- Joined
- Oct 23, 2015
- Messages
- 3,931
- Reaction score
- 1,260
- Location
- Oz
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Learn the subject and get back to me.
Learn the subject but don't bother getting back to me.
Learn the subject and get back to me.
There is an "inverse fallacy," sometimes phrased as "denying the antecedent."
You conveniently forgot to link your examples. Let me help. ;
Climate change is not a matter for debate. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it | Letters | Environment | The Guardian - That was from their letters section and so is only the opinion of the writers, not the publication.
Drought may be new norm for UK, says environment secretary | Environment | The Guardian – … says the Environment Secretary” Reporting a direct quote of a public statement by a government minister.
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us | Environment | The Guardian (closest I could find to your headline) – This time quoting a Pentagon report, again not expressing editorial opinion.
Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian – An interview with a scientist with the headline being a paraphrase of his opinion.
‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ | Environment | The Guardian - A follow-up interview with the same scientist challenging him on his earlier predictions (exactly as you’d want). Again, the headline is reporting his statements.
Where is your evidence of the Guardian censoring anyone (note – a random video link with no commentary isn’t evidence)?
This isn’t really consistent with your claim of the Guardian announcing it won’t be fair and balanced, especially since your examples here go back up to 17 years.
In both situations, one side has evidence, observations, and mountains of evidence. The other side has superstition, fear, intuitions, and stubborn clinging to tradition. It seems clear to me which side climate science belongs to.
Oh no, what will happen next. Will they start silencing the free speech of flat-earthers, creationists, moon-landing deniers, and anti-vaxxers too?
Goodness. Just how will free speech survive under the oligarchy of fact-based reporting?
Again, that was in their readers letters section. It was the statement of the authors of the letter, not the newspaper. Your position would be like saying everything we post here is the opinion of the owners of the forum.The Guardian makes this statement in the first article I quote, just as you cited: "We must not offer credibility to those who deny it."