Masks have various purposes.  Ancient and modern.

In today's paper, the message in one feature was about the failure of the government to adequately deal with drought which is a valid point but it was used as an excuse to rubbish climate change.
(Forget about protestors - they were totally beyond the pale (in other pages).
 The columnist was recently admonished for insulting a P.M. and it is just as bad to write denial of climate change science and to roll that into criticism of two government ministers who spoke of belief in it.  
  It is explained that the ministers saw links between climate change and causation of drought (I missed hearing they made that link) and as such makes them incapable of managing a response to the plight of the farmers.  I fail to see why that specially makes them incapable and they can be incapable for a variety of reasons.
  Two entities are pointed out who refuse to publish climate denial - shame this hint is not taken up.
  The scientific method is discussed and how it provides the best explanation at the time - all the same, the explanation is not accepted by the columnist.
  The subject of drought is argued to have no links with climate change and Prof Pitman, for one, is quoted. This does not deny that the overall picture is one of change to various aspects of agriculture. In other media Pitman can be heard explaining all aspects of global warming while rainfall prediction is seen as unclear.
  Shame certain words are written to sell newspapers and to protect and maintain the status quo at any price but that's News Corp who has too many irons in the fire nation wide which spread this gospel far and wide if newspapers still rate, I mainly see this paper in the coffee shop.