|| Beeb's attempt to cast doubt on climate change
||Mar. 31st, 2007 12:04 pm|
carbon dioxide and other gases that many scientists believe are helping to warm the earth's atmosphere.|
What the hell sort of "journalism" is that?
Seems pretty solid to me. "Belief
is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition."
The science of climate change posits that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in particular the amount that human activity has generated, is modifying the world's weather in general. This human-sourced cause is, however only a theory, and a theory can be proved wrong if even a single incontrovertable fact is produced against it.
As an example of this is General relativity versus Quantum mechanics. They both describe a functioning universe, however, they are mutually incompatible - they cannot both be true. I *believe* they describe the workings of the universe, but I know that they are not both true. At least one is false - or at best, incomplete - but that doesn't stop me believing they are a good-enough fit for now.
Interesting. I parsed it as:
"...carbon dioxide and (other gases that many scientists believe are helping to warm the earth's atmosphere)."
That seems an entirely reasonable way of putting it. Even with the other reading, I feel that they type of journalism it is is 'accurate' journalism, and journalism that treats its readers as intelligent beings.
I agree with you. To represent it as "many scientists" is to suggest that there is still scientific doubt about this sort of thing. "the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists, as well as the Royal Society most of the rest of world's premier scientific bodies" would be more like it.
Given there is still debate on the issue I think that's pretty balanced. It's not like thier genral coverage dose not repeatedly point out that the evidence for man made climate change is increasingly strong and that the majority of scientific oppinion is behind the theory, but given they have to give a balanced oppinion and the only shorrt ways of putting the situation is either in effect 100%, 0% or 50% behind any theory I don't see how they can get more accurate without the article just becoming a rehash of the same exspenation of where the argument has gotten to that we have all heard a hundred times over by now and know well enough not to need to be told again.
I really must find a Logo for Evangelistic agnosticisum.