Amit, we might take what you write a bit more seriously when you and your paper report honestly on climategate and on skeptics' views(many of whom are excellent scientists).For you there is only one narrative - and it seems you will stick to it no matter what.
For a start, I would like you to explain this-
if the science of AGW is so settled, why do the climategate scientists have to keep out inconvenient studies from the IPCC reports? You may read about it here-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_this_time_al_gore_lied/
Hoping for a honest assessment.
cheers.
P.S. - just one more question -why is all the reporting on this issue always alarmist?
Aren't journalists supposed to find more than one side of any issue? Have you ever reported on Al Gore's or Pachauri's conflict of interests? Have you ever reported on discrediting of the infamous Hockey Stick? Have you ever reported on temperatures in a historical context -on the MWP(medieval warm period was warmer than now),the Roman warm period(grapes growing in England),on the little ice age(LIA) from which the world began to emerge sometime in the 19th century and perhaps still is emerging out of it?
Ok, that's a lot of questions- but why you or your paper do not point them out?Is it journalism?
Chuck the narrative, Amit, report, report! Even if what you report does not agree with your views. Don't black out the views of those who disagree with what you believe in .That's honesty.Just report.
Has not yet been published pending moderator's approval.
Update -
now published.
0 comments:
Post a Comment