Note to the Media — The Science of Climate Change is NOT a Horserace
And I guess that I should cop to the fact that this note is to Allan Loudell who I heard do an appalling report on the tempest in a teapot that are these emails that wingnuts are insisting are some kind of catastrophe.
In this interview, Allan was speaking to a reporter from the Christian Science Monitor and their entire conversation was largely organized to talk about climate change as though it is a horserace. Particularly appalling was a question I heard Allan ask ( paraphrasing) noting that there are scientists who are the gatekeepers of the journals and they don’t let the deniers publish — is there anyone who can be trusted to talk about this issue or to definitively answer the questions? Again, I note that this is a paraphrase. But I was gobsmacked even by this question.
Because this question basically says that neither party in that conversation had any understanding how science works — how you go about officially adding to scientific knowledge. Instead, the entire subject was treated as though it were part of the usual political horserace — as inappropriate as that is, is apparently the only way our media can deal with big subjects anymore.
Scientists are as political as anyone — and their political behavior is usually in the service of getting funding, getting labs, getting promotions, jockeying for prizes. But no one finds a cure for cancer by winning the political horserace and no one disproved the turning lead into gold business by just shouting loud enough. Scientists — for all of their fractiousness, crazy people skills and whatever else you think their problems are — are undeniably looking to add to what we know about the world. Climate deniers are looking to create confusion and doubt on what we know about the world.
What was heartbreaking about that interview that I heard is that neither party seemed to know that there is a clear and proven way to add to the scientific body of knowledge. And it isn’t about getting past the ideology of the scientific journals. The real question for the media who insists on this horserace narrative is to ask they deniers why they have no science to back up their positions. Because if you can do the experiments or research and produce the data you actually become a player in the knowledge ecosystem.
But these people do no research, they do not experiments, the produce no data. Even the so-called scientists they do trot out to help create the confusion do no research in any field related to climate change. Which is how they never have any of their own data to work with or to talk about. But they have figured out that the media is always looking for two sides — not data or information, just two narratives — and that is how these deniers get any traction. Because now the media has a political story they can report on, when the studies at hand proceed and add to what we know rather out of the interest of the media.
Back in May I wrote this post on How to Spot Climate Change Deniers. Of course we have a minor infestation of them now, because the orders of the day for these people is to just go forth and repeat this story over and over until the media picks it up. And like the way that evolution is covered or the H1N1 vaccine is covered, climate change is reported in the way least likely to leave you knowing something about the subject at hand. Which is too bad, because there isn’t an ideology on whether this vaccine or that antibiotic actually works — it does or it doesn’t.
There ought to be a rule — if the only way you can report on a science topic is to default to the he say/she say model, consider that story not worth reporting on.
Note to the usual sockpuppets — this topic is not an invitation to post your usual BS. The usual BS gets sent to the spam filter or disemvoweled. There will be no further warnings.
Tags: Climate Change, Liberal Media
Loudell is a huge believer in the “he said/she said…I’m just a journalist so I have to treat every bullshit argument as if it might be valid” style of journalism that is killing this country.
STOP Killing the country Loudell! Grow a pair. Ask a fucking follow up.
What the climate deniers are doing is going after specific data points and then saying this invalidates the whole thing. It’s like a game of whack-a-mole. Apparently the media eats this stuff up. It’s really disheartening as a scientists that the media holds these debates with an expert Ph.D. who has studied the field their whole career and some guy with a blog.
The most important part of science is peer review. Yes, bad data does get in, but peer review always catches it. I certainly don’t understand the thinking that scientists can engage in a conspiracy of more than one person, we argue with each other all the time. In fact, you’re going to be a lot more famous if you publish a paradigm-busting paper than if you’re one of the many supporting the dominant hypothesis. Scientific hypotheses must be repeatable, testable and predicative. Deniers must do real research, and if their work meets all the criteria, they’ll be published. However, deniers need to explain more than the problem they have with a data point, they need to explain why the Artic ice is melting, why Australia is in severe drought, why almost all glaciers are melting simultaneously, ocean acidification…
I see the CRU Hack as an attack by political operatives on scientists. It’s meant to shut them up and intimidate them. Scientists should be aware – the political foes are desperate (because they’re losing).
Sorry you feel I was so “balanced” (I “get” it… a bad thing!)
In fact, I fully expected to get pushback from conservatives for having “tilted” the discussion towards the massive evidence for global warming.
And if I had gotten attacked on a conservative blog, I would’ve compared this to the previous battle over a smoking–cancer connection, where the tobacco companies for years let their P.R. hacks assail the media for presuming a connection.
I guess you didn’t hear me cite article after article (from the British papers on just one single day) underscoring the effects of global warming.
And I guess you didn’t hear me mention the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation news producer who visited island nations such as Kiribati and Tuvalu and found evidence of rising waters, and shrinking land.
