger and her staff for a job well-done.

In the "search for balance" within commercial news organizations, OMG sensationalism always overwhelms calm, factual presentation because it's more profitable. When it comes to arguing over whether or not certain summer-blockbuster-suitable scenarios will occur 100 years from now, frankly I don't much care since I'll be dead and I don't have kids to worry about.

However, even the relatively undramatic climate changes that appear likely to occur over the next decade or two bring potential gradual consequences - shoreline loss and associated population migrations, fresh water resource degradation, commercial fishery and agriculture degradation - that may cause significant socioeconomic disruptions that need to be rationally discussed and prepared for. It's when the sensationalist stories (OMG! Britney Spears! OMG! Internet Pr0n! OMG! Man throws baby out the window!!) push such discussions completely off the airtime schedule, thus leaving the public (taxpayers and their local government representatives) uninformed, that I tend to get a bit peeved with the media.

Unfortunately, there's no workable government "fix" for this. We can only hope that a media conglomerate or two voluntarily decide for themselves to turn their news departments into "loss leaders" by reversing their tabloid tendencies.

The vicious circle of dangerous politically correct journalism

1. The press refuses to print the viewpoints of scientists who disagree with their personal views.

2. The lack of press coverage of other points of view becomes the basis for claiming that there are no other points of view.

3. Dan Fagin justifies not printing other viewpoints, based on the fact that he doesn't know about other viewpoints (due to #1 and #2.)

What makes Dan Fagin an "expert?" He obviously has put no energy or time into looking for the very thing he claims does not exist.

Dan Fagin best exemplifies the concerns of one of the previous threads called "Biased Global Warming Reporting in the Media"

Based on his climate expertise he will single handedly decide for us what is relevent and how it is to be interpreted !

What arrogance !

It would appear that if the public is willing to accept skewed reporting then they undoubtedly deserve what they end up with ..... doublespeak and half truths !

While we're discussing "balance" in reporting, why not discuss one of the lesser reported aspects of global warming which is also due the concept of balance.

We all hear the reports about CO2 levels rising in the atmosphere and that this includes the human contribution. But how many reporters focus on the other side of the balance equation? What has maintains the balance of CO2, or does one really exist that can be considered a reliable standard?

CO2 is a gas that is consumed by botanical life (transpiration) as a necessary ingredient for their growth. Any plant requires 4 major elements to grow.. CO2, Water, Light, and Nutrients. Give a plant all 4 of those elements in equal portions (balance), and they should flourish. Limit any one of those elements and botanical life will not be able to grow, and that can result in an imbalance in global CO2 levels.

And since the majority of CO2 sequestration occurs in the oceans with phytoplankton, which also provides the basis of the oceanic food chain, it makes sense that we should look at the levels of phytoplankton growth when compared with increased CO2 levels. Logic should dictate that any increase of CO2 should be matched by increase levels of phytoplankton in the oceans. But this has CLEARLY not been the case. In fact, just the opposite is the case. There are numerous reports of decreasing phytoplankton levels in the oceans. There are entire "dead zones" where insufficient nutrients prevent phytoplankton from taking hold and utilizing increase CO2 availability. And this is comfirmed by decreasing stocks of marine life, so dependent upon phytoplankton as the foundation of the food chain.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801plankton.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5298004.stm

In sum.. to properly establish what the proper "balance" of CO2 should be in the atmosphere depends upon the degree to which available botanical life on the planet can absorb it. If there is a decrease in botanical life (primarily phytoplankton), then the scientific standard for what constitutes a
"balance" of atmospheric CO2 has to be adjusted downward. If there is an increase in phytoplankton (due to natural, or artificial, nutrient influx) then the acceptable CO2 balance will increase to meet the point where there is no longer sufficient CO2 to fuel further growth.

So what's the real point here? With phytoplankton levels rapidly diminishing across the oceans, can it not be theoretically possible that increased atmospheric CO2 levels are due to the planet's DIMINISHED ability to absorb it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

And if this is the case, should not oceanic fertilization be given the serious scientific and political focus that it deserves? Iron fertilization, just as in fertilizing your lawn, or a farmer's fields, is completely controllable (and reversible); just stop fertilizing. And by applying an element, Iron, which is completely natural, we will not only be increasing the ocean's ability to increase the CO2 balance, but we will be providing the basic food stock upon which depleted marine life. It's a no-brainer that yields a dual benefit.

