Dr. Andew Weaver's lecture two weeks ago made a very salient point: that the politically sophisticated climate-change denialist's agenda is not to discredit or disprove the existence of climate change, but to create the appearance of debate on its anthropogenic causes. Dr. Weaver explained that the media's fair-and-balanced coverage mandate made the mainstream media complicit in forwarding the denialist agenda. Media outlets are pushed to seek the "other side" of the climate change story, and give it parity with other coverage, no matter how credible the venue in which the story was found.
Perhaps this explains Dr. Salim Mansur's article, "Gore under Spotlight," which appeared in March 24th's Winnipeg Sun (and elsewhere across the Sun network). The article's position is that Gore's testimonial face-off against Bjorn Lomborg before a House Energy and Commerce Committee Sub-Committee is indicative of the "striking... extent of disagreement among scientists on... human agency in climate change." Dr. Mansur continues by suggesting that Gore is far from qualified to pronounce the debate on the existence of global warming over because he "...is not a scientist. He belongs to he class of people - politicians - least trusted by the public."
To sum it up: The article uses an out-of-context quote on mitigation policy from a discredited academic to suggest that one shouldn't trust a politician - and that somehow Gore's perceived trustworthiness calls into doubt the existence of human driven climate change. Further, the article fails to acknowledge that Lomborg's own Copenhagen Consesus project in fact accepted the IPCC's findings on the existence of climate change and its anthropogenic causes: the presentation of the quote underpinning the article's thesis is dissembling.
Effectively, the article uses selective communication and bifurcation to confuse two separate issues - (1) debate on the existence of climate change / anthropogenic causes, and (2) debate on how to deal with climate change. While the scientific community, the United Nations, and even Lomborg have moved on to debating the efficacy of adaptation and mitigation strategies, Dr. Mansur's article suggests that the question of responsibility is still up in the air - and that we the public do not yet have to hold ourselves accountable for the impact of our consumption decisions.
Fortunately, there's more to the Canadian media landscape that the Sun media network. The two national newspapers, for instance, have moved on from "the debate," and are covering the discussion on the policies and actions to follow. Whether critical of current policy-making or supportive, none dispute the fundamental facts of climate change.
In closing, Dr. Mansur suggests that we should question politicians, and that "the integrity of science ... rests on scientists." These are both sentiments I heartily agree with. Which is why I accept the IPCC findings, debate mitigation strategies, and ride my bike to work.
