ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Reader's view: Shelby needs to provide irrefutable proof that scientific skeptics are wrong

I was amazed how unoriginal TV newsman Don Shelby's so-called "mea culpa" was, as reported in the April 23 article, "Reporter digs into global climate change." If readers like to pursue that angle of the story, I'd suggest they do various Google ...

I was amazed how unoriginal TV newsman Don Shelby's so-called "mea culpa" was, as reported in the April 23 article, "Reporter digs into global climate change." If readers like to pursue that angle of the story, I'd suggest they do various Google searches on word combinations like "media balance" and "global warming," or like "journalistic balance" and "climate skeptics," or "too often, journalists' inclination to provide political 'balance' leads to inaccurate media reporting on scientific issues," -- that sort of thing.

I noticed a specific pattern of repetition regarding the "unfair-balance" concept more than a year ago and wrote about variations I found for the Dec. 29, 2009, issue of American Thinker.

This unfair-balance concept, as it relates to global warming, is an unsupported assertion. The promulgation of it as a valid argument originates, as near as I can tell, with a single individual, an individual at the heart of the long-term, unsupported accusation that skeptic scientists fabricate confusion with false-science assessment as the result of receiving big-industry money.

My challenge to Shelby is to prove me wrong. If he is unable to prove that skeptic scientists have received equal balance (for example at the PBS NewsHour) and that there is irrefutable proof that skeptic scientists are corrupt, then we all need to ask: What is his fallback position?

Russell Cook

ADVERTISEMENT

Phoenix, Ariz.

What To Read Next