I’m way overdue in putting up a new post and giving an update on the Environmental Writing class that Peyten Dobbs and I are teaching. It has been, without question, one of the most interesting and challenging teaching experiences of my career, and we’ve both admitted to each other that, relatively speaking, we’re a little bored teaching the conventional English curriculum in our regular English classes. (If you’re interested, you can access our class blog here and see what the students have had to say about it.)
At any rate, I’ll write a thoughtful and thorough update at some point, but for now I’ll just say that it’s been exciting for us to go through something of the same learning process as the kids. I’ve followed the climate change issue fairly closely for a decade or so now, but teaching this course has pushed me to dig deeper and question my assumptions, to examine loose ends and fill in the gaps in my understanding, and to follow developments in the scientific arena more closely than usual.
Among other things, watching the science unfold in real time gives one a perspective on the media that you don’t otherwise get.
Yesterday’s big news? Well, I’ll use the headline of the column in today’s WSJ, written by the lead researcher of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team (BEST), to sum up the very latest research findings: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism: There were good reasons to doubt, until now. The BEST team undertook a series of studies designed specifically to test questions raised by climate skeptics about the validity of global temperature data sets used by climate scientists (regular readers of Nealz Nuze, for instance, will remember breathless revelations about temperature stations sited next to heat sources like airport runways) and came to the following conclusion (in the words of lead researcher Richard Muller):
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups [of climate scientists]. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections . . . Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.
Anyway, if you want to know more about these findings, you can read the summary report released by BEST.
What I found particularly interesting and want to comment on, however, is the media coverage of these findings. I first read about it yesterday in The Economist. The Washington Post has reported on it. The New York Times has reported on it. CNN has reported on it. The BBC has reported on it.
And FOX News? Nothing.
We’ve been having an interesting discussion in class over the past couple of weeks about whether or not it was ethical for Peyten and me to create a sense of false equivalence about the science of global warming by giving equal time to “both sides of the story” when the scientific community has reached a remarkable degree of consensus about the issue. False equivalence in the name of “balance” is actually a form of bias, after all. But FOX News doesn’t even seem to reach this level of objectivity. They’ll gleefully report on and hype a single study by a single scientist (one so flawed that it led to the resignation of the editor of the journal that published it) that questions the scientific consensus on global warming, but when a research team—formed in the wake of “ClimateGate” and headed by a noted climate skeptic—releases findings supporting the scientific consensus, there’s not a peep from them.
Fair and balanced? You decide.
In order to test my assumptions, I’ve subscribed to the following RSS feeds: “Environment” from the New York Times, and (unable to find a simple corresponding feed from FOX) the Google news search term “climate change source:’fox news’”. We’ll see what turns up.
Hi Clark – Hope you are doing well, and I’m glad to hear about your new class. It sounds like your dream curriculum. One note – I don’t watch Fox, and avoid most agitiation media (which is a challenge considering your better half). But you point out that the WSJ published the story from BEST. WSJ and Fox are both owned by News Corp. When criticizing media and free speech, where do you draw the line? Is ithe network guilty or the parent company? Did WSB cover the story? I’d be willing to bet you a delicious BBQ lunch that some Cox Comm property covered it. If WSB didn’t cover the story then are they not fair and balanced? For me, that fair and balanced tag line has become a hackneyed, worn out whipping post that most folks recognize as garbage. Objectivity is a noble but unachievable goal. I’d like to see an Existential thinker deconstruction of “fair and balanced”. I’m pretty sure they would laugh themselves to death (if they weren’t already dead).
Are you comparing apples and oranges, Mike? It’s not News Corp as a parent company that is making the claim to be “fair and balanced,” it’s a single network. And while I might agree with you that objectivity is ultimately unachievable, a credible network tries to find the asymptote, not make a mockery of it. As for WSB, I’d be astonished if they reported on the BEST study. Wouldn’t have expected them to. Not really their thing. So what?
Make sure you include this book as required reading for your Environmental Writing class .
This is a recently published book I have just read. It is, as you will read, somewhat critical of the IPCC, but it is well researched and documented
Here is an excerpt : “Having morphed into an obnoxious adolescent, the IPCC is now everyone’s problem. This is because it
performs one of the most important jobs in the world. Its purpose is to survey the scientific literature
regarding climate change, to decide what it all means, and to write an ongoing series of reports. These
reports are informally known as the Climate Bible.
The Climate Bible is cited by governments around the world. It is the reason carbon taxes are being
introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone
thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous.
Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a UN report. What most of us don’t know is that,
rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, this report was
produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.”
I would like to give you a link for the entire pdf but the author does deserve her USD$4.99.
I thoroughly recommend you download for yourself.
https://www.aplusdownload.com/cgi-bin/apluspro/scripts/apluspro.cgi?action=4&item_number=iap0001&iap0001_qty=1&cd=iocmvjwgc
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Pretty good review of this book on Judith Curry’s blog—but I feel the same way about Laframboise that I feel about the IPCC—while her objectivity is FAR from unimpeachable, she may well be right about an important topic. Anyway, I can’t speak for “the entire planet,” but I’ve never been “in a tizzy because of a UN report.” As I’ve written elsewhere, I’m in a tizzy because of the science that the UN report is reporting on. Put simply: to ridicule an entire planet’s concerns as having resulted from a single flawed report is to employ the strawman fallacy, no?
Clark,
I think you should read the book before you comment further. All the facts and analysis are easily justifiable.
The science has been pushed by the IPCC and now it appears that the methods of acquiring this info is flawed.
If Laframboise is incorrect why not point out exactly where.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Clark, I’d say I’m comparing apples and apple trees. An apple tree will always produce an apple as fruit and never an orange. News Corp is largely a conservative media organization so of course they tend to fall in the environmental skeptic camp. Yet they did report on your story in their flagship newspaper. I see that as the appropriate place to report it as opposed to their entertainment TV network. I’ve discussed the Fox News issue with many of my liberal friends. I’ve never been able to understand why the people that support the party of Choice won’t exercise their own right to choice and change the channel or simply tune it out. Personally, I never miss an episode of Bill Maher’s show on HBO because I feel it is vital to try and understand the opinions that bother me the most. Plus the show is funny and I enjoy a good bit of it. But you won’t catch me watching MSNBC. Here’s a question – if Fox News TV changed their tag line to “Conservatively Biased as Hell”, would their existance bother you any less?
Yes.
Ok. That helps me understand. I guess that in my existential world view “Fox News” already equals “Conservatively Biased as Hell” which is why it doesn’t bug me as much as others. It might be a fun exercise to develop alternate tag lines for all the other media outlets. Food Network = Future Type 2 Diabetes Network. DIY Network = TV for People who Prefer to Watch Work than to do Work. ESPN = TV for Mouth Breathers. You are catching the tounge planted firmly in cheek, right?
I’d say the Food Network is TV for People who Prefer to Watch Cooking than to Cook. Or at least it is in my household
One day, B was lying on the couch with the TV on, and I asked “Do you ever get tired of watching the Food Network?” She snapped back “Do you ever get tired of watching the Fox Soccer Channel?” Me: “At least I play soccer.”
Ba-dump CHING!