The CBC, an organization that should know better, has fallen into the he-said/she-said trap of indiscriminate journalism, and has dragged its listeners down with it.
In the attached radio clip on the economics of the Kyoto Accord, CBC set up Ross McKitrick, an Associate Professor in Economics at the University of Guelph, opposite Lisa Matthaus, a Resource Economist with the Sierra Club of Canada.
Listeners would have no difficulty assessing the likely position of a Sierra Club spokester. But an idle audience member would not be nearly so well-prepared to discount the biases of Dr. McKitrick - especially if they were expecting an associate professor to deliver a sober and dispassionate academic analysis.
McKtrick is far from neutral. He is a "Senior Fellow" at the Fraser Institute, a right-wing Vancouver-based "think tank" that has received funding from the oil industry and has promoted many agenda-driven experts on global warming.
McKitrick also runs his own website under the heading "Global warming: competing views," where you will find links to the discredited stars of global warming denial, including the Friends of Science, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and The Oregon Petition Project.
Picking one spokesperson from either "side" of the climate change debate is no guarantee of objectivity. Doing so without fully informing the audience about previously established biases and relevant industry junket funding is a full-blown lapse of CBC's responsibility to its audience.
Sweet
At least the comment below is more predictable:
Google western standard cbc dream
The top comment is:
“Disband the CBC now! My dream: march into the CBC HQ with the army, force everyone to leave, then blow up the building to the strains of the 1812 Overture. Do the same to other CBC facilities - no mercy, no negotiations, no explanation. Just end it once and for all.”
... they areallying in
... they areallying in support...
Huh?
If you're referring to my post, read it again with both eyes open. The CBC is a carbuncle on Canada's backside.
The post of "ZOG" was not a
Besides, it’s a joke to say CBC switched to supporting deniers, when they essentially have all along. A search at the CBC website confirms that CBC spent years interviewing a relatively unknown retired geographer whenever climate change came up, rather than seek input from active scientists who actually conducted research and published in the areas of atmospheric physics and climatology (as opposed to CBC’s “expert” who hadn’t even taken classes in those subjects in grad school). And who did CBC Calgary interview the day the IPCC report came out? FOS. And who did they interview the next day? Another FOSer. Compared to BBC, NBC, PBS, etc., the CBC is no science supporter.
You might want to specify
You might want to specify which part of CBC you are talking about. For instance, I believe that the CBC Almanac this post is about is a local BC program; and I expect the local stations decide who to have on their shows. So would the local programmers know who is a credible source? I don't have an answer, but I would guess it varies from station to station.
Certainly national CBC has had people like Rex Murphy siding with the global warming sceptics, but it's also had Jay Ingram for the science side. It depends who you are listening to.
national exposure
National news exposure as an expert is how one gets listened to at the level of Parliament and the US Congress.
CBC’s choices are new, but at least lately they don’t laud him as a national climate expert (as Global TV did in March), or give him the title “scientists”, as though he speaks for climate science. Yes, local CBC radio routinely offers “both sides”, e.g., at lunch on Tuesday, CBC Calgary called climate warming “the gospel according to Gore”, but the national CBC news items are also still there.
The main CBC website is:
http://www.cbc.ca/
Here are some news items that are archived there:
Greenhouse gases barely impact climate: scientists … The scientists self-stated goal is to stop Canada’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Tim Ball. “We are here as scientists … www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/11/13/warm_climate021113.html - 32k - 2002-11-14
Speed of global warming surprises scientists … spewed into the atmosphere. But meteorologist Tim Ball doesn’t think human activity has that much to do with it. “Even if it gets … www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/03/16/globalwarm000316.html - 31k - 2000-11-11
Expert puts chill on global warming … More news from Manitoba. Tim Ball is a retired geography professor who has studied historic weather trends. He says the earth is … www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/03/08/cooling.html - 27k - 2000-03-08
[PDF] An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper: … Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards … Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental … www.cbc.ca/news/background/harper_conservatives/pdf/lettertoharper2.pdf - 2006-04-19
etc.
