The Problem With Synthesis

OK, here is my rant against journalistic fairness. The other day, I was listening to a journalist report both sides of the Climate Change debate. On the one hand, the journalist referred to statements from, amongst others, the IPCC panel, Ross Garnaut and Graham Pearman. On the other hand, the journalist listened to a range of other commentators, including representatives of the automative transport industry, leading businessmen and so on. The idea was to present a balanced view of the climate change debate; you know, 'is it due to human activity or not', 'will it have a significant impact on us', 'what can we realistically do about it?' I suppose journalistic integrity calls for both sides of an argument to be heard, but I think we're taking synthesis a little too far. Sometimes, one side really is just wrong. The irritating thing about this particular coverage was that one side (the side disputing the evidence for climate change) was appealing to ideology to justify its arguments. You know, something like, 'but when I was young we had terribly hot summers' or 'what about all the rainfall in Queensland at the moment'. When science was quoted, it was misquoted. 'The weather is cyclical and has been for forever', meaning of course that this time is no different. 

Well, look at the hard science, the facts, the things we observe and measure. Put aside the ideology. This is different. No cycle has ever been this dramatic before. No evidence exists, indeed, of any change in temperature or greenhouse gas levels that mimics what we're seeing today. Putting even that consideration aside, we know that the uptake rate of greenhouse gases by the deep ocean (which is the primary method of removal of these gases) is considerably slower than our rate of production. It isn't an issue for debate. It's just reality. So all those journalists who give the ideologues a voice to maintain journalistic integrity may as well be giving a voice on climate change to two year olds (apologies to all well informed two year olds who might be offended by this). Synthesis, this notion that both sides might have a point, is valid when we're talking about entirely subjective matter -- you know the sort of thing I mean: which movie is better; whether classical is worth listening to more than pop; whether crocodile really does taste like chicken -- but not when we're talking about observable phenomena. Anyone who argues that the sky isn't blue, despite the evidence to the contrary, isn't presenting a valid alternative view. They're just delusional.