This is an ordered version of my live microblogging (Twitter – @mmorabito67) of the Launch Event of the RISJ publication “Poles Apart: the International Reporting of Climate Scepticism” (British Council, London, November 10, 2011):
- At The British Council for the launch of “Poles Apart:the International Reporting of Climate Scepticism” by J Painter
- Due to start at 6pm, slightly late. No @BBCRichardBlack
- Benny Peiser is here. I’ve said hello to chair John Lloyd, had met him years ago in Oxford
- Finally it starts. Delay was all the fault of video-linked @Revkin 🙂
- Lloyd : report is unique. Climate change important. IEA says today that door is closing
- Video link not perfect. Painter says he’ll be brief
- Painter : “summoned by science” published 1 yr ago. Found difference in skepticism.
- Painter: people confused about different types of skepticism.
- Painter keeps mentioning academic research they wanted to complement
- “Is climate skepticism an Anglo Saxon thing”?
- Two newspapers per country, left and right leaning but not in China
- Focus on 2007 wg1 and wg2 IPCC publication time and Copenhagen time
- Shows increase in skeptical voices in US and UK around Copenhagen
- “What explains country differences? ” interviews suggest factors
- Media and extramedia factors (listed in report)
- India – CC as a nationalistic point
- Brazil- very large coverage. Journalists said strong science.units in newspapers
- Lalaland time
- Climategate moved some.uk newspapers away from the others
- Lots more analysis for the UK – skeptical voices more in right leaning newspapers
- Explanatory factors -.in the report again
- . @Revkin frozen in time. Video still imperfect.
- Rebecca Nadin talks about China. She’s been there for years to work on climate change
- Complex diagram showing interactions in China.
- Says mostly discussion is not about AGW vs natural
- Chinese government has strong position about AGW. It’s not politically contentious
- Over 2200 newspapers and many social media networks
- Very limited debate about integrity of climate scientists and no much nimbyism
- Pollution concerns very high.
- Core group at Beijing uni and academy of sciences debating speed and severity
- Mentions agriculture body saying production in inner Mongolia will increase
- Immediately adds a however
- Some.skeptics depicted as nationalistic nutters
- Sciama; starts.with Allegre and another skeptif
- . @Revkin alive again
- They’re using Webex not Skype
- French revolution replacing aristocracy with meritocracy and support for science
- Laments lack of skepticism in France?
- No coal lobby in France
- France is very centralized so importance of State intervention high
- He’s explaining belief in AGW in France in purely non-scientific terms!!!
- Ends saying opposition to.State.may.make climate policies impossible in uk and USA
- Revkin : report.defines skepticism others didn’t
- Skepticism and support are variegated
- Mentions Inhofe giving floor speech saying hoax is about catastrophe of global warming
- USA exceptional for many reasons. More fuel consumption and many climates
- Public discourse always degenerates in.shouting matches
- Policy debates are legitimate @Revkin
- Bob Ward laments the GWPF – skeptic voices given opinion pieces
- Revkin mentions Delingpole as selective and duplicitous. Liberal opinion makers in USA stretching “but”.
- Lloyd : ft not into entertainment. Penchant for combat eg debating societies
- Tom of ecologist magazine asks about treatment of skeptics in TV media
- Revkin talks of study about fox news. Pretty clear which way they lean.
- Networks fairly “progressive” on climate change
- Benny Peiser : report is comprehensive and balanced. Definition of skepticism but gwpf skeptical of policy
- Thanks Bob ward for the hits
- Gwpf focus not on science rather government approach so more media coverage
- Revkin says Peiser is.right problem is policies leftists is USA did.disservice making AGW a single sentence
- World will end soon
- Blogger mentions criticism of NYT by Romm.
- Another q: science cannot settle debates
- Phone rings at the Revkins
- Part of the news.process means being wrong.some of the time Joe Romm is.never wrong – laughs
- Painter talks of think tanks bloggers tradition of questioning the.science
- Revkin : even without fuel lobby there’d be not much action
- Difficult to.change as.fossil fuels still.cheap -.forces of.stasis.have an easy task
- Left.journalism to work on fostering innovation
- Meeting now of climate scientists about ozone.treaty
- . @Revkin gone.
