I’ve been reading some of the claims in the popular press that scientists have their doubts about climate change. This just doesn’t make sense knowing that the vast majority of reputable scientists support the findings that the climate is changing and we humans are contributing significantly to that change. After recent conversations with both scientists and journalists, I think I know where this may be coming from.
First, every good journalist tries to present a balanced picture, representing both sides of the story. Add to that the challenge that many newspapers and magazines are struggling to stay in business. Every good reporter knows controversy sells news, so as the media increase their competition for our attention and our dollars, the trend is to present stories from an increasingly controversial angle. Now enter the scientists.
Good scientists are always critical of their work and the work of fellow scientists. One of the reasons we trust the results of the scientific process is that scientists themselves are always challenging the rigor of their processes, trying to identify and address gaps or weaknesses in order to strengthen the reliability of their results. Every good scientist is well aware of both the strengths and the weaknesses of their research, and they try to eliminate or control those weaknesses as much as possible. Part of the ongoing scientific discussion about climate change involves ways to further reduce variance in the models, to collect more accurate data. However, those discussions do not suggest a lack of confidence in the findings about climate change. The current models predict phenomena that we are observing with increasing regularity, lending further credence to their accuracy.
In an effort to find a good story, some reporters have seized upon that questioning process and blown it far out of proportion, suggesting that there is large scale doubt about current climate change models. The most recent example was the story that broke in November about a group of scientists at five institutions, including East Anglia University that were exchanging e-mails about the data they were using to estimate climate change factors several hundred years ago. Computer hackers accessed the e-mail messages, did a word search to find any phrases that suggested controversy, and then selected these phrases to manufacture a story of scientific doubt and deception that was entirely unfounded. The Associated Press assigned five reporters to examine those e-mails in their entirety, and their conclusion was that the original story was extremely deceptive and without merit. (You can read the entire AP story here.)
The popular media plays a large role in shaping our views on issues, but we should also look at the scientific literature and other respected, responsible sources to make sure we have an accurate, balanced perspective. It’s one thing for a scientist to state an opinion in the newspaper, and quite another for that scientist to argue his case in a peer-reviewed journal, where other scientists are convinced about the merits of the argument.
-Jim Covel
2 Responses
January 26th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Great article, Jim. The last paragraph states exactly how climate denialists, who have a stake in delaying action, are able to sway the common man. The Average Joe doesn’t read scientific peer-reviewed journals, but he might read Runners World, or Readers Digest.
March 2nd, 2010 at 7:46 am
I am with you that presenting two sides of a story, when one side represents a very narrow view, can be problematic.
However, the recent revelations about scientists becoming highly political and misrepresenting their findings to protect special interests greatly damages the public’s trust in science.
Yes, scientists are humans — some believe in God, some are atheists, some are political, some are not. But we generally hold them to very high standards when they PRESENT their findings, which should be peer-reviewed, thorough and as removed from politics (and, at times, even ethics) as possible.
The more scientists play in the political sandbox, the less we will trust their findings. The recent climate change data circus makes me much more suspicious about any claims for weather change in the FUTURE. I have to rely more on data specifically focused on PRESENT observations with no projections in order to be satisfied that I’m getting good info.
Leave a Comment