A Questionable Paper Published, an Editor Resigns…What Else is New?

Chris Mooney — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:38:44 +0000

My latest DeSmogBlog piece is about the flap over the Roy Spencer paper in Remote Sensing, which was covered by conservatives as if it was a paradigm shift overturning all of climate science, but turned out to be substantially less than that…and now an editor has resigned over it being published at all.

The thing is, this kind of stuff happens now and again–regularly enough that we ought to expect it. It has happened before on climate, it has happened on “intelligent design,” and it outright caused the whole vaccine-autism flap.

Here’s what I have to say over there:

The real problem here, for the most part, is not the journals or the scientists. They police themselves adequately, albeit rather slowly. The real problem are the media.

Any well trained science journalist knows that one study proves nothing—precisely because of motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and so on. If there aren’t a bunch of studies out there, by a bunch of different authors, all converging on a point—or if there isn’t a meta-analysis, a consensus assessment report, and so on—you had better be very careful. Humans are too prone to biases—even ...

Washington Examiner Defends Light Bulb Misinformation… with More Misinformation

The Intersection — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 02:00:24 +0000

by Jon Winsor

The Washington Examiner’s Ron Arnold is a bit perturbed that anyone is calling out the misinformation campaign about the “incandescent light bulb ban.” So he’s trying to turn the tables:

Time claims: “Philips and other manufacturers are already making more efficient incandescent bulbs.” That’s short of an outright lie but it’s way beyond hogwash. What Philips is making is halogen lamps, which are incandescent alright, but complex electronic circuit devices about as close to an ordinary incandescent lamp as a third-degree burn, which you can efficiently obtain from a halogen lamp.

To all appearances it works just like an ordinary incandescent bulb, and looks almost the same (see upper right). If there are any weird, “complex electronic circuit devices” (CECDs), you can’t tell by looking at it.

Arnold continues:

Philips’ 36-page “product information” manual, shows on page 23 that their “Clickline” halogen lamp operates at temperatures as high as 480 degrees Fahrenheit (on the contacts), and 1,650 degrees F. (on the bulb). All aren’t that hot, but not by much. By the way, aluminum melts at 1,220.58 degrees Fahrenheit.

1,650 degrees F on the bulb? Melts Aluminum? Now you’ve got me scared. Only, not:

“Am I a Science Journalist?”: Opening Remarks

Chris Mooney — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:45:20 +0000

Here is how I kicked off our panel today in Doha at 9:30 am local time, 7 hours ahead of U.S. East coast time:

Hi, I’m Chris Mooney and I’m a…what am I? Am I a science journalist?

I have to say, prepping for this session has really only increased my uncertainty (and my anxiety) about how to answer that question.

Let me first ask the room: How many of you often, or at least occasionally, refer to yourselves as “science journalists”? [less than half the hands went up.]

Now: How many of you make all or most of your income from science journalism? [surprisingly, more hands went up, rather than less.]

And how many of you refer to yourselves as “science bloggers”? [relatively few hands went up.]

And how many of you make most of your income from science blogging? [even fewer hands up.]

So clearly, we have a bit of a conundrum here.

When I ