Hard News: Climate science and the media
154 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
The CRU wouldn't have needed to be "equipped to deal" with that if journalists were doing their job properly.
I think it's evident that the CRU needed better communications resources from the University of East Anglia. It's just sensible.
You're holding different groups to different standards. Denialists are allowed to be mendacious, journalists are allowed to be incompetent, but scientists have to be paragons?
No. I'm holding the scientists to the same standard as anyone else subject to FOI/OIA. Those laws don't say you can frustrate requests because you think the people making them are idiots.
-
Bart is giving me a complex...
so passionately hold onto incorrect beliefs that allow them to remain in their comfort zone
This is where I have a problem with pretty much any ideology (and where I think I differentiate 'ideology' from belief or opinion): at the point where someone's response is, "Your data conflicts with my ideology, therefore your data must be wrong."
Foo Camp on science in schools and evidence-based policy making was both inspiring and really depressing.
-
FOI/OIA. Those laws don't say you can frustrate requests because you think the people making them are idiots.
I have warbled on in the past about the limitations of OIA legislation - it is easy to fall into the problem of not knowing how to frame the question to get full access to what you really wanted.
Where the UEA fell down was they appear to have simultaneously failed to provide anything meaningful while providing the wrong material...
They should recruit some professionals from Whitehall, experts in the Sir Humphrey method of encraption...
-
When you have Oppenheimer saying things like 'I am become Death, destroyer of worlds', it's not hard to see why people don't trust scientists.
I once read in the paper that, like, this medical doctor guy was a serial killer.
That's why I don't trust any medical doctors any more.
-
"Your data conflicts with my ideology, therefore your data must be wrong."
You claim that the world is yellow; however I can see it isn't, so you have jaundice, so your data is wrong. Look! my ideology trumps your data!
(& Rich, the Manhattan Project consisted of the scientific Establishment of two continents. & it wasn't a particularly isolated occurrence either:`I aim at the stars (but sometimes I hit London'?)
-
I think it's evident that the CRU needed better communications resources from the University of East Anglia. It's just sensible.
Obviously better communications resources would have helped the CRU deal with incompetent media coverage! My point is that competent media coverage would have made this unnecessary. If you're going to do a show on Climate Science and the Media then it might be worth pointing out where the media failed.
Look at it this way: the scientists did good science and bad communication. But they're scientists; they ought to be judged on their science. Journalists did bad science and bad communication, but this is somehow played off as the scientists' fault.
No. I'm holding the scientists to the same standard as anyone else subject to FOI/OIA. Those laws don't say you can frustrate requests because you think the people making them are idiots.
Here's the gullible journalist problem again. The requests were denied for legitimate reasons. But because one side's focussing on PR while the other side is busy doing science, you're tricked into propagating denialist misinformation.
-
You claim that the world is yellow; however I can see it isn't, so you have jaundice, so your data is wrong. Look! my ideology trumps your data!
Wow, you're so clever. Or, in a discussion about science, when I say "data" I mean "properly-gathered scientific data subject to peer review"?
-
I have come across an awful lot of people who really struggle to separate scientific facts/theories from personal criticism of the choices they make
Myself included. It is a very very hard thing to do. Also it is very hard to realise what you were sure was right, isn't.
-
If you're not a scientist, how do you know which people who claim to be scientists to trust? You certainly can't apply the "scientific method" to this decision, because you don't even know what that is.
This is a really important point for journalists, who can be remarkably bad at getting it right.
Matthew Dentith wrote a good blog post about this issue in February, referring specifically to some of our local climate change denialists:
Humans are quite bad at recognising appropriate authorities, and even the ’saints’ of critical thinking in the world of Skeptics have a hard time of it; James ‘The Amazing’ Randi recently mistook the Oregon Petition as denoting a set of genuine authorities in a field relevant to the discussion rather than what is actually represents, which is mostly TV weather forecasters1, for example. It’s a difficult business appraising whether someone has a qualified opinion on a subject (and it certainly doesn’t help that there is a growing movement of anti-intellectualism in grassroots skepticism; in some of these debates you either need to be an expert to contribute or you need to know who the actual experts are). Common sense won’t get you very far, especially when you are dealing with systems that are so complex that they defy our facile intuitions about how we think the world works.
As a journalist, I think quite hard about recognising appropriate authority. I learned a lot chasing down claims about genetic modification when that was an issue, and I see many similarities between the wilder end of GM scaremongering and the syntax of climate denial. In particular, some false claims never die -- they just keep on getting recycled in blogs.
