Fortunately, Revkin is not alone in his attempts to improve climate journalism. Readers may not find many stories like his in print, but online sources of science-oriented media analysis have proliferated. In addition to The Observatory, useful Web sites include the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, the Yale Climate & Media Forum, and Framing Science.
- 1
- 2
See also Greenpa's Pants on Fire, part I and II.
Posted by Anna Haynes on Wed 30 Jul 2008 at 03:05 PM
Revkin's analysis is affected by his position on the issue. He claims that the science in favor of human induced warming has solidified, a point the skeptics hotly dispute. As a result he does not consider an obvious reason for the wiplash phenomenon, namely that the science is deeply divided. If so then the medium is the message. Likewise he does not consider that uncertainty is the primary skeptical argument. How can society live with the uncertainty without being skeptical? He does not say.
Posted by David Wojick on Fri 1 Aug 2008 at 10:28 AM
What he's really saying is that science is about fact, philosophy is about truth, and modern journalism just wants to make money and doesn't care facts or truth. Sadly, the naive Americans over the entire political spectrum believe these stories and conflate profit-induced journalism with science. Even more unfortunate is that our politicians appear to as well.
Posted by John Sevic on Thu 14 Aug 2008 at 01:16 PM
This is not a journalism problem. Estimates of man made impact on the climate range from non existent to a direct threat to human survival, and are pronounced, on both sides, by scientists with jaw dropping credentials. The arguments ultimately morph into childish ad hominum attacks. Science owes mankind a far higher standard of conduct. As noted above, it is fruitless to deny that there is zero consensus, and an infinite range of future possibilities. Until scientists get their act together, there can be no intelligent US energy policy concerning combustion technology.
Posted by R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. on Thu 21 Aug 2008 at 10:50 PM
An interesting, "nuanced" effort to argue for the quieting of dissent when it comes to the Global Warming agenda.
As one respondent has already noted: "Naive Americans over the entire political spectrum believe these stories and conflate profit-induced journalism with science". How troublesome! If only there were re-education camps were we could send the great unwashed masses where their point of view and opinions could be tightly controlled and shaped without the bother of "profit-induced" interference... One should pause and give a moment of reflection for the shear magnitude of hardship those who consider themselves the 'Elite' among us must feel on a daily basis as they try, with all their hearts and intellect, to "heard cats".
Posted by Mike Pike on Sun 24 Aug 2008 at 08:43 PM
If the comments are any indication, the problem isn't just with the press- it's also the STAGGERING ignorance of the American people in regards to Science and, in fact, any rigorous thinking at all.
Posted by PJ North on Mon 25 Aug 2008 at 08:48 AM
"Dissent" - A virtue when you goring the the Ox: a vice when it is your ox being gored. The irony is that as Al Gore has staked out the high ground in defense of global warming, science struggles to provide verifiable facts to support his position. One has to wonder if the "whiplash" lament about mainstream reporting on climate change isn't based more on elitism than real concern for the truth.
Posted by TL Hoffman on Tue 26 Aug 2008 at 10:04 PM
I do not see where science strives to prove Al Gore right. Many scientists who support AGW have objectively pointed out inaccuracies or have qualified some of the problems that will be caused by global warming. While the mainstream press has its problems in reporting on this complicated issue, the blogs, cable news and talk radio show limited to no journalistic standards. The Daily Tech, for example will reference research done on solar cycles by Kenneth Tapping, who is very concerned with AGW, but will then interview a skeptical scientist who has been proven to have limited credibliity to put the research into "perspective".
Posted by kfw38c on Wed 27 Aug 2008 at 07:55 PM
I do not claim to be a scientist but the environment has been an interest of mine since before the first "Earth Day". Having grown up in central Pennsylvania I can see first hand the difference between winters then and now. Some of the first books I ever read about global warming were Barry Commoner's "The Poverty of Power" and "The Closing Circle" in the late 70's and early 80's. Thirty years later Mr. Commoner has been shown to be exactly right in his explanations and predictions. For those climate change skeptics, I would like to know what science your side of the global warming argument is based on, or is that just the default position for anyone who is inconvenienced by having to do anything about it? Even aside from any science isn't it a good idea to modernize and upgrade our energy supply and use? Right now, for example, we kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people every year on American highways by trying to operate 20th century vehicles on a 19th century or older road system. Furthermore, all of the energy (over 1/4 of our total use) required comes from oil, an increasingly expensive commodity that will one day run out regardless. If we did nothing more than automate our current road/rail system and power it with solar and wind energy, there would be significant impact. Today there is no reason, other than lack of will, we can't do this. To find out more or to further discuss this check out the national personal transit blog at npts2020.blogspot.com.
Posted by npts2020 on Thu 4 Sep 2008 at 07:59 AM