AGW Climate Change Culture Data Global Warming Omniclimate Policy Politics Science Skepticism

Scientific Journalism Is Moribund, Dead, Perhaps Alive

(thanks to Bill Clement for inspiring the gist of this blog)

In hindsight, it should have been clear long ago. It wasn’t going to be pretty, nor it could have been. On one side, journalists with the vaguest notions of the scientific method, mostly convinced that science is what a scientist does (need to remember Piero Manzoni, anybody?).

On the other side, a number of determined bloggers “that have made themselves experts in general climate science (in the words of Roger Harrabin), “ordinary people [who] can say [to scientists] ‘look, you said this, you said that, the two don’t match, explain yourself’” (in the words of Richard North).

Of course, it was going to be carnage. The journalists would not and could not survive the confrontation by any stretch of imagination. And so they didn’t. As noted by Matt Ridley in The Spectator:

It was not Private Eye, or the BBC or the News of the World, but a retired electrical engineer in Northampton, David Holland, whose freedom-of-information requests caused the Climategate scientists to break the law, according to the Information Commissioner. By contrast, it has so far attracted little attention that the leaked emails of Climategate include messages from reporters obsequiously seeking ammunition against the sceptics. Other emails have shown reporters meekly changing headlines to suit green activists, or being threatened with ostracism for even reporting the existence of a sceptical angle

As far as the average skeptical blogger is concerned, scientific journalism in matters of climate should be considered dying if not dead, only a place where to find nice but wholly un-necessary confirmation of one’s doubts. Or should it?

The underlying problem is suggested by Roger Harrabin in the same radio debate mentioned above:

What’s been difficult for people reporting mainstream debate in the past has been that what we would call our trusted sources of science, people like the Royal Society and the various other corollary bodies in different countries, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set up to be the touchstone of probity on this issue, they have been the providers of news and the people who have been doubting these news have generally speaking not been academics, I am on the trawl for academics at the moment in British universities there are hardly any and there have been doubters from other quarters and it’s been very difficult for us to tell what are the credentials when all these establishment voices are lined up on one side, how can we put them against a blogger on the other side that might happen to be a blogger who has for the past 15 years spent 100 hundred hours on the Internet reading climate science and has a good knowledge but we don’t know how to test this

Note the choice of words…”our trusted sources of science“, “the providers of news“…these are the words of somebody with the mindset of being an information broker between “the scientists” and “the general public”. It is a way of seeing “scientific journalism” as some kind of translation service, from the high-brow vocabulary of the scientists to the simpleton’s expressions even the most empty-headed Joe Public might understand.

Obviously, such a mindset leaves no space at all to a critical analysis of what the scientists say: because “how can we put them against a blogger [whose knowledge] we don’t know how to test“. Harrabin might be more right on this than he is ever likely to wish: after all, as commented by Bill:

The Press, too, have few within their ranks with a genuine science background. The result – regurgitation (syndication) of the few articles written

Mind you, journalists might not see that as an issue. It all depends on what “journalism” is meant to be. Here’s how award-winning science writer Ed Yong recommends scientists to approach interviews:

[The journalists’] job is not to grill you with hard questions – it’s to find The Story and get you to say something interesting. Your job, interestingly enough, is not to answer their questions to the letter, but to get your message across and to do so in an interesting way. Note the compatibility between these two goals.

The easiest way to mutually assured victory is to get your message across in a way that’s interesting enough that you practically hand them The Story on a plate. Journalism is a game but it’s not a zero-sum one. You and the journalist are not vicious gladiatorial opponents; you are engaging in a collaborative venture and treating it as such will help you get more out of it.

The (skeptical) bloggers write about their quest for Truth. The journalists write instead about…”The Story“. Has “The Story” got any relationship with Truth? Who knows, and does anybody care? (hey…some editors go all the way and get rid of reporters trying to find out what the Truth is…).

Just as “The Story” on climate was the overwhelming consensus in 2009, it is now the overwhelming amount of evidence indicating the IPCC documents have been biased in a miriad of ways towards reporting exactly what the paymasters/Governments wanted them to report.

Kudos to all journalists following the new “Story” but don’t expect their articles to become the new WUWT or EU Referendum. They can not: check the somehow inadvertently comical situation described by Ivan Oranski, executive editor of Reuters Health, on how to choose one’s sources. It looks like Mr Oranski has been around the block quite a few times, so to speak. He even recommends “to always read papers you’re reporting on, instead of relying solely on press releases” (no sh*t!). But not even once Mr Oranski dares thinking he could use himself, his ongoing knowledge of the topic, his ability to cross-reference findings throughout the mountains of scientific papers he has read.

