Before proceeding, let me get my position on the table once again: I am a believer in man-made climate change with potentially disastrous implications for our planet (although no less worried about we feed and fuel 9 billion people in 2050).
I have posted before on the International Herald Tribune's climate coverage, in particular flagging Elisabeth Rosenthal for verging on the mix of opinion and news reporting.
I don't want her, nor the IHT, to become the new Judith Millar of environmental reporting, so I link the following blog just out of interest - I am NOT endorsing all the opinions of the commentator but I think any senior IHT editor interested in the IHT's green coverage, and aware of just how much the blog world is blogging on it (it seems to be the No. 1 topic of interest to IHT readers active in the blogosphere) should be reading all climate change copy extremely carefully.
The Business of Green is all well and good (witness the recent Shell adverts) but the IHT has to retain balance in opinion and complete integrity in news reporting.
So have a look at this....
"This article is only one of many that make The Times read like something produced at a ministry of propaganda rather a newspaper produced in a free country. Its author, one Elizabeth Rosenthal, has previously demonstrated that she is an enthusiastic and utterly naive advocate of environmentalism. (See her “Cleaner consumption and the low-carbon life” in the February 23 issue of the International Herald Tribune, a newspaper owned by The Times.) The Times definitely does not read like a newspaper in which reporters apply critical thinking, exercise independent judgment and common sense, verify the facts they report by means of doing the necessary research, and strive for logical consistency. It is in fact something of a joke as a newspaper, or at least would be a joke if it were not as successful as it has been in helping to poison our culture and destroy our country."