[LINK] Scientist: Murdoch Has Cost Humanity 1 or 2 Decades in Battle Against Climate Change.

[Kim Holburn]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/31/308528/scientist-the-murdoch-media-empire-has-cost-humanity-perhaps-one-or-two-decades-of-time-in-the-battle-against-climate-change/


> Scientist: "The Murdoch Media Empire Has Cost Humanity Perhaps One or Two Decades in Battle Against Climate Change."\

> [R]eality becomes so distorted that The Australian was able to state earlier this month, "it is in keeping with this newspaper's rationalist pedigree that we have long accepted the peer-reviewed science on anthropogenic climate change," while at the same time engaging in a campaign to misrepresent and distort climate science.
> 
> Other editorials have made it clear that The Australian believes it is treating its readers as mature adults who should be able to make up their own minds based on arguments from "both sides" of the debate.
> 
> The problem is that on one side of the debate you have 97% of the world's published climate scientists and the world's major scientific organisations, and on the other side you have fools.
> 
> Excuse my bluntness, but it is past time to acknowledge that the science underpinning anthropogenic climate change is rock solid. The sceptics have had the time and opportunity to come with up a convincing case, but their best efforts read like arguments that NASA faked the moon landing.
> 
> My colleagues working in the climate sciences have largely given up trying to correct the constant stream of misinformation from The Australian, in frustration.
> 
> The Australian's anti-science campaign takes many forms.
> 
> 
> One is the inflation of the credentials of their fake experts. For example, OpEd writer and member of the Outdoor Recreation Party Jon Jenkins was referred to as an "Adjunct Professor". Bond University wrote to The Australian informing them that this was not true.

.....

> None of these people has made any impact whatsoever with their arguments in the peer-reviewed literature — they just aren't contributing to any real scientific debate. The only place that they can publish their junk science is in outlets such as The Australian, where they are welcomed with open arms.
> 
> And if you think the bias in The Australian only affects its choice of OpEd pieces, wait till you read Tim Lambert's examination of news reporting in his article later in this series for The Conversation.
> 
> So, when The Australian claims in its editorials to support the peer-reviewed science, it is really just an insurance clause for when the tide inevitably turns against their campaign of misinformation.
> 
> The Murdoch media empire has cost humanity perhaps one or two decades of time in the battle against climate change. Each lost decade greatly increases the eventual economic costs, the devastation to our ecosystems, and the suffering of future generations….
> 
> Read the real science, ask the real experts.


-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request 

Sent from my steam driven difference engine