The above suggests “scientific journalism” is still a long, long way from getting in the same league as, say, political journalistic analysis of internal or foreign affairs, where a healthy skepticism of politicians’ statements is nowadays a matter of course. One suspects, too many “scientific journalists” haven’t had their Cronkite moment as yet. But there is hope. Here’s an example of a scientific journalist actually using his brains, however briefly (Nicholas Wade, “Ancient Man in Greenland Has Genome Decoded“, The New York Times Feb 10, 2010):

Perhaps reflecting the so far somewhat limited reach of personal genomics, the researchers note that the ancient Greenlander was at risk for baldness, a surprising assessment given that all that remains of him is his hair

Ed Yong seems also more open than most to the new challenges of the present:

There is rampant churnalism, a dearth of fact-checking, misguided attempts at balance at the cost of accuracy. On the other hand, there is plenty of work from non-traditional sources that does espouse these values, including the writings of many freelance science writers and working scientists (and many of the so-called elements of journalism are elements of good scientific practice too).

If you play out this taxonomic game, you quickly see that many people who ostensibly work in science journalism produce work that is nothing of the sort. Likewise, amateurs who wouldn’t classify themselves as science journalists, actually ought to count.

Journalists are even waking up to the extraordinary amount of news they can produce from “inspirations” found in blogs and other forms of online social media. One interesting lead fresh out of the AAAS 2010 meeting: some scientists still don’t get it (will they ever), others understand they need new ways of thinking in order to explain themselves to the outside world.

And of course there is one reliable anchor that hasn’t been much affected by all of this: the minute group of scientific journalists that have actually been scientists themselves, know how scientific publications work, and can read and critique a scientific article on their own, if need be. I am talking about people like journalism-award-winning academic David Whitehouse.

No prize to guess what Dr Whitehouse thinks of climate alarmism.

(many thanks to @TheGreenDemon and @ThisIsTrue for sharing some of the links above)

7 replies on “Scientific Journalism Is Moribund, Dead, Perhaps Alive”

As I see it science journalism is best done by practicing or former scientists howsoever trained: be it after formal academic training or (as in my own case) working in applied fields for a few decades. For the better or the worse in matters of the Sun-earth connection, Dr. Cornelis de Jager (distinguished solar scientist) and myself and others recently codified some of his recent research on what may be happening on the sun right now. The book is 15.90 US D. (alternately c. 4 US D as an e-book) entitled Grand Phases On The Sun: the case for a mechanism responsible for grand solar minima and maxima

Great post. I think Phelim McAleer asks the right questions, when he is allowed to atleast.

You know what he did with Stephen Schnieder at Copenhagen? And the Polar bear suit…and with ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’ or course.

The inability of some journalists to understand science extends to a poor knowledge of the use of English (I assume that this anecdote will have and equivalent in other languages).

A friend submitted an article for publication by a newspaper (name of newspaper escapes me). His valedictory paragraph commenced “In valediction…..”. When published, the article had been edited and the valedictory was somewhere in the middle and still commenced “In valediction…..” – it made better sense to a journalist like that.

And poor old Joe Public’s understanding of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is as good has his understanding of the best place to put a valedictory. Joe Public and Fourth Estate aren’t doing very well, are they?

‘non-academics’ that have ‘spent 100 hours’ on climatology are the IPCC’s adversaries? Excuse me. Allow me to mention some few that I know or knew personally:

