How Wrong Can The Age be? The Age's Dementia.

The Age, a consistent pusher of the falsified Man Made Global Warming Hypothesis, has shown some lack of journalistic integrity in their recent editorial

Repeal of carbon tax shames our nation

Take their opening sentence:-

The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists concur: the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.

Three thoughts out of three wrong. Have they forgotten Journalistic Integrity? Whatever happened to Sceptical Journalism?

NewsTrust is a guide to good journalism: 

They write that "the best way to learn news literacy is to think like a journalist." (link)

The four Ds of thinking like a journalist exemplify these qualities. They are: 

1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.

Looking at the Age and their support for the global warming hoax, they have completely failed in every respect to think like good journalists.

Applying the four Ds to the above opening sentence.

"The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists"

The consensus notion has been pushed by three flawed yet peer-reviewed papers:

1. Oreskes: LINK
2. Doran and Zimmerman: LINK
3. Cook et al: LINK

A sceptical journalist can easily research the validity of these three "peer reviewed" papers. Taking the last first, google search result for "cook 97 consensus" leads with three rebuttals of the paper. Lord Monckton reviewed the paper and found  0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1%

Enough said.

Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” (link)

Naomi Oreskes wrote in her paper:

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong.

That's probably the most accurate part of her paper. The US Senate Environment Committee:

FACT: Oreskes’s study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in today’s commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers –more than 90% of the papers– dealing with climate change. Oreskes also failed to inform readers that, according to one critique of her study, less than 2% of the abstracts she analyzed endorsed what she terms the “consensus view” on human activity and climate change and that some of the studies actually doubted that human activity has caused warming in the last 50 years.

Two down and one to go:

Doran and Zimmerman:

A google search of "Doran and Zimmerman" finds the word "flawed" arising frequently. One such result is the paper by Murray Goot of Macquarie University as part of the Garnault Review. (link)

Criticism of the paper has focused on the second of the two findings, the claim that ‘97% of climate scientists’ agree that the planet is experiencing anthropogenic climate change; specifically, the criticisms have focused on the nature of the sample, the number of respondents in the sample regarded as most expert in 3 the area, and especially on the wording of the questions. The first of the two findings that showed 90% agreeing that ‘compared with pre-1800s levels’ the ‘mean global temperatures have generally risen’ rather than ‘fallen, or remained relatively constant’ is relatively
uncontroversial; protagonists on both sides of the debate on anthropogenic global warming can readily agree to that.

 Although response to the first question was 3,146, the second question received only 79 responses - 77 agreed to the question:

 According to one critic the question ‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’ is a question to which ‘most climate scientists’ would say yes ‘even if they aren't concerned about future climate change’. On this view, the question was deficient at every turn. 

 The Age editorial continues:

the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate (sic) and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.

Temperate is an adjective. So, does a rise in temperate mean "more temperate?" Or did they mean a "rise in temperature?" Let's assume the latter.

According to the Alarmists, the main greenhouse gas (GHG) is carbon dioxide which they falsely label carbon. (carbon dioxide is one carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms. If the call CO2 'carbon', why don't they call water (H2O) 'oxygen'?)

Scientists agree that rises in temperature precede rises in  the "green house gas" atmospheric CO2. (link) 

What is actually happening this century?

The main data sets that the "climate" scientists use all show no temperature (temperate?) rise this century whilst the rise in atmospheric CO2 continues.

Climate4You 

Has the Age invoked the 4Ds?

1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.

I detect that they have not shown discernment, doubt their partiality and demandbetter journalism.