This is a guest post by Alex H.
As an undergraduate studying classics at Oxford, close to exam time one of my tutors, semi-jokingly, provided us with the following tip for what to do when flummoxed by an exam question: "if you can't think of anything to write, invent an early-20th century German scholar called 'Müller', assign to him the most extreme point of view you can think of, and argue tooth and nail against it". In the context of classics, this could involve assigning 'Müller' with the opinion that Clytemnestra was, in fact, a devoted and loving wife. Or that killing his daughter was the easiest decision Agamemnon ever made. Thankfully, I never had to use this tactic, though it was always comforting to have it in the armoury.
Journalists reporting on the 'climate change' debate (formerly the 'global warming' debate) employ this tactic on a daily basis. Only their 'Müller' goes by the name of 'climate change deniers', referring to people who, supposedly, deny that climate ever changes, and that man can have any influence on it whatsoever. Yet no climate sceptic I have ever encountered, whether in person, in books, or on blogs, has ever had this opinion. Real climate sceptics (of which many are eminent scientists) hold the specific view that: a) climate is less sensitive to Carbon Dioxide forcing than alarmist predictions make it out to be, and b) the dangers of warming are grossly exaggerated. This view acknowledges both that climate changes and that man may play some role in influencing it, it is merely sceptical of the extent and impacts of human-induced warming. And rightly so, given the lack of warming over the past 15+ years despite rises in CO2 emissions, resulting in a warming 'pause' since 1998 that no computer model predicted.
An examiner marking a finals paper would, of course, see through 'Müller' if they had read the Agamemnon (which one would hope to be the case), and, whilst crediting the candidate for his courage, duly fail him in that paper. The equivalent process should happen for any journalist who argues against 'climate change deniers'; yet because in this case the examiner - the majority of the public - has not 'read the book' and doesn't understand the nuances of the debate, journalists are able to get away with 'Müller' time and time again.
My question is: when will writers of major news organisations start writing more like professional journalists, and less like Oxford undergraduates panicking in a finals paper?