Chris Woods piece over at the Canadian professional journalists blog (j-source) continues to have legs, as the egg heads attempt to stave off Jay Currie's well thought criticism of their professions conduct throughout the Climategate controversy. Unable to post there due to some 'reCapture' requirements of the web site, I have brought my response here:
"A journalist's job is to consider all those "sides" and make a reasonable determination, with the help of people doing the heavy work, about what is fact and what is flake.
That, I submit, is that the MSM is doing with global warming."
This contention is supported with what evidence?
On the contrary, the evidence is that the media has shown little to no interest in anything other than what the 'climate scientists' have spoon fed them. Narratives are fine for fictional stories, but science is not worked out in narratives, nor should the political implications of theories by advanced along narrative lines.
The true 'news story' if you will, is that the Hadley CRU document dump places beyond question the fact that the presentation of the science has been manipulated to preserve a story line of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
The science is not settled. At present we really do not understand the factors that drive the global climate, nor are we certain that we have identified the major force agents, nor do we know the degree to which each of the identified factors influence the global climate, nor do we have a way to predict the future climate. The role of CO2 levels is unknown.
To that I would add that it is clear we have no means by which we could manipulate the global climate anyway.