Prof Tor Ragnar Gerholm, prof physics at Karolinska Institute
Prof NA Mörner, prof physical and dynamic geology, Stockholm Univ
Prof Wibjörn Karlen, prof geography and paleoclimate, Stockholm Univ
Prof Ingemar Nordin, prof science theory, Linköping Univ
Prof Richard Lundin. prof solaristics, Univ Umeå
Doc Henrik Lundstedt, prof solaristic, Univ Lund
Prof Kai Siegbahn, prof physics, Univ Stockh, Nobel Prize
Prof Ian Giaever, prof physics, from N to USA, Nobel Prize
Prof Borlaugh, USA, Nobel Prize
Prof Gösta Walin, prof oceanology, Univ Gothenburg
+ 2 other GUniv-proff on oceanology
Prof Eigil Friis-Christensen, prof space physics, Univ Copenhagen
Prof Knud Lassen, prof solaristics, Univ Copenhagen
Doc Henrik Svensmark, docent astrophysics, Univ Copenhagen
Prof Pål Brekke, prof solaristics, Univ Oslo
Prof Tom Segalstedt, University Oslo
Prof Ole Hunlum. prof polar geography, Univ Oslo
Prof Ole Johannesen, prof glacierology, Nelson Institute, Bergen
Prof Hans von Storch, prof meteorogy, Univ Hamburg
Prof Marcel Leroux, prof climatology, Univ Paris
Prof Ross McKitrick, prof mathematics and economy, Univ Guelph, Canada
Prof Timothy Ball, prof climatology, Univ Winnipeg, Canada
Prof Patrick Michaels, prof climatology, Univ Virginia
Prof Robert C Balling, prof Geography, Internatl climate consult, Univ Arizona
Prof Sallie Baliunas, prof astrophysics, solaristocs, Mount Wilson Obs
Prof Randall Cerveny, prof geography, storm specialist, Univ Arizona
Prof John Christy, prof atmosphereic science, Univ Alabama
Prof Roy Spencer, prof climatolgy, Univ ?, USA (has with Christy developed new
temperature measuring methods/devices and run them for years)
Prof Robert Davis, prof climatology, Univ Virginia
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld, cryosphere scientist, Univ Colorado
Prof David Legates, prof climatology, Univ Delaware
Prof Eric Posmentier, prof earth science, marine science, physics and
mathematics, Long Island Univ
Wei H Soon, prof astrophysics, Harvard-Smithonian Observatory
Richard Linzen, prof atmosphereic science, MIT, Boston
Prof Fred Singer, prof physics, USA
Prof Nir Shaviv, prof astrophysics, Univ Toronto and Israel
Prof Jan Veizer, prof climatology, Univ ?, USA
Prof Gerhard Gerlich, prof physics, Univ Göttingen
Prof Piers Corbyn, prof solaristics, United Kingdom
Prof H Abdussamatov, prof space physics and solaristics, Univ St Petersburg
Prof Haeberli, prof glacierology, Univ Zürich
Prof Augusto Mangini, prof geology and speleology, Univ Heidelberg
Prof Freeman Dyson, prof physics, USA
Prof Robert Carter, prof climatology, USA
Prof Ian Plimer, prof climatology, Australia
Prof Benny Peiser, prof sociology, United Kingdom
Prof Christopher Essex, prof economics, Canada
Prof Jaworovsky, prof physics and chemistry, Warshaw, Poland
Dr Timo Niroma, solar statistician, Helsinki
Prof Holzhauser, glacierologist, Schweiz
Prof Röthlisberger, galacierologist, Schweiz,
Proff Pielke sr & jr, climatologists, USA
Dr Craig Idso (& S & D, sons), CO2-specialists, CO2 Institute, USA
Prof Tennekes, climatologist, Netherlands
Dr Wolfgang Thüne, physics and meteorology, Germany
Prof SI Akasofu, prof polar geography, USA
Prof SH Yaskell, prof astrophysics, USA
Prof W Happer, prof climatology, USA
Prof Vaclaw Klaus, Prague, prof economy, president CZ
Lord Nigel Lawson, former Energy minister, UK
Dr Theodor Landscheidt, solarist, Waldmünchen, Germany
Prof DJ Wingham, prof geology, UK
Prof Josef Reicholf, prof biology, book author on climate history, Germany
Prof M Vasquez, solaristics, Spain

to name just a few that cross my mind many of them I have been in contact with earlier – you may readily get to know some thousand more, among which another 70 (seventy!) Nobel Prize winners. No academic, no? Laymen with 100 hours climatology? You must be kidding – or nescient. RS Lindzen and SF Singer alone weigh up the whole IPCC in knowledge and sagacious mind. Some hundred scientists have jumped off the IPCC – they know why, and there you will find the free and unindoctrinated minds. The whole AGW theory is crumbling and has been, obviously, no more than a project of fraudulent collective errors.

Dr med Michael Koch (Sweden), epidemiologist (since 1997 roughly 60 books and > 200 articles on the climate quest – sufficient to have an opinion and ready not to be bluffed by a doctrine any more? Give me an e-mail addres, if interested, and I will send you an eye-opening file (part of a coming book).

Yours sinverely

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.