[Pvgreens-discussion] Forum

[sandylemberg at juno.com]

I agreed to work on finding a speaker for the proposed Global Warming
Forum to present the consensus position which is opposed by Bill Gray.
The first person I called, who wishes to remain anonymous, persuaded me
that this forum is not a good idea. I am pasting below information I
received from that person which supports that position.

Additionally, I am forwarding separately two large pdf files. Those
emails are likely to be blocked by the PV Greens email list because of
their size. I am asking that the moderator of the PV Greens list allow
them through, since they are essential to our discussion.

I am suggesting that the PV Greens reconsider the idea and consider
cancelling the forum. I hope this discussion can be conducted entirely by
email and that we can agree to cancel the forum well before our next PV
Greens meeting.

Because I now oppose the idea of this forum, I am abdicating. effective
immediately, from any efforts to put it together.

Thanks for your attention, Sandy Lemberg

“A debate would be giving Bill Gray's views equal time with the
mainstream scientific views that are closer to my own.  His views do not
deserve equal time, because they are representative of only a very tiny
fraction of scientists -- 1% at most.  A debate would give the impression
that there is actually a scientific controversy, when the truth is that
there isn't. A debate plays into the hands of the skeptics.

The web site

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp

contains the following quote, which I agree with:

“To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate
change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published
in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928
articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed
with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is
human-induced.

These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting
on climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change
in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post,
LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that
more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal
weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics. 

This discrepancy is largely due to the media’s drive for balance in
reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue,
and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides with
roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, the “balance” of the different
views within the media does not always correspond with the actual
prevalence of each view within society, and can result in unintended
bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and as a
result, many people believe that climate change is still being debated by
scientists when in fact it is not.” “