I attempted to discuss this with the speaker I mentioned in the original post. I was hardly equipped to debate the science and statistical practice on the spot, but as a journalist, I have to look at who's talking.
On one hand, there are all the science academies and expert agencies, plus other sources of comment and analysis I've come to trust, such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, whose climate science resource is excellent, or people I know who understand the basis of the modelling involved without being climate scientists themselves.
On the other, there are people who have a record of scientific deceit for hire (former tobacco shill Fred Singer) and/or don't even accept the theory of evolution (Wishart, the Daily Telegraph's Christopher Booker) -- and who are, as a rule, never right about anything.
It is possible that, for once, all the former are wrong, and all the latter are right. It's just vanishingly unlikely. And that's the basis on which I must proceed.
-
Look! my ideology trumps your data!
Um no. You used more data (identification of a flaw in the detection device) to determine the original interpretation of the data was incorrect. The original data however was still valid data.
A better analogy would have been
"Emma says the sky is blue but I have signed affidavits from 100 respected accountants saying the sky is red - therefore Emma has been corrupted by corporate overlords to try and deceive me that the sky is blue" -
Here's the gullible journalist problem again. The requests were denied for legitimate reasons. But because one side's focussing on PR while the other side is busy doing science, you're tricked into propagating denialist misinformation.
Well, I did read and think about this, but if you say I'm "gullible" I'm not sure there's much more to productively discuss. Please do watch the programme, and the interview with James Randerson in particular, though.
-
therefore Emma has been corrupted by corporate overlords to try and deceive me that the sky is blue"
I would totally do this, but just for LOLs.
-
Myself included. It is a very very hard thing to do. Also it is very hard to realise what you were sure was right, isn't.
Absolutely. I think it's something we all suffer from from time to time but some of us are better at working out when our own issues are clouding our judgement than others.
-
I don't think there's a lot of passionate self-interest in the "general public's" difficulty with scientific authority. The majority of it is knee-jerk contrarianism, "Well, somebody told me something that sounds like it might be hard to believe given my current way of thinking about the world, so I'm going to ignore it." I don't see most global warming skepticism from people as coming from any deeper place than that-it's easy and comfortable.
There are things that give me hope though, and one of them is the Internet. Recently the musical abomination that is the Insane Clown Posse has been rightly mocked by a meme, "Fucking magnets, how do they work?" (a direct quote from one of their "songs") and explicitly linked with the proud ignorance of public figures like Sarah Palin.
Article on the meme including the original hilarious/awful video (with NSFW language, obviously) and a bunch of photoshops:
After the magnets comment Shaggy says “and I don’t want to talk to a scientist, yall mother fuckers lyin, and gettin me pissed”. This line implies a sense of frustration and an inability to understand basic scientific concepts, while maintaining a childlike sense of wonder over the forces of nature.
One can see the pain expressed in Shaggy’s face as he recalls how science class made his brain hurt. While he wants to know how magnets work, he is not willing to accept a scientific explanation.
There's a greater amount of scientific literacy on the internet than it might first seem, and a lot of anonymous forum dwellers on places like 4chan, Fark and Something Awful are much, much more savvy at taking down the arguments of global warming denialists than some people who are officially paid to do so.
-
I'd be very interested in Randerson's response, particularly after Santer's response to Randerson on RealClimate. Fred Pearce continued to get it wrong, and Santer pulled him up on it. But the Guardian didn't correct the vast majority of Pearce's pieces which both Gavin Schmidt and Ben Santer tore to shreds.
But back to FOI. Clearly UEA didn't brief its scientists properly on how to deal with them. But if you're one of the three scientists at the CRU, and you get 40 FOI requests in just one weekend, what do you do? Science, or FOI requests? Clearly they needed help and guidance. Also tied up in this was the fact that a lot of scientific institutions also didn't allow their datatsets to be released, which confused things even more.
I do hope Media 7 goes beyond the FOI issue, but also extends to the lies in the blogosphere about what "climategate" was, the fact that the Inquiries so far have exonerated them, the Sunday Times' fluffed "amazongate" which has now been very well-covered over at Tim Lambert's blog, Deltoid (the link is to his entire series about the Sunday Times).
-
Wow, you're so clever.
Look, it's the way Russell phrases it, so yeah. The point is that you can explain data in many different ways: the world is underdetermined by experience. The privileging of data like that isn't particularly useful, and isn't how science works.
-
This is a really important point for journalists, who can be remarkably bad at getting it right.
