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
London
SW1W 0DT
e-mail: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
FOR PUBLICATION
2nd October 2009
Dear Editors,
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 :-
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
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.
Yours sincerely,
Ms J. Abbess BSc
5 replies on “Praise & Criticism”
“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.”
Fortunately your opinion is not shared by the majority anymore. The public has changed its view of anthropomorphic climate change partly because of the fear mongering over the last few years, and remarks like “contributing to social fragmentation”. The constant bullying by AGW Believers and the media to hurry up, stop driving the SUV, change your light bulbs, hurry, it’s almost too late! Doom, cataclysm within a few years, death and destruction to your children. Hurry!! When a stranger tells you to hurry, spend money before it’s too late, after awhile the public starts to smell a rat. There is something fishy about a guy who says these things and has already earned $100 million on it, and stands to earn billions more. I refer to the worlds first Carbon Baron Al gore (and his ilk). So now the public does not know who to trust.
>Based on what I know of the actual science of Climate Change,
You’ve already demonstrated in the Delingpole blog entry that you don’t know very much of the science.
Jo, if I only had a 25-year-old 2:2 physics degree from Warwick University, I wouldn’t boast about it.
Based on your repeatedly foolish comments and unimpressive academic achievements, you are completely unqualified to express a worthwhile opinion on the actual science of climate change.
You have been slapped down in a most humiliating fashion by readers of the Telegraph blogs. You must be a masochist to keep coming back for more.
Look, as the whole world and her cat now knows, there’s been a major scientific fraud perpetrated by Keith Briffa at Hadley CRU, which has infected a whole strata of ‘evidence’ for AGW. It is time you acknowledged this. If you want to do some useful work, you could go through each and every global warming series and report – honestly, please – which must now be ignored.
Jo. You’ve had your bit of fun and your spell in the limelight, but I think it’s time to call it a day. Now that even the BBC are admitting we’re into ‘Global Cooling’ it’s time you too, got on the road to Damascus.
I see your mate the Moonbat is now more concerned with crayfish and scallops. As a zoologist he’s probably on safer ground !