“Warmaholic” – that is the new term coined by a virologist who was attempting to argue against the evidence for global warming in today’s Australian.
When I read the column this morning, I found myself asking what evidence Jon Jenkins had to support any of his assertions. He didn’t cite it, and I didn’t have the time or inclination to go looking.
Fortunately, Graham Readfearn did – including talking to the BoM’s acting chief climatologist. This quote from Michael Coughlan sums up The Australian’s status as an outlet for science journalism:
The Australian clearly has an editorial policy. No matter how many times the scientific community refutes these arguments, they persist in putting them out – to the point where we believe there’s little to be gained in the use of our time in responding.
Not unlike their position with respect to political commentary, for that matter. And it seems that this week’s topic du jour is why it is absolutely essential (and morally right) for Israel to do what it has done in Gaza, and whatever else it ends up doing. Sheridan has a column, and there have been plenty of guest op-eds as well.
I wonder what The Australian expects to survive on once it has destroyed its credibility with respect to every issue its journalists are expected to report on?
Good post. There was some tool at Grods spouting rubbish he’d read in the Australian recently. I quickly countered him and he was forced to admit it was wrong.
The remarkable thing about the denialists is how lacking in critical thought their responses are. “As long as it disputes global warming it must be true!” seems to be the mantra.
What John said.
Also, Sheridan is a joke. It’s obvious that on the few occasions he can’t make up his mind according to the reliable formulae (Israel and US good, Arabs bad; F-16s righteous, women and children meh) he does so using neocon talking points absorbed during an endless round of seminars and “special briefings”.
His writing is always terrible. But to understand precisely how bad it can be, you have to chance on one of those rare occasions when he’s required fleetingly to think for himself and write at length. I’ve rarely laughed as hard as I did late last year when I read – covering the entire back page of Review – Greg’s considered critical appraisal of George Pell’s “important new book”. One “conservative intellectual” to another, like. I had this fleeting, profoundly disorienting sensation that I’d been delivered a Yes Men-style parody edition of the Weekend Australian.
And this is the problem with the Australian, I guess. You just can’t tell if they’re taking the piss anymore. Sheridan? In the arts pages??? A weekly column for Michael Costa? Christopher Pearson? I keep waiting for Jeremy Beadle to jump from behind a bush, point at a camera and tell the entire country it’s been had.
It’s Keith Windschuttle perpetrating his very own media hoax.
“HA HA! GOT YOUSE LEFTOIDS!”
Tobias,
You know, of course, that Tim Lambert has an ongoing list cataloguing “The Australian’s War on Science”? He’s up to item 31 now.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
This is why I wish The Age would go back to actual journalism. Then I wouldn’t have to yell at my morning paper any more.
[...] 25 January, 2009 by Tobias Ziegler A couple of weeks back I (among several others) wrote about Jon Jenkins’ op-ed in The Australian in which he [...]