Sir- On April 23rd, The Irish Times , this time on its letters page, chose to publish more climate-contrarian views, again featuring misleading factoids in support of illogical arguments, aiming to divert us from pressing climate policy decisions. The correspondents clearly betray their own anxieties, wrongly accusing others of the hectoring tone that they themselves adopt. Perhaps, by protesting thus, they would prefer we did not look at the problem too closely.
Our natural preference, my own included, is to avoid hearing that our own greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel use, both individually and collectively, add to global warming. That is the reality though, even if inaccurate media presentations of a “debate” play to our wishful thinking.
Unfortunately, global warming is a problem for us all, right now, and the real communication has to be on how we can best act quickly and effectively to confront it together, in partnership with all humanity. Pointing out the fog of false balance "debate" in the media was the actual aim of my letter (April 21st) yet The Irish Times has chosen to ignore this essential point by printing the same type of irrelevant inaccuracies as though they are substantive. They are not. Irresponsibly, it is the willingness of the media to present such ignorance in the guise of free speech that perpetuates climate confusion.
If it is acting in the public interest fact-checking stories and, yes, letters too, against climate science is a critical media function to enable valid discussion within the range of reality. Selling unjustified “doubt” as entertainment or as false balance should not be the aim of the media, otherwise it is itself liable to accusations of promoting climate denial.
Global warming science is strong and clear regarding the increasingly challenging level of action required to chart a course to climate stability. It is critical that our media understand the science to facilitate the real debate on climate policy. In future, can The Irish Times please look to climate scientists and the IPCC when reporting climate science? Yours, etc,
PAUL PRICE BSc (Geology)
MSc (Sus Dev),
Library Road,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin
Sir, – Mr Whitehead and Mr Mooney (Letters, April 23rd) were rather long on rhetoric yesterday in their letters on climate change, but short on verifiable facts. If Mr Whitehead is so expert on the published literature on past carbon dioxide atmospheric content, why did he not cite a single paper? Meanwhile, the exhaustive studies of the peer-reviewed science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have demonstrated a consensus position diametrically opposite to what he claimed. He should consult, for example, Section 5.3.1 “High-Carbon Dioxide Worlds and Temperature” in the Working Group I Report, released last year.
Far, far more interesting and more relevant was your Page 1 story “Draft climate change legislation to tighten carbon pledges”, and surely it is long past time we collectively stop agonising over the decimal points of the science, and start discussing policies. Yours, etc,
TOBY JOYCE,
Balreask Manor,
Navan,
Co Meath