Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
Back atcha' . . .
No place in debate for climate contrarians
“This concern distorts what news-gathering is about,” CJR says. “Journalism has always been about righting wrongs, holding the powerful to account, calling out lies.”
No, journalism is all about factually reporting the news. News sources are not supposed to be activists, whether on the right or left.
Consensus enforcement is a potent new force in climate science where sceptical views increasingly are being silenced as a danger to public good.
You want balance in the Media?
Fine! Then one climate sceptic and two of their friends can have their say, then NINETY SEVEN scientists will provide studies, data, evidence and proof.
And you will have balance.
Of course, you may be denying the far simpler conclusion that the handful of GW holdouts are stepping back and accepting the overwhelming evidence.
Oh, and also - Godwin's Law demands I call you an idiot.
It's in the rules on the start page.
Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:
Experts say humanity has only 10 years to have large-scale carbon dioxide reduction schemes up and running if global warming is to be restrained to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Stories like this only remind me that CCS has no chance.
If it was going to work, we'd have test-pools (or parts of the ocean depths) already choked with tons of locked-up carbon.