I felt compelled to raise those points precisely because they would be independent of the current email controversy.
But the evidence for global warming doesn’t necessarily mean that particular scientists didn’t practice strong-arm tactics to stifle any questioning.
Allan Loudell
WDEL Radio
Thanks for responding Allan. I didn’t hear the interview in question so this will have to remain a “she said/he said” situation. Regarding my call for follow-ups, and for testicles – please remember that MIKE CASTLE HAS A VOTING RECORD the next time you speak to him.
Simply accepting Mike Castle’ testimony about his “moderate” track record is not journalism.
Thanks for commenting, Allan — and sorry if you thought my post was an attack. But I did hear the recitation of the articles and about the CBC guy. The *only* part of your report that I was commenting on was the exchange I paraphrased above — the one that made the two of you look like you were vetting the political ramifications of a response to the White House Party crashers. My only point here — and really extended by UI — is that science can’t be reported that way. The entire business is about looking for objective truth which does not have two sides. But it does require a massive amount of rigorous work that still does not guarantee you a place in the journals. Deniers aren’t “kept out of the journals” because of politics, but because they aren’t doing the work to get published. There are people working on answering the big and little questions here so we’ll get some greater understanding of these processes. But the road to that understanding is not going to be in the persistent he say she say on this thing.
And I’ll agree with your last statement, but there isn’t much in terms of “strong arm tactics” in evidence anywhere down the line for this question.
The problem with the whole global warming debate is from the beginning it was not a scientific debate…it’s a political one. My children in a AP “science” class in high school had to watch “An Inconvenient Truth”. I know all opinions, even scientific, are biased towards a position.
The ozone layer was the last world-ending phenomena…had the same political overtones, but the science proved it was real and new products developed.
I want to know if global warming is real/unreal or a natural cyclical phenomenom. Let the debate go on, but not in the political arena.
I have no problem conserving energy or using less oil, but I won’t cave to the “sky is falling” mentality.
Tom if there was a chance your child’s food was poisoned, just a chance…. would you wait for proof and call the prediction political? Would you argue the existence of poison? we have already proven via the ozone layer (which you admit was and continues to be a real concern) we have proven humans can have devastating effects oh the environment. If science suggests mass production of carbon dioxide is bad for the environment we should at the very least err on the side of caution, rather than wait for the devastating truth…. wasn’t the right wing battle cry “what if the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud”? what happened to that kind of preventive mentality?
Tom S, the manufacture of CFCs ended long after science overwhelmingly demonstrated that they were destroying the ozone layer and much much more damage was done because of that. The reason? People like you and Limbaugh and Palin who think that they know more science than climatologist and chemists plus industry-financed science whores paid to suck on whatever talking point was stuck in their mouths by their corporate pimps.
The science for global warming is beyond serious debate. If anything, it is worse than predicted. But you and the Loudells of the world can worry about those impolite scientists with “strong-arm tactics” while your AP children watch their world and future burn up before them.
“The science for global warming is beyond serious debate.”
No, it’s not, as much as you and Al Gore wish it to be. In fact, it’s even more open to debate given the fact that climate scientists who wish to advance their theory have been caught faking their data and suppressing opposing views by redefining what they will accept as peer-reviewed journals. The man bear pig lobby is pwned, and that’s all. Pollution is bad, granted, but your anti-productivity Luddism is worse, especially when justified by pseudoscience, distortions, and outright lies. The Sun gets hotter, and the temperature on the Earth, Mars, etc, respond accordingly. It’s a big freaking fusion generator!
And I suppose we all knew that G Rex would be here to provide a perfect example of not doing the work to prove any of his positions. Just the usual loudmouthed bullshit that is supposed to stand in for research, experimentation, modeling or data.
Funny Cass, since your side’s research, experimentation, modeling and data is proven to be based on fiction. You have been Downing Street Memoed.
Actually, it has not been proven to be anything other than cherry-picked by a bunch of people who are desparate to prove themselves right by doing anything other than, you know, research, experimentation or modeling. The conservative plan, right? If you yell enough, you win.
Let me know when Al Gore is willing to debate his man bear pig pseudoscience with anybody. When he gets off his private jet, that is.
Al Gore isn’t doing the research so why he should debate anybody is beyond me. And I imagine if any of the deniers came up with a scientist who had actually done the — you know, WORK — you might have someone to put up in said debate.
But until you get your guys out of the Green Rooms and into labs or into the field where they can produce any data then you are left making silly challenges which continue to highlight that you got nothing.
What G Rex and Loudell are showing is the exact problem. In our modern media an expert and a loudmouth are given the exact same expertise. The work on climate is done by thousands of scientists. G Rex, you need to prove the data is fake – I’m waiting for your scientific analysis of the “real” data.
