After a week of parry and counter-riposte, it is time to shout “en garde” to the editors at the Daily Telegraph newspaper.
In a peaceful way. Without swords.
To: The Editors
The Daily Telegraph
111 Buckingham Palace Road
2nd October 2009
I wish to congratulate you on the excellent reporting and commentary I have read, via your online Internet presence, from journalist Louise Gray and web logger Rowena Mason.
I feel encouraged from their recent output that the future of your environmental reporting is to be factual, engaging and socially useful.
The same cannot be said, from my point of view, for what I regard as “dinosaur” Climate Change sceptical anti-science writing of Christopher Booker and James Delingpole.
I do not understand why you continue to permit them to reproduce what I believe are proven fallacies, in their framework narrative that seems to derive from callous cynicism.
It’s not a harmless bit of fun, in my opinion, and I think it wastes a lot of peoples’ time and energy in correcting erroneous information then lodged in the public mind.
This week the scientists have stood up and debunked several recent Climate Change “denier” narratives.
For example the scientists from RealClimate have resisted the assertions of Steve McIntyre, Christopher Booker and James Delingpole; and Dr Latif and Dr Keenlyside have resisted mis-reporting in the mainstream media via interviews with Climate Progress commentator Joseph Romm :-
I would hope you pay attention to these rebuttals.
Climate Change scepticism would be amusing, if it were not highly divisive.
Based on what I know of the actual science of Climate Change, I often laugh at scepticism in what I think is its barefaced cheek and outright mendacity. If only we could all laugh at it, I think. However, some people take it seriously.
Climate Change scepticism and denial permeates the cultural conversation of the general public, and is creating anger and frustration.
My view is that those who allow Climate Change scepticism a platform are therefore contributing to social fragmentation on a subject that is highly important to resolve.
We have enough trouble reaching global agreements on what to do, without the Climate Change sceptics throwing what I regard as “science fiction” spanners in the works.
My personal opinion is that I think it is highly irresponsible of you to continue to allow this kind of non-science to be published under your aegis, a brand name in media that people trust, and should be encouraged to go on trusting.
I would therefore politely request that you seek the assistance of scientifically trained experts when editing articles and commentary about Climate Change.
Ms J. Abbess BSc