A nice and nuanced description of your climate skepticism that is pretty close to my own view. For some reason, Claude Rains comes to mind. “I’m shocked, shocked that there’s less than pure practitioners of science and journalism in this place.” Jeez, ya think?

I ask, in all seriousness, when has journalism ever been about the truth? I don’t mean this in any Left vs. Right manner (as it is true for both political shades).

Journalism is simply practiced agendaism. A study some time ago surveyed a lot of J-school students and found that by far their #1 motivation for becoming “journalists” was a desire to change the world and make it a better place.

Now, certainly this is a noble and (I believe) genuine sentiment. But it has nothing to do with journalism, truth, or any of the 4 “W’s”.

If you think Capitalism is bad, that the United States is the root of most of the evil in the world, that disinfranchised is the same as justified, that in order to create a more equitable and sustainable world culture an indirect approach is required that equates production with destruction, then that will be the slant in your reporting.

History, of course, is replete with examples.

Journalism is, in theory, the 4th estate, and democracy would be so well served if that were true. Sadly, however, it is not the case.

The best of intentions have no bearing on the quality of outcome.

True scientists should not be getting FOI requests and they sure as heck shouldn’t be fighting them. Nor should they be throwing away data. The burden of proof is on them not the other way around. They have not proven their case.

You should not have faith in modern research. I was a university faculty member for 14 years. “Researchers” are just like politicians - make any promise necessary to keep the gig. I saw the successful people do it again and again and it’s one of many reasons why I got out.

I was also the Editor in Chief of the premier technical journal in my field. Had I wanted to (I did not) pursue an agenda, I could have absolutely determined what got published and what did not.

I knew where the lines were drawn. Had I wanted to suppress one point of view and promote another, all I would have had to do would be to send the first to known hostile reviewers and the second to known sympathetic reviewers. All aboveboard, all “peer reviewed”. All bad science.