Slashdot Mirror
Climate Researchers Fight Back
tomduck writes "The Guardian reports that climate researcher Andrew Weaver is suing the National Post newspaper in Canada in a libel action for publishing 'grossly irresponsible falsehoods.' The Post claimed he cherrypicked data to support his climate research, and tried to blame the 'evil fossil fuel' industry for break-ins at his office in 2008 to divert attention from mistakes in the 2007 IPCC report. This comes fast on the heels of another Guardian article describing lessons learned from the exoneration of UEA scientists involved in the so-called Climategate affair. Are climate scientists finally fighting back against their critics, who they were previously more inclined to ignore?"
And who had the most unbiased coverage of the US presidential election?
Fox
All media is biased to some extent.
Just look at magazines at any newstand right before the last US election.
I once walked in and could right away see about 10 magazines with Obama on the cover.
And how many had McCain?
0
My point being, any news company will want more subscribers/viewers. But I prefer to read/watch news from a company that
reports on both sides of the debate and then lets me choose what I believe.
But if someone reads the Globe and Mail, I don't care.
They are as liberal as you can get when the Liberals are in power.
And when the Conservatives are in power they are "centrist".
While the NP reports regularly on both sides of the climate debate, the rest of the media rarely does.
My view is that both sides of the climate debate have liars.
There are lies,damned lies, and statistics.
But I guess it's different when you have statistics which were collected by people who later destroy the original data.
HOWEVER, facts can be presented in such a way as to sway people.
Here is a simple example.
The man went to the store.
or
The man, a known child molester, went to the store.
The implication that the man by going to the store is doing something wrong by using another fact to change the meaning of the real fact.
Much 'news' in papers or on the news stations is republished from AP or Reuters. Many of these journalists are doing nothing more than copying the original story and putting their own spin on it. Sometimes it is verbatim depending on how lazy they are. Take for example one of Fox News top shows (and notice it has ratings) the 'no spin zone'. It is nothing BUT spin and very little 'news'. However, by the name you would expect it to be the opposite. Almost all news organizations out there do this sort of thing at one level or another. As it is about ratings. The higher the ratings the more you can charge for advertisements. Once you realize this (and please show others) you look at news as not a presentation of facts. But a presentations of stories put under the light of ratings and target audiences.