"Indiscriminate Journalism" -- and other hilarious phrases
It should come as no surprise that a Liberal Party hack like Kevin Grandia has such a low opinion of the average Canadian’s ability to decide an argument on it’s merits alone.
Hey, maybe Dr. McKitrick is a Freemason, too? Surely you could use that against him in your ad hominem attack?
Speaking of ad hominem attacks
But, really ...
After all, it’s the only kind you seem capable of, so you might as well get the terminology right.
Ad hominem
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
If I called someone stupid, that would be ad-hominem within the context of a debate. However, when we point out misperceptions created by a lack of relevant information, this is not ad-hominem, it is context.
Are we saying that someone's point is invalid because they are oil-industry lobbyists? No, we are saying that this context should be considered when judging the source of a message that is being received by the public via the media.
As far as arguments or conclusions put forth by scientists, we have seen many cases where scientific work that is paid for by industry (i.e. tobacco) tends to draw conclusions favourable to the industry more often than not. So is it ad-hominem to point out a climate scientist's industry funding sources when their conclusions support the views of their funder? Nope, sorry not ad-hominem, important context that the public should know about.
Further, "eco-hitler" if reporting such connections to oil-industry is so benign and invalid as you claim, why are you on our site so often, spending hours out of your day, arguing against us?
And now you're being deliberately obtuse
Okay. Now what part of that don’t you understand?
Evidently you went to the trouble of Googling “ad hominem”, and then copying this into your comment. So you can’t tell me you haven’t at least read the definition. Yet, somehow, actually understanding the definition seems beyond you.
“If I called someone stupid, that would be ad-hominem within the context of a debate.”
Uh, no. Look up the definition again. Read it. Move your lips and point with your finger, if you must. An ad hominem argument is not merely insulting someone. I think I’ve severely over estimated you.
“However, when we point out misperceptions created by a lack of relevant information, this is not ad-hominem, it is context.”
No matter how absurd your logical contortions, your statements remain quite blatant ad hominems.
Let me refresh your memory:
“Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents’ motives”.
Does that ring a bell? It should. You posted it — and, bizarrly, it is precisely and almost exclusively what you do on this web site.
“No, we are saying that this context should be considered when judging the source of a message”
WTF?! There you just admitted it. What the hell does the SOURCE of an argument have to do with it’s validity? Absolutely nothing. That is the very essence of an ad hominem argument, sir.
Your intent, quite obviously, is to obfuscate and misrepresent arguments which oppose your political ideology, by attempting to draw attention from the actual arguments themselves, and instead, directing it to their source — which is entirely irrelevant.
“Further, “eco-hitler” if reporting such connections to oil-industry is so benign and invalid as you claim, why are you on our site so often, spending hours out of your day, arguing against us?”
Why? Because as a person who possesses some degree of intellectual honesty, I dislike weasels like you (that’s an insult, by the way — not an ad hominem). It is both amusing and instructive to mock and expose your decietful methods and bogus claims. In resorting to slander, you speak volumes for the integrity of your arguments — or, rather, lack thereof.
okay...
People using the 1975 Newsweek article in attacks on today’s climatologists?
Any other common ad hominem attacks coming from those who dispute AGW?
I'm bummed out...
Eco-H*****, here is what you
Eco-H*****, here is what you really need to hear:
The skeptics/contrarians/deniers are wrong about AGW. Everything they have said has been disproven. Once they say something that is disproven, they say "Yeah, but ..." and the next thing they claim is disproven. Following that, they say "That may be true, but ..." and that is disproven. Nothing that they have claimed has ever turned out to be the truth. See the following two sites for such examples:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Now, Eco-H*****, if you think that saying someone is wrong is an ad-hominem, then there is no use arguing with you.
Especially if the deniers
Huh?
That would be your ad hominem attack.
Or are you really that dumb?
Oh! Touché ...
How refreshing that Mother