Comments on: "Blinded by Science: How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality"

By: Busiturtle

Busiturtle — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:09:55 +0000

I just love the ending of that sentence: “which most scientists believe is a major problem”

Belief?

I thought science was about facts, not faith.

This is all so very confusing.

By: Busiturtle

Busiturtle — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:08:25 +0000

Craig:18

Does the IPCC represent the consensus view of climate science or is it simply a propaganda outlet? And how many more phony claims are in IPCC reports that have not been verified by science?

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/01/looking-for-the-disappearing-glaciers.html

” The panel, which relies on contributions from hundreds of scientists, is considering whether to amend the estimate or remove it. ”

“The flawed estimate raises more questions about the panel’s vetting procedures than it does about the melting of Himalayan glaciers, which most scientists believe is a major problem.”

By: Craig Pennington

Craig Pennington — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:58:37 +0000

Busiturtle at 17:

Yes,politicians objects to scientists, therefore no scientific consensus! Dumbass.

By: Busiturtle

Busiturtle — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:18:25 +0000

And let it be said again: How can one claim there is a consensus when there is none!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.

Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”.

By: Busiturtle

Busiturtle — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:15:35 +0000

I just love this quote. Gullible fools are the most dangerous members of society.

Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. “I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.

By: BartonCreekBett

BartonCreekBett — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:06:30 +0000

I agree, balanced coverage is what we need more of. Finally the Times is starting to balance their coverage.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

who would of thought that when looked into the IPCC bases their assessments on he said she said. Looks like the Himalayas will be just fine post 2035. Bring on the SUV’s

By: What I’m reading ed. 100116 « The Hermitage 3.0 (Beta)

What I’m reading ed. 100116 « The Hermitage 3.0 (Beta) — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:11:32 +0000

[...] Blinded by (fringe) Science (classic) “There’s a very small set of people” who question the consensus, says Science’s executive editor-in-chief, Donald Kennedy. “And there are a great many thoughtful reporters in the media who believe that in order to produce a balanced story, you’ve got to pick one commentator from side A and one commentator from side B. I call it the two-card Rolodex problem.” [...]

By: paul

paul — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:07:37 +0000

Have you considered telling the journalists to “ask the grad students”? While grad students might not be as knowledgeable as their advisors, they’re also likely to be less biased. This may seem counterintuitive but there are two reasons for this: (1) senior scientists, especially prominent ones, may have their whole scientific identity tied up in the success of one of their theories whereas grad students and post docs are rarely as invested, and (2) someone with an uncertain career ahead is more likely to take a middle course, to maintain respect from all sides who will define his career. A grad student earns respect in the scientific arena not only for his/her research, but also for showing independence and an incisive view of what is at the heart of a dispute. Good grad students strive for this.

This must be done carefully, of course, but the fresh perspective of the grad student just might be the one that knows where the “balance” is.

By: Craig Pennington

Craig Pennington — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:34:32 +0000

Busiturtle:8

I also note that the Washington Times hasn’t had a news story on your cited study. That darn liberal media bias extends to the moonie times!

By: Oren

Oren — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:25:20 +0000

Newspapers are corporates and as such are legally obligated to “maximize shareholder value”, that is sell more newspapers. Showing a “balanced” view and exaggerating “debates” alive sells more newspapers. If the editor of a newspaper had an attack of concsience and reported this as a non-issue, he’d be fired after the next quarterly balance is published. If his board of directors didn’t fire him, they’d be replaced (or even sued) by the stockholders/owners (these days, that’s a depressingly short list of people). The journalists themselves can’t do much about it – it isn’t their fault and if they buck the trend, they are much, much easier to fire (or pass for promotion, or be assigned to Zimbabwe, or whatever).

If you want to change things, start hitting newspapers with serious financial penalties for reporting unsubstantiated crap as if it was fact. Paradoxically, this may be what is required to save this industry; they will never beat the Internet as a source of entertaining sound bites (kittens!), but may survive as a source of reliable news.

You’d think the stockholders/owners would notice they are poisoning their own gold-laying goose, but in the current system, this year (or quarter) results are all that matter.