Dear SPQR,

How about attacking the arguments instead of
the person.

Lexi,

Your source uses the moniker "independent" but clearly shows herself to have a hardline agenda.

I do not think we could reasonably consider her, or anyone she endorsed,as an impartial arbitrator as to what comments/reports about AGW were negative or positive.

Dear SPQR,

Wendy bacon presented a report that examined 10 newspapers
across two 3 month periods in 2011 and 2012. The study looked
at more than 600 articles dealing with climate science.
And around a third were sceptical or critical of the consensus
science position on anthropogenic global warming.
The Murdoch tabloids the skew was even more pronouced as stated
earlier. 73 percent of the words in climate related articles
in The Daily Telegraph were devoted to sceptical positions.
In the Herald Sun it was 81 percent.

These facts have nothing to do with Wendy Bacon's political
or personal opinions on the subject. And attacking her
does not change the facts presented. She wasn't giving an
opinion - she was presenting data collected and as such
should be acceptable. There is a difference between that and
when she does express an opinion. I choose the report, which
I think is a valid one because it shows just how poorly
Australians have been served by domestic coverage of
climate science in this country and that this can explain
the domiant role that newspapers play (and conservative
anti-science columnists like Andrew Bolt) in particularly
harmful roles in this debate.

These facts don't change - but they do influence many people.

Foxy,

Never mind SPQR's superficial commentary.

It appears his greatest contributions to debate on this forum are:

"ROFL"

and

"Lol!"

(Lightweight....)

Foxy,

Not so.

Wendy is not a disinterested observer, she has written for New Matilda (a site with a very strong left bias, and very, very selective about who is allowed to contribute) and she styles herself an "activist".

She could not help but view things through the lens of her own beliefs and agendas. What she, and those she endorses, sees as negative or positive is highly likely to be identified differently by others.

It is telling that you like to slur (and discredit) the Murdoch press or Andrew Bolt ...or dare we recall your gem about Alan Jones!, but cannot see it from the other side!

Once again the extremely lost and the extremes join hands to lash out at Science.
Having given it much thought it is my view anti climate change activism is all crap.