Debate suffers when pollies think we’re too dumb to get it

In a recent article about balanced reporting, the former director of the Australia Institute Clive Hamilton noted that to give equal weighting that reflected the opinion of those who accept climate change as human induced and a cross section of sceptics would be 39:1. As someone who spends a lot of time on climate debates, I would say that this is kind of generous to sceptics – the ratio would be more like 100:1. How do I come up with this figure? Recently Stephan Lewandowsky, a Winthrop Professor at the University of Western Australia, analysed the number of peer-reviewed articles published by scientists at the UNSW’s Climate Change Research Centre versus those who argue against anthropogenic global warming. The results since 2007? Zero to the sceptics and 110 peer-reviewed to the research centre. This is only one research centre of hundreds so maybe even 100:1 is generous. So why does the public still remain confused about the reality of climate change? There are undoubtedly many reasons but key amongst them is the way politicians seem to be obsessed with the five-second quote they believe makes ‘good copy’ for television. The examples are almost countless.