Journalism, Deniers, and the Truth

If you'll take a trip backwards in time to a wonderful era where this blog was half as old as it is now (i.e. a month ago - time crawls), we'll find a post I made recapping the stupid events surrounding a stupid (but probably still intelligent in his own way) man - George Will.

And now, A Few Things Ill Considered follows up the story (not based off my post, in case there's any confusion) and the column written by Chris Mooney and published in the Washington Post with a few choice words:

Congratulations, Chris, it is very well presented and important material. I can't however share your warm fuzzies for the WaPo's change of heart, because, well somehow presenting two sides to a debate, you know, bat-shit crazy versus intelligent reality, still falls a little short for me!

To which I add: yes!

Because it's a problem. I can't help but recall the scene in Good Night, and Good Luck. where Murrow convinces his producer that McCarthyism does not have two equal and balanced sides.

Well; so.

The IPCC has done its job. We can debate how we should go forward - and we should. We can debate economic facts - because if we know anything it's that we don't know how to build a truly sustainable economy. We can even debate to what degree we should value conservation versus the bigger picture of climate stabilization. But we cannot debate that climate change is occurring and that it is caused by humanity.

To me, that means that we have an ethical duty to try and stop it.

Apparently others don't agree.