Is Russell right when she says we've moved beyond the need to include climate deniers views?

-- BK

 

 

---

Everyone's opinion should be heard, however, on an issue that's proven to be very urgent it may be important for those in scientific fields to ignore "climate deniers'" opinions. Also, in an age controlled by big business, it's important, as Russell said, to note the source of information regarding the climate. Many major companies have interest related to energy that will affect the kind of information they release.

 

 

Climate change is a major issue. I don't know this because I'm a scientist, but because I've heard enough information that I consider valid to confirm the fact. I don't think we should stifle the opinions of those who believe climate change isn't a major issue, but I would argue that we should try to convince them that it is.

 

Quentin

 

 

---

 

Absolutely not. Not including their views, means ignoring that they even exist and therefore continuing to follow the band-aid on a jugular wound approach to solving problems that we typically engage in this country, particularly when it comes to climate change and its solutions.

 

While the issue is urgent (combating climate change before its too late), we can’t leave people in the dust whom still aren’t convinced because as history proves (see federalists versus anti-federalists) we’ll be punished for this later on. While one issue may be resolved on, or certainly on its way to higher ground, we could be setting up the nation, and ultimately the rest of the world, for bigger problems later (which in my opinion we have done so already in the past, resulting in the current global warming problems we now face).

 

If our historical lack of problem solving has left us with the issue of climate change today, what problems could our future hold if we use a similar approach of ignoring certain views (or non-views I guess in this case) to move along problem solving for today’s issues?

 

-Jackie

 

---

 

 

Good thinking, Jackie, and to summarize: you see the problem as one of inclusiveness in the political dialogue, which I think means you also want less polarization.  Well here's a question: Should scientists be more inclusive on this issue? And should public policy debates be fundamentally different from scientific debates?

 

When does dissent become irrelevant to science, and when does it become irrelevant to public policy? Is it true that the climate skeptics (Michaels, Singer, Lomberg, etc) are primarily sniping from the sidelines -- they are not doing any serious research themselves, but rather are interpreting data gathered by others?

 

-- Bill Kovarik

 

---

 

 

This article asks a plethora of questions concerning climate change. However, it avoids the question, “Is climate change really happening?” This may be because the author thinks that there is “generally not the time or space for that kind of explanatory coverage” on climate change.

 

However, there are plenty of different spaces to explain and to find information in today’s world. Where someone will go for information depends on what they are looking for. Someone looking for facts about species extinction is not going to go to a website dedicated to solar panels. “Sharpening coverage” on climate change should mean acknowledging the different types of people out there. Sure a journal sent to geologists across the globe who agree that climate change is happening does not need an article that explains what climate change is. That article belongs in a source whose audience is unaware of climate change.

 

Since there are so many different ways to talk about climate change, no facts should be omitted. Just because something may be the majority opinion, does not always mean it is right. (Though it was accepted that the world was flat, we now know that it is not.) It is a fact that the world has gone through changes in climate before and it is also a fact that greenhouse gases trap heat. As this issue is relatively new, it is not a highly established field of study. Therefore, there are a lot of uncertainties and different ways to interpret data. Furthermore, as the future has not happened yet, no one knows what will actually occur. My point being, it may be dangerous to ignore someone with facts just because their conclusions are not mainstream.

 

Climate change news coverage is vital in order to pass climate change policies but not only are some people still unsure about this topic; most people are scared by it. People would rather watch “sports and celebrity coverage.” Most people are however interested in energy issues because they effects us directly. Some of the issues mentioned in this article have to do more with the recent prices of energy then with climate change. For example, though biofuels may be better for the environment than oil as they intake carbon dioxide while they grow, biofuels are also a big issue because oil is not as easily accessible as it once was. It would be easier to reach to public if there weren't a million arms stretched out.

 

~Courtney

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

No, I don't think it is right for Russell to say that we have moved beyond the stage of including climate change deniers views. There are two sides to every story and by neglecting to cover both angles major details could be missed. The public deserves to know all aspects of the argument so that they can make an educated decision on their beliefs. By witholding information that a party presents, it looks like inaccurate or incomplete news coverage.

 

There are always going to be skeptics and it is only through education and information that we can hope to move towards a more productive society that is willing to accept and strive to curb the effects of climate change. I agree with the statement that Steve Curwood said in Russell's article, "But it’s not our job to decide what should be done. It’s our job to inform the citizenry. Right now we have an alarmed citizenry, but still not a very well-informed one.” To legitimately inform the world about this issue, we need to cover all the bases, and that means addressing the skeptics as well.

 

-Maureen

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On the contrary, critiques should always be considered because if a theory is sound, then its criticisms will eventually be disproved, making the theory that much stronger. In this way, old critiques abate allowing new ones to emerge. It is this ebb and flow of criticisms that pushes science forward.

 

In the case of climate change, the argument that it is not occurring has largely been disproved. Most studies have also concluded that humans are responsible for the trend. When the argument that it is not occurring or that we have nothing to do with it (and can therefore do nothing to stop it and should continue business as usual) has been fully devalued, the criticism will naturally subside and we will cease to include it in the debate. The question we are faced with now is not whether or not it is happening, but how to change our ways to cause the least amount of damage to the economy- and the solution will more than likely be the path of least resistance (for the powerful), regardless of its being right or wrong.  

--Deana

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 I agree when others say that everyone's opinion should be heard. I think it is a little discouraging to believe that people deny the climate change and the impact of global warming on the world.

I do think that these types of criticism are necessary so that the public will be given the view of everyone whether they are supporting or denying the climate change. I strongly believe that people are entitled to publish and express their opinions, even if there is science that will prove them wrong. I do think Russel is right by saying we do not need to include the climate deniers view, but they still have the right to express their beliefs.

The news about the changing climate and global warming is everywhere. Even by people denying it, the coverage is still there and without them there would not be as many articles affirming it. I think the deniers are making it easier for people to see that there is a problem.

 

--Koryn Stevens

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    I think that she is right, and that is exciting that that is the movement in writing now – moving from just covering the issue to what people are doing about it.  That is a much more uplifting story.  The climate science and consensus are there, and I hope that everyone realizes that – what we need is to be telling people what they can do about it.  I really liked this quote – “Journalists will play a key role in shaping the information that opinion leaders and the public use to judge the urgency of climate change, what needs to be done about it, when and at what costs” because it makes me really hopeful that environmental journalists understand the tremendous task that they have.  I also agree with the point that was made about how writers from all fields will need to coordinate to truly cover the story because they all have a piece of the story.  Climate change affects everything.

    I agree that there might be some “green fatigue” because of the heavy coverage – but that the covering of the issue is extremely important.  Maybe columns could use different approaches on greening actions and different article titles.  I think that pointing out greenwashing incidences is extremely important.  It is aggravating to know about all of the global warming “skeptics” that are being paid by the fossil fuel industry to keep up the “controversy” and questionability of climate science.  I don’t know how these characters sleep at night, especially if they have children.  It is eerily like the tobacco companies propaganda saying that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. 

    Come on America, wake up!

- Angie