|
|
|
|
|
|
by glenstein
798 days ago
|
|
|
I mean this is exactly what I'm talking about. Let's take the wiki article, and lets take your comment, and tell me which of the two would give the average person a more accurate overall assessment of what really happened with Climategate? And if its the former, then to what end are you offering the latter? It's this kind of question that is critical for media literacy imo. I don't love playing fast and loose on a particular paper, but (1) I don't fault them for not wanting climate skeptics to be able to launder the prestige of being published in the IPCC to lend credibility denier narratives, (2) nothing about this changes the IPCC conclusion or the underlying reality of global warming and (3) if all you present is this one-off without context, it serves to spread the false impression that climate science writ large is uncertain. Spreading that form of uncertainty without the benefit of context serves the purpose of spreading misinformation. That's the topline, and losing track of that topline is a failure in media literacy. |
|
|
If we stick to the climategate issue rather than commenting on our beliefs in validity of climate science as represented by the conclusions in the IPCC reports; again, these statements are standing on their own as a witness on the attitude of those authors which you cannot get from the sanitized wiki article.