On July 5, the News Tribune published side-by-side columns debating whether climate change is real. The newspaper did not take a position, implying the reality of climate change may be an open question.
Untrue.
The preponderance of scientific data supporting the existence of climate change is overwhelming.
Significant issues generate significant controversy, but that does not mean editors may hide behind the façade of "let's present both sides and let the public decide." When the issues are grave, failure to take an editorial position is irresponsible. Would the News Tribune provide equal voice to a Holocaust denier and a Holocaust survivor?
For the July 5 columns, the editors could not have had much difficulty finding an authoritative scientist to present the evidence for climate change. There are thousands of such scientists, and hundreds of academies, universities and think tanks. There are few issues on which the scientific community is so united.
ADVERTISEMENT
Finding an articulate, climate-change denier must have been more difficult, as scientists who argue against the dominant evidence are few and eccentric; many lack credibility. The News Tribune's editors' difficulty was well illustrated by the choice of MIT's Richard S. Lindzen, who is widely recognized as a partisan apologist for the oil industry. Lindzen receives substantial fees from Big Oil; his column in the News Tribune could be regarded as a poster child for "conflict of interest."
Interestingly, Richard Lindzen's employer, MIT, maintains an excellent website on climate change, where reliable information is readily accessible -- to the public and editors alike.
Responsible editorial work requires clarity and courage. The editors should check the facts and take a stand on climate change. And ultimately, if the editors find the information overwhelming, they can simply fall back on Pascal's wager: Consider the consequences of being wrong.
Charles Gessert
Duluth