They're not the only ones. All non-specialists have exactly the same problem. Unless you put in the miles to really look at all of the evidence, really get stuck into the debate, you basically have to trust someone. Even afterward, you're still trusting someone - just on a more informed basis.
Currently, I haven't done the miles you have in finding out if your sources are impeccable. So I can either trust you, or trust someone else, or do the miles (or remain skeptical - which is probably the most logical choice, if not the most rational). Most people don't have the time to do the miles. Indeed, most people haven't even done the miles on how to do the miles . They wouldn't even know where to start. The first official sounding source is likely to make a huge impression.
This isn't because most people are lazy. It's because AGW is only one of a million pressing issues.
-
3410,
Recently the musical abomination that is the Insane Clown Posse has been rightly mocked by a meme, "Fucking magnets, how do they work?" (a direct quote from one of their "songs") and explicitly linked with the proud ignorance of public figures like Sarah Palin.
Fucking rainbows!
-
Oh, now you've done it.
-
But the Guardian didn't correct the vast majority of Pearce's pieces which both Gavin Schmidt and Ben Santer tore to shreds.
I think The Guardian did pretty well, and the inline annotations experiment -- see here -- was a brilliant idea.
To be honest, I sometimes don't know what to make of the RealClimate writers' arguments, because they always seem to be turned up to 10. But that could be said of nearly all the "debate" on the denial side. [Edit: Not that I am saying they are equivalent at all. I just find the style of RealClimate wearying sometimes.)
But back to FOI. Clearly UEA didn't brief its scientists properly on how to deal with them. But if you're one of the three scientists at the CRU, and you get 40 FOI requests in just one weekend, what do you do? Science, or FOI requests? Clearly they needed help and guidance. Also tied up in this was the fact that a lot of scientific institutions also didn't allow their datatsets to be released, which confused things even more.
I absolutely agree. I think the university's management was asleep at the wheel. How much more notice did they need that the CRU's work was going to be the subject of furious political attack?
But it does seem that the scientists broke FOI rules -- frankly, any civil servant knows that you can't just make a problem go away by deleting inconvenient emails.
Indeed, the FOI issue -- and the circling of the wagons that drove it -- really seems to me to be the only thing to hold against Jones and his people. As Prof Hunter says, an assumption of openness would make a lot of this go away.
-
Alright then. Since someone already brought up the Insane Clown Posse.
Learn Your Motherf#@kin' Science: A Textbook for Juggalos
So are fucking magnets miracles?
Fucking, of course not. Of course not. -
To be honest, I sometimes don't know what to make of the RealClimate writers' arguments, because they always seem to be turned up to 10. But that could be said of nearly all the "debate" on the denial side. [Edit: Not that I am saying they are equivalent at all. I just find the style of RealClimate wearying sometimes.)
I think, given the climate they operate in, turning things up to 10 most of the time is understandable. Not always *helpful*, but very understandable.
-
There has been a trend away from evidence for some time. It probably began when evidence began to challenge - threaten - people's sincerely held preconceptions and prejudices. Add to this the religious impulse to commit one's live, being - "soul" - to something for which there isn't a skerrick of proof...(any diety - pick one) and we have a body of people who are quite happy to believe whatever they please. They've already abandoned any semblance of evidence-based critical thought about the most important aspects of their lives.....so denying climate change, evolution or anything represents no real challenge to them.
We wonder at the actions of the Catholic Church against Galileo and others 350 years ago.....but the same tactics are employed today by those who feel their interests threatened.
Some sincerely believe stuff and it doesn't matter there is actually nothing in it. Others cynically manipulate these "faithful" to block change that threatens there short term interests.
I used to own pigs. They were ruthlessly selfish in pursuit of their own goals and were quite happy to completely exhaust every resource. I've come to see people as functionally no different in aggregate...and only marginally more polite.
-
I think, given the climate they operate in, turning things up to 10 most of the time is understandable. Not always *helpful*, but very understandable.
Yes.
-
Can't remember where I got this link, apologies if it was on PA: http://www.jakearchibald.co.uk/homeopathy/
- seems to me a fairly good representation of the general thinking of people who aren't able to understand that the actual experts got that tag because they actually do know more about a given subject. Through crazy stuff like, you know, actually studying and learning...Actually, I remember now - I found it on a hi-fi audio site. They were discussing some of the nuttier audiophile stuff, like magic pebbles, and cable elevators.
I know, I could have deleted the bit above about not remembering, but how much fun would that be?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.