Who’s suppressing who?
A manifestation of a strange phenomenon, seemingly divorced from any reality, is the claim that climate change dissent is being suppressed in the media. In the Guardian’s Comment is Free forum (CiF), the threads are dominated by dissent. In the UK media, we’ve just had the Express give a front page to hubrist’s arguments. Booker features regularly in the Telegraph, which picked up the weekend’s Sunday Mail crap. Phillips gets her routine outings, while the Spectator gave a front page and plenty of print to Plimer.
Internationally, Murdoch’s outlets give plenty of room to outright denial. US talk-show hosts recognise no limits to their demagoguery. Web sites and blogs featuring sceptical or outright silly nonsense about climate change dominate every search engine.
So I am moved to ask: where exactly is all this MSM suppression taking place, because every time I look, it seems rather hard to find any open-minded, constructive debates on climate change, every one of them drowned out by those whose desire to air their ideological grievances overwhelms their ability to stay on topic.
The victimhood card is easy to play, especially when one has no argument of merit with which to defend complacency and self-serving behaviour. Two other elements of this syndrome appear regularly in CiF. The first is about moderation: how hard is it to understand that a discussion about – say – China’s economic interests related to its stance at COP15, is not the place to start banging on about emails? The relentless attempts to hijack every thread by climate change hubrists is quite frustrating, because you have to wade through 20 bits of off-topic nonsense in order to find a post that actually addresses the topic. (Mind you, there are those that just can’t resist feeding the trolls, and that doesn’t help either).