Well first of all I don't think that denying "human caused global warming will lead to a massive disaster if we don't take massive steps to reduce CO2 emissions almost right away", is even vaguely flat earth. Even denying global warming completely might be considered as outside the "flat earth" category. But it is a continuum, and "flat earth" is just at or near one extreme.
I don't think reporters need to balance the literal flat earth claim. If some article mentions astronauts seeing the curve of the earth, they don't need to add "but a small minority maintains that the world is really flat". Similarly I don't think they need to (or normally should) "balance" reports about how Al Qaeda planned 9/11 with arguments about how some maintain that Bush was really behind it. I also don't think that reporters need to or should right positive things about holocaust denial in order to achieve balance.
I don't consider even complete global warming denial to be on the level of those claims, but I also don't think its at the level that would cause me to call any article that didn't include it as "balance", or that did include it only to argue against it, to be automatically distorted or biased just because of that fact. OTOH, if the reporter does provide this view as well I wouldn't consider that to a big problem.
I would consider an article biased if it presents the "human caused global warming will lead to a massive disaster if we don't take massive steps to reduce CO2 emissions almost right away" claim as established fact, and provides no alternative views or reasons for skepticism.
Edit -
And this is the group the article is defending.
"In place of a human-centred discussion of priorities and solutions we have an unconvincing battle over the facts between two sides – between those in the majority who claim that their facts show the planet is getting a lot hotter and it will be a disaster, and those in the minority, the ‘deniers’, who say the planet is getting a little hotter and it won’t be so bad."
Note the "is getting a little hotter". That's not real denial of global warming.
Also I agree with another point in the article. Saying "the foundation that paid the research arguing against global warming being a big problem, received funding from Exxon-Mobil" is not a very good argument against the research.
And of course even real holocaust deniers, and real flat earthers shouldn't be imprisoned or killed for their beliefs (but I believe you already agreed about that) |
