Letters to Other Editors Media in cahoots with ‘big science’ on climate change
|
06 December 2009
Given The Citizen’s thorough coverage of the climate change issue in the past, I am surprised to find no stories about the scandal rocking Britain’s prestigious Climate Research Unit (CRU) which has been a major part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC).
Leaks of over 3,000 documents and e-mails show that some of the world’s top climate change scientists intentionally used various ‘statistical ‘tricks’ to fudge data to support their position on climate change and to suppress information that contradicted their findings.
They pressured peer-reviewed journals not to publish contradictory research and even got a nonco-operative editor fired. Furthermore, they systematically excluded scientists with dissenting opinions, i.e. they squelched open scientific debate on what was supposedly a purely scientific issue. This is apparently how the IPCC achieved its oft-trumpeted ‘consensus’ on man-made climate change.
Since taxpayers are being asked to spend countless billions on the climate change problem, I think that The Citizen and all media have a duty to fully inform citizens of this scandal and its implications for government policy, for locking ourselves into international commitments as well as for public spending.
By failing to bring this issue to the public’s attention, the media have in effect demoted themselves to cheerleaders and thereby betrayed their duty to fully inform the public. In doing this, the media have become complicit in leading the public into giving uninformed consent on an issue that is not nearly as clear-cut as some would pretend.
Comments
While we are at it. Lets assume that climate change is an absolute hoax (which by the way it is not), but lets assume it is.
What are some of the solutions to climate change.
Reducing our dependence on oil.
Cleaning up polluting industries.
Using clean energy.
Assuming climate change is complete rubbish, then doing the above things will only reduce general pollution anyway, so what is the problem. Unless it is that you actually like pollution.
Take Copenhagen as a perfect example of this. In Copenhagen 37% of the population commute to work or study each day by bicycle. Copenhagen is one of the happiest livable cities, and when you ask the people why they ride a bike most dont say, because of climate change, rather they say, because it is convenient, healthy, cheap etc.
Fighting climate change has side benefits, even if climate change is a hoax (which, it is not), so stop your conservative crap and get on board.
RSS feed for comments to this post