- Online media amplifying skeptical coverage?
- Empirical evidence of coverage online depending on generating traffic
- Blogospheric.pressure in France? New.phenomenon
- People outspoken to generate traffic? Not in France
- Chinese blogosphere? Environment not.global warming
- Water pollution more meaningful to people’s life
- Rapley – skeptics talk of uncertainties to prevent action. Risk assessment?
- Painter : haven’t looked at framing. Quantitative analysis
- Should understand what kind of skeptics “we’re talking about”
- Climategate emboldened the daily express in mentioning skeptical voices
- More.questions showing French reaction not as in uk
- Elite debate in France for.years.
- Steve.Jones of bbc report fame. Says typical reporting strives for balance
- Media.don’t understand debate in.science?
- Due impartialityis important according to Painter
- Lloyd bbc criticized for having expoused. Climate change not easy for the bbc
- I asked.about need for academic findings so.report isn’t much good.
- Another q: more people.haved moved away from extremes.
- Another q: media lacking about political economy of climate change
- Not many people talk of policy?
- Nadin: change in degree of skepticism yes in China. Debate on adaptation.
- Talks of “climate change” forcing people to.relocate
- Sciama: science journalist talking science. (Maybe that’s problem?)
- Shift in position towards warming but natural
- More worried about disappeared climate reporting than space given to skeptical voices
- Datasets are academic conclusions less so
6 replies on “Live Microblogging Of Launch Event For “Poles Apart: the International Reporting of Climate Scepticism””
[…] by the British Council in London on November 10, 2011 (live microblogging here), the launch event for “Poles Apart” saw Mr Painter accompanied by a panel composed by Rebecca […]
[…] by the British Council in London on November 10, 2011 (live microblogging here), the launch event for “Poles Apart” saw Mr Painter accompanied by a panel composed by Rebecca […]
Well spotted Sir Geoff…I can only recommend to stay tuned for more from me on this story 🙂 (alas, no audio)
Is there an audio version of this meeting anywhere?
All I can find is the executive summary of the book, which states:
“The main aims of the study were to track any increase in the amount of space given to sceptical voices…”. They define sceptical voices as ranging from “those who are sceptical that the world is warming … to those who are sceptical about whether urgent action and government spending are necessary to combat it.”
Clearly, the latter group (the Lawson / GWPF position) represent a legitimate political position, whose views should surely be heard wherever the issue is debated. Yet, in its final paragraph, the executive summary attributes “the greater prevalence of sceptical voices in the print media of the USA and the UK” to “the existence of organised interests that feed sceptical coverage, and partisan media receptive to this message”.
The implication is clearly that the sceptical position is somehow illegitimate, and it is a failing of the Anglo-Saxon press (particularly the rightwing part) to even allow it the minimum “oxygen of publicity which it currently enjoys. This is an amazing postion for a school of journalism to take.
“I used to think that ‘scientist’ meant something special. I now know it means ‘professional guesser’ ”
I does mean something special. I see in climatology the difficult problem of finding evidence, getting the data and then interpreting the data. Its the interpretation of climate related data which is suspect, interpretation often ends up as bald faced speculation, this is the prefefessional guesser part. I don’t see this level of speculation in other sciences. And the media picks up the climate speculation and proclaims it like it is carved in stone conclusion. Had I tried to make conclusions like that from speculation back in undergrad science, they would have tossed me out on my ear. It seems to be ok in climatology, or climastrology as it is often called.
Thanks for this, though I’m not sure how you managed not to throw your shoes or something.
The difference between those countries that are accepting AGW and those that are questioning it are divided between those that want to get paid and those that would have to pay. That doesn’t mean that that greed makes us deny science but that it makes us pay proper attention to it. A person can accept all sorts of incorrect scientific findings if they have no real interest in them.
I used to think that ‘scientist’ meant something special. I now know it means ‘professional guesser’ which places them on a par with city traders. With all the back stabbing, greed, recklessness, secrecy, arrogance, and ability to slide away from the consequences of their mistakes that comparison implies.