Reply: I have done at least two posts on iron fertilization of the oceans, just so you know.

I would like to see Accuweather reporters explore this aspect. After all, the majority of the planet's weather begins in the oceans. Why not report on it?

What Marie calls "dangerous politically correct journalism" the rest of us call "truthful reporting."

When 99.9% of scientists in a particular field assert the truth of a particular theory -- general relativity, evolution and natural selection, AGW -- then truthful reporting communicates that fact.

In the unlikely event that, someday, a future generation of scientists revises one of these particular theories, then truthful reporting will communicate that fact as well -- when it happens. Don't hold your breath.

The web is filled with self-proclaimed "experts" who claim that:

1. The Apollo missions to the moon were faked.
2. The earth was created 6,000 years ago and the entire fossil record is either (a) faked by charlatans or (b) planted by God to "test our faith"
3. General relativity is a lie and a hoax
4. American agents brought down the WTC in a (your choice) vast left-wing or right-wing conspiracy.
5. The holocaust never happened.

A reporter who, while doing a piece on the NASA space program, ignores the proponents of (1) is just doing her job. To offer any publicity whatsoever to such cranks is to artificially enhance their standing and to therefore distort the truth of the reporter's piece.

I wonder if Marie would have insisted that Edward R. Murrow get the Nazi side of the story when, reporting on Buchenwald on April 15, 1945, he said:
I pray you to believe what I have said about Buchenwald. I have reported what I saw and heard, but only part of it. For most of it I have no words...If I've offended you by this rather mild account of Buchenwald, I'm not in the least sorry.

The evidence is that we should be, frankly, far more concerned about the willingness of the mainstream media to pander to the "vicious circle" of right-wing deniers. At the moment, the mainstream media greatly over-represent the truth about genuine scientific doubt about the validity of AGW.

It might be nice if we heard both sides once from the mainstream media. Of course, The Weather Channel had to get their "global warming" connection in last night when talking about the recent tornado outbreak. Oh, and just because it's warm where you are doesn't mean it's warm everywhere. Here in Phoenix, 12 straight days of below average temps and 24 of the last 25 days. It has been a cool winter (all things relative) for this area since the first of December. Oh, and I see John Kerry became the latest politician to know all about the weather and global warming. He too, blamed global warming for the tornado outbreak. The NWS says there is no evidence to support such a statement. Who do you think will get the ink?

One problem with the media is they don't have enough of a background in science.

They can't judge whether a particular argument or a particular criticism has scientific merit. Many times they rely upon sources who may or may not be experts upon the subject but who are willing to make public comments upon an issue.

How many time have we read "scientists" say this or that or "scientists" all agree on such and such? Which "scientists"? Climatologists? Geologists, meteorologists, marine botanists or environmental scientists? If we're discussing the climate, which of the above might be actual experts on the subject matter? The term "scientist" is broad and doesn't denote expertise on a particular topic.

Modern journalists are activists, not reporters. They not only have no background to determine the scientific validity of the stories they report, but they also report the stories that fit their world view.

Hi Terry Milton,

Are you suggesting that members of the press are qualified to determine scientific merit of an argument?

Hi Guys,

So as the sun proves its point the screaming gets louder and louder. They have to do something quickly because they know that this solar minimum may prove them wrong. The jury is still out as to how weak this cycle will be. Your going to see the AGW crowd ramp up the rhetoric. I am sure if the solar minimum is prolonged they will say that CO2 saved from the next ice age,LOL, and wait until its over then CO2 will come back with a vengeance. This world is not prepared for a little ice age. For 20 years they been preparing for the great warming and when a little ice age hits it will be true devastation.

Based on the setup of the planet in the heavens, and the setup of the oceans and the earth, there will be constant changes to our planet. As we can see with our own bodies and in looking at machines, everything physical has a time limit. The end will just come sooner if we continously harm the planet with our pollutants.

Based on the winds and movement of our planet, it is impossible for any location to remain the same over time. It is inevitable that there will be changes. To call it global warming is a misnomer. It should be called just global change.

