Often the media, especially dear old Auntie Beeb, will go overboard trying to put both sides of an argument forward. But what about when the argument is between on one side, the collective and peer-reviewed opinion of the worlds foremost climate science researchers and on the other, the personal and un-tested opinion of climate skeptics such as Lord Lawson?
Should equal weight be given to these opposing views?
To do so may encourage less informed readers to reason there is genuine debate over the strength of claims regarding man-made climate change, when in fact to all but a few, the scientific argument was won years ago and has now moved onto to finding the best methods for mitigation.
A perfect example appeared in a recent Radio Times where Sir David Attenborough was interviewed in connection with the BBC series Frozen Planet which could not avoid touching upon the rapid climate changes occurring in the Arctic Circle. The magazine presumably felt obliged to include comment from Nigel Lawson to provide “balance”. Unsurprisingly, Lord Lawson took the opportunity to spread some more F.U.D (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
Another classic example was the amount of press coverage David Bellamy received when he claimed the polar regions were actually expanding.. only to be revealed as a fraud by George Monbiot who investigated Bellamy’s source material and found errors and mis-interpretations galore.
The media should collectively work much harder to test the opinions of contributors and make a distinction between:
- Fact. Categorically proved correct.
- Established Theory. Scientifically tested, rigorously peer reviewed and adopted by consensus
- Belief. Unproven and with little, if any, evidence
Perhaps then we can move on from the constant distractions and focus on tackling the real issue.