There is real problem with how science is reported. Why is reported as opinion? Why do we ask people if they “believe” in evolution? That just makes it seem like it’s something you can believe or not. It’s not.
GRex, though, really does demonstrate that the issue here is completely about politics — not about science. You’ll note that he locates all of his issues with the science with Al Gore. A politician who has done no research, who has done more work to understand the issues that any of the deniers have. And why wouldn’t he? This was something that interested him in Congress and he helped champion funding for this research (side question — wonder why Sen Inhofe isn’t working on funneling tons of money to denyer research? Because there isn’t any to fund.)
If the science was really the problem them that would be the locus of al of the scorn and derision. But it isn’t — it is Al Gore, who in the scheme of things isn’t all that germaine to getting the real science done.
My only point with Allan really is about moving the false equivalency narratives to scientific process.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Pwned.
I don’t have to prove anything, only reveal that the global warming proponents are liars and frauds. And I don’t even have to do that, as they’ve done it themselves. The loudmouths are the Al Goreites, and they’ve been proven to be completely full of crap. Next?
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Pwned.
I don’t have to prove anything, only reveal that the global warming proponents are liars and frauds. And I don’t even have to do that, as they’ve done it themselves. The loudmouths are the Al Goreites, and they’ve been proven to be completely full of crap. Next?
Sorry for the 2X post.
“You’ll note that he locates all of his issues with the science with Al Gore.”
Yes, because Al Gore, having had his ass handed to him by GWB, now seeks to redeem himself and profit from global warming as a cottage industry. Buy my carbon credits! Fraud and loser.
Absolute must read from Media Matters.
Gore had his ass handed to him by GWB? LOL! Al Gore has higher favorability in the U.S. than Bush. Gore actually won the election, Bush won the Supreme Court (thanks daddy!).
“your side’s research, experimentation, modeling and data is proven to be based on fiction.”
This is quite a distance from what the emails actually show. You reveal nothing but your ignorance by repeating it over and over, as if that makes it truer.
I don’t have to prove anything, only reveal that the global warming proponents are liars and frauds.
And here is where we see that these people won’t even acknowledge the science much less do the heavy lifting to actually DO any that might support their ideologies. You can pretend all you want that there are not cadres of scientists out there contributing to what we know about climate change all over the world, people doing astonishing work. Because what you can’t mask is that there isn’t a single denier who has gotten himself a lab, done the field work, produced a model or just plain gotten off of his ass to get any data to support his position.
So in that, you people are frauds — as you ever have been. Looking to the business of the soft bigotry of low expectations to let you slide by with the latest bamboozlements.
Cassandra is spot on. The burden of proof is on the deniers. Right now they have cherry-picking and out-of-context quotes + a big media platform. I’m not sure why our media wants to drink the rightwing kool-aid but they do.
The burden of proof, if it means crippling our economy beyond repair, lies with those who wish to prove that anthropomorphic (that’s manmade, for those of you who attended Delaware public schools) global warming is an indisputable fact, and at the moment AGW is a proven fabrication, thanks to the hacked e-mails of the pwned scientists.
John Stewart is talking about all this now. it is a shame scientists used right wing tricks. i belive we ARE having an effect on the environment. sadly this will give ammo to the deniers and will probably set us back.
Sorry, GRex — the amount of work on the anthropomorphic aspect is pretty conclusive and yet here you are still not producing any that would countermand that. The scientists in East Anglia are but just a few of the huge numbers of people working on these questions all over the world. A few cherry-picked emails is not enough to change the settled science.
But I will tell you that if you are going to get about actually providing real proof that the science is actually wrong, your first step is going to be figuring out what “cherry-picked” means.
This is another Media Matters post but one that directly rebuts the loud-mouthed know-nothings like George Will and the RNC talking points stuck in G Rex’ mouth.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911300003
The issue of Global Warming is being used as a political football Sadly, special interests seem to muddy the waters
Under the current Kyoto Protocol, nuclear energy is rightly excluded from the possible solutions available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the nuclear industry, in collaboration with certain countries, is pushing for this dangerous and polluting technology to be included in the next climate agreement as a “clean” technology.
The nuclear industry would then be able to take advantage of significant public investments… at the expense of real solutions! Such disingenuous strategy would mean losing the fight against climate change and promoting the global expansion of the nuclear industry, with its associated risks.
The front end and the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle is extremly polluting, yet they quickly latched on to embrace Global Warming to advance the industry.
Fascinating that the republicans who supported reducing carbon emmissions and protecting the planet are now fleeing in droves from environmental protection and cap and trade. Pity. The purging of the GOP is a purging of the soul, based on a continuation of immoral and destructive policies. They have no courage and no shame.
I see the memory hole has reopened
caused by CFCs “christian fundamentalist conservatives”
LOL, a. 😀