Katie Fehlinger thanks for the interview. What I saw was an arrogant 'journalist' who explained exactly why we have such a unbalanced intellectual discussion on global warming.

Marie,

Your comments hit the nail on the head. Too bad the scaremongers on here have too much tunnel vision and can't comprehend your points.

I bet Mark, BrooklineTom, Steve Bloom and the like believe stories that indicate voting in Communist Cuba is near 100% and that the Communist Party there has nearly 100% support! Why would they disagree with what journalists say? Heck, why it's only a few deniers who say that the elections are a farce.

Most journalists, like most politicians, lack the scientific wherewithal to synthesize all the information and come to a cogent conclusion regarding global warming. They have an opinion and seek out individuals that agree with the opinion. Why? Because they don't want their preconceived notion to be shattered by reality.

OK, I really have not heard a more biased individual discuss AGW. And HE is presented as a mouthpiece for journalistic integrity?

I too am glad Katie did this piece and I think her contribution is fine. The interviewee dug his own hole, Katie did the proper journalistic thing and gave him the shovel.

Key statement: We KNOW that there is human induced warming. Emphasis on know. His concern, the poor journalist who trots out the 1, or, 2, 3 people who doubt it. Give me a freakin' break. How much more biased can an individual be? Does anyone here think that he would present an article based upon possible other explanations for warming? NO.

That, is pure and unadulterated bias.

Nearly the ENTIRE debate about AGW not GW, but AGW, is whether or not humans play any significant GLOBAL role in warming. Remember people, GLOBAL means beyond your backyard, or where you work or where you can see. There are far more places where humans are not, than where they are. Take a trip outside of the city and just see how much open space is out there.

Don't worry though, I'm sure NOAA or Hansen or BT or Mark have some great statistical method to figure out how hot it is in all of these desolate areas.

Hey PH, Thanks for that Link to Financial Post articles by L. Solomon. Last time I read that ,there was only about a dozen or so entries. Looks like this "journalist" is taking the Sceptics seriously.

Also, the press should not report on AIDS denialism in every article on AIDS, right?

Perhaps the point is easier to see if it's not your particular delusion.

Talking about phoney....(bit off topic sorry)

The EU is begining to get silly with their demands to cut our plant food. (CO2)
Below is an article about plans to clamp down on all airlines that fly into europe. It hints at sanctions, trade barriers and tarrifs. Such suggestions have come up before in the EU's efforts to force the rest of the world to conform to their hysterical view of GW. Are we about to see a closing of the EU into a China like trade bubble?

The question I have is this:
Does Europe have ANYTHING that we need so badly that they could hold us ransome for it?

If they close their trade boarders and stop us from flying there, will it matter in any way?

Would anyone care if they close up and go home?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/news/british-airways-blasts-eu-emissions-plan/2008/02/07/1202234035782.html

Excerpt:

The European Union is aiming too high with proposals to make all airlines flying into and out of the bloc buy pollution permits and risks a backlash from other countries, the chief executive of British Airways said.

As is usually necessary, here is the antidote to Patrick Henry's "balanced" offerings (vis-a-vis, the National site).

http://www.desmogblog.com/national-post-deniers-feature-picking-favourite-facts

So much for fair and blah, blah, blah.

The Sun Also Sets

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV � the sun.

Related Topics: Global Warming

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

Mr. Fagin previously covered politics and government for Newsday and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, since 1991 he has been an Environmental Reporter, is the current president of the 1,300-member Society of Environmental Journalists, and is a professor at NYU. At least he isn’t biased in his reporting or politics.
His statement, “Personally I don’t think it makes sense to find the ONE or Two or Three people who still don’t think AGW. ……” just about assures his objectivity.
I am sure we can trust him with reporting the facts without his specific interpretation of those facts, as long as the facts fit his preconceived ideas. Remember he is helping the "common man" to understand what the science is saying. I guess he conforms to the scientific community of believing in “my mind is made up please don’t confuse me with the facts!”
I guess he is so smart he dosen't need to report other opinions for us to make our minds up independent of his bias. One of his NYU courses teaches how to understand "peer reviewed articles"

Folks read, learn and think for your self. This guy wouldn’t know how to objectively peer review toilet paper.
What farce.
Again another Friday laugh that you do so well! Thanks.