I must say, they don’t like it, though (The submitters of the op-eds).

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/TY45qibRPFI/AAAAAAAAEeA/x_z1iK0YtlA/briffa99-science_notrick2.png

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

Anyway, I think we all are a little hypocritical. I hear folks rage against fossil fuels, but drive to work when they could walk or bike. We fly around the country, or overseas, for business and pleasure–somehow maybe justifying the business part. Whatever–it makes no difference–party on!

What I think is that many folks wish, and I believe that our host bloggers fall into this category, to preserve and maintain our current high-powered consumptive lifestyle, but hope to make it somehow “environment friendly.” Hey, that’s OK. I agree with that too. Let’s just hope the rare earth’s abide.

If we could just generate all this energy cleanly we could go motoring around the country, jetting around the world, and living off discretionary joules that for many years has been provided to us almost free of charge through the good work of ancient sunlight.

So let’s party on until the party’s over. See ya on the golf course!

How much taxpayer funds does abraham receive for his studies on global warming. … So stop this left wing propaganda just so you can get funding for fraudulent studies

Don’t bother to address the science, just attack the scientist personally and imply a shadowy global conspiracy of greedy scientists, all the while ignoring the fact that Abraham is clearly identified as an engineering professor, who presumably doesn’t do climate research.

Straight out of the playbook. Pfeh.

I agree. (Are you surprised?) I think that’s the wrong approach for a journalist – especially a science journalist. The approach a science journalist takes to such disputes should be evidence-based.

Let us compare and contrast:
You’ll have no doubt heard the scientific consensus that the sky is blue, but yesterday we met up with a scientist with a different view. Here’s what she said. “The sky is pink.”
“What’s you’re evidence?” I asked her.
“Here’s a photo of the sky. You can clearly see that it’s pink.”
“Ah! After consulting with a range of experts on all sides, that appears to be a phenomenon we call ‘sunrise’. Some ‘pink sky’ scientists hypothesise that it is caused by ‘Rayleigh scattering’ by the molecules of air, in which red and blue parts of sunlight are deflected by different amounts. If you get up early in the morning – the astronomical folks can tell you what time it will happen where you are – they say you can see this interesting phenomenon for yourself.”
There are also scientists claiming the sky to be ‘a lumpy grey/white colour’ and others who claim it to be ‘jet black with tiny white sprinkles of light’.
Their evidence? We went and asked.
“Here are some photos. The second one has come out rather dark, but it’s a real photo. It happens here at around 8 pm.”
Our experts say they think those are examples of ‘cloudy’ and ‘night’. Your local weather forecaster will tell you when to expect ‘cloudy’ skies, and you can see ‘night’ most places before sunrise. Scientists say there are a few places on Earth where it only happens in the winter – more information on the mechanisms, and time-lapse videos of the ‘midnight sun’ here.
In summary, some say the sky is blue, and some say the sky is pink, and there are other claims too. Evidence exists for all these positions, we guess it depends on a complex mix of factors.

Compare this to:
You’ll have no doubt heard the scientific consensus that the sky is blue, but yesterday we met up with a scientist with a different view. Here’s what she said. “The sky here where I am is a beautiful pink. The ‘blue skies’ research conducted by many scientists is an over-simplification, a conventional assumption that they accept blindly and don’t check against observation.”
This has caused all sorts of controversy and protests from other scientists. Our chosen expert, professor of Extreme Cleverness at Prestigious University responds: “Everyone knows the sky is blue. It is dangerously irresponsible to mislead people into believing otherwise. It is ridiculous and unscientific. Think of the children, who could be confused by this, and led to doubt authority. The idea that there is a global conspiracy of scientists reporting fraudulent observations of the colour of the sky is evident paranoia. Here are hundreds of scientific organisations who have made statements supporting the position ‘everybody knows the sky is blue’, which is therefore a consensus held by 99.998% of all scientists.”
The debate rages on. Where the truth lies is not clear, but it’s going to have a big effect on next week’s elections, where a ‘pink sky’ candidate is standing.

Now, which of the above articles is more ‘scientific’? The one that digs for the evidence, or the one that weighs the opinions of experts? One article explores the competing evidence for each claim, explains the theories, offers ways to make your own checks and find out more, teaches a little science. The other tells you nothing about empirical evidence, and offers no assistance in making your own considered judgement, unless you think comparing qualifications or social consequences counts as a good approach to making scientific assessments. You are told to believe because the experts said so.

And wouldn’t you agree that either was better than an article that only mentioned the ‘blue sky’ theory and dismissed the alternatives without mentioning them to the reader on the basis of the ‘weight of expertise’ argument? “The sky is blue, do not be misled by the sky deniers” sort of article?

Even if they were absolutely right, is that good journalism, or good science?

Dude, there’s this enlightened document called the United States Consititution

…which most assuredly does not apply to a newspaper editing its own content.

Basic fact checking is an onus upon the individual and the individual only.

No. Op-ed pieces are, and should be, fact checked. To apply the overused but accurate phrase, op-ed writers are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

An article about the Times’s editing policies for op-ed pieces:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/opinion/31shipley.html

NYT op-eds are not only fact checked, they are assertion checked:

We also check assertions. If news articles – from The Times and other publications – are at odds with a point or an example in an essay, we need to resolve whatever discrepancy exists.