What do you think of The Guardian's environment section and climate reporting?

I read The Grauniad daily and it is my primary source of news. I also read the Environment section almost daily.

Well done for getting into it. I am critical of all mainstream media (to varying degrees), but the G's standards are higher than average and their environment section follows the scientific literature fairly closely rather than just the populist trends or the statements of celebrities.

I used to be a Guardian reader years ago as my partner used to buy it. These days we are part of an increasingly large part of British society which doesn't buy a daily paper. It is indeed left of centre politically. As an engineer I was somewhat irritated by its anti business slant, particularly on safety and environmental issues where I thought that journalists often don't have much depth of understanding and may presume the worst where it may not be a fair verdict. On the pure science though I felt they were more objective. I do sometimes read the Guardian Online and I think my comments are still pertinent.

I have not followed its environmental section, but the paper itself has a long history of integrity in reporting the news, and a somewhat left of center-editorial stance. Many newspapers and TV networks have lost the distinction between news and an editorial position, and large blocks of readers and viewers also seem to have no concept of the distinction. To the best of my understanding the Guardian has not fallen into that error.

Good for you Dana and its encouraging that your efforts are rewarded by the exposure it garners and for the truth to gain added ground.

Whatever the organization, initiative and group, if it tells the unblemished truth, then its a very good thing.

Truth should never play a servile role to the whims and prejudices of people nor should it be buried by lies and misinformation.

It should be heard loud and clear by as many people as possible.

Despite this Guardian newspaper being part of the nexus of the elite establishment, it nonetheless has pearls of information which is reliable.

Keep up the good work Dana

http://www.circleforhumanity.net/

Congrats on your piece getting some international exposure!

As a yank, I know little about the Guardian but seeing as they've posted your piece as opposed to some numskull article talking about how frozen precipitation disproves AGW theory, I'd say they are fields ahead of the Daily Mail and Telegraph.

It's nice to see a piece like this in a UK paper though, Richie was starting to give the Brits a bad name!

Hey, congrats on that one!

I believe The Guardian is one of Britain's best newspapers but you are right about the fact that their competition is mostly to 'credit' for this.

Of couse, deniers will rapidly label it as a 'leftist newspaper' which wants to install a 'global socialist regime' or something sinister along that line.

"The newspaper's reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing opinions has led to the use of the epithet "Guardian reader" as a label for people holding such views".

I'm shocked a liberal, left wing newspaper would buy into the AGW nonsense.

On second though, no I'm not.

It represents as a whole quite well the anglosaxon press.

I aint ever been dat specific section but I aint be impressed. I is bazing dis on dis one article of course.

Dem people jus took your article word for word. Wat be da point of dat? Rader dan take yoll article word for word it best if they critique or analyze what u say. Dis aint be reporting, it be taking another article, dat be all.

Boo, I hope dis aint go over your head. We still be needing u in dis section, yall digg?

EDIT

Yall article is coo. Iz enjoy it. Fogat 2 mention dat.