What the Guardian says is true. I get it every day as well as other papers and I was amazed to see that series of articles. However, what was really important were the follow ups in the letters page which gave lots of information about the writer's reputation in his home country (it stinks!) and what his real profession is - he is a statistician, not an environmentalist at all.

Also, on Monday it published three responses to those articles as features from three highly respected environmentalists who specialize in particular aspects of the environment. It is very good of the Guardian to give a voice to an idiot, Professor or not, if it is going to give equal space to lots of voices afterwards, much more highly qualified than he is, who are denouncing him.

If the Daily Mail has run that series of articles they would only have published letters that agreed with him.

Why not monitor the press , well not the garbage gutter press we know what to expect from them .
But that Morris women from the mail should be sussed out.
Who is she ? perhaps her father is a corporate scum bag ?
has connections with right wing nasties.
I reckon that an on line dossier on who is who of the corporate press, + a good archive of the bullshit they have written would be just the dogs nob

LB

Activists complain that papers don't report what's
happening. This is a mistake. The format demands
that papers print *stories* - and most of what happens
isn't a story. Think Hollywood plot arc:

(1) introduce black hat, white hat;

(2) ramifications of the conflict;

(3) resolution.

The major difference between a decent and an
indecent newspaper is the proportion of the stories
that are woven from things that did in fact happen
- or, contrariwise, the proportion of things that
are left out in the interests of "stronger" stories.

So, I imagine some Guardian editor's subconscious
prompting them: it's time for a new twist in the
environment story. Here's a differently-coloured
hat saying it's all been a mistake...

Expect the Sunday Times to dust off and reprint
its 1977 series on how what we have to worry about
is a new ice age, with the twist that it's CO2
that's holding at bay.

BTW, does anyone know whether the author has any
connection with Living Marxism / the "Institute
of Ideas"? It'd be too crass for him to be coal-fired...

Lomborg isn't directly involved with the "Institute of Ideas" or LM magazine'S successor, spiked-online, but you can be sure that they love him because the stuff he writes is right up their street: loud, controversial, and against environmentalism. He'll appear on their speaker lists for seminars and probably write the occasional article or two for them.

On whether the Guardian should publish Lomborg's ideas, I think the answer is a definite Yes. He is wrong in what he says, and you don't need to be a wizz kid to counter his arguments, or indeed figure out why he is writing the stuff he does (I think he's realised the potential of the Noreena-principle, though his ideas are rather different). The important thing is that it gets the debate going again. Much better to have them out in the open, these ludicrous claims, than burrowing secretly beneath our feet. The Guardian should publish all views, within reason - that's what a paper is there for: to get us thinking.

What is the 'Noreena principle'? I assume you're refering to Noreena Hertz... ?

the guardian is just the liberal end of the general consensus and not that far from the telegraph and sun.i read it quite regularly and am regularly disappointed at its inability to press the real issues.

Firstly, i wanted to ask what people thought about the article last wednesday by the labour mp in the guardian comments page: it suggested that the real 'anarchists' were not those inside the cordons, but outside....

next, i think that there are bad journalists and not-so-bad journalists. the problem is the majority of society - the majority we would like to change (?) - reads and believes these papers. and we should thus try to use them to our advantage....in many of the papers there are actually journalists who are somewhat sympathetic to 'the cause' and who are prepared to challenge their editors in what they print. it is up to us to try and identify these people and work on them.

[and yes, i even know one good journalist at the telegraph]

dear Alfred,

i would say that that article came as a real surprise to me. I read it at imc central, if you mean the one that refers to the`"anarcho-capatiists". It has been a long long time since i have payed any interest in politics, what surprised me most is that there are many hard working, dedicated people in all walks of life. trying to do their bit to help. Even in politics and the Media. I'm still young and admitadly came from the view that All media and Politics are currupt and not worth paying atention to.

Slowly as i find my self reinvestigating many of today political, enviromental and social issues i am greatly encouraged in what i find.

I guess it gives me faith and hope in mankind, something i have never had much off.
Bit flowery i know but it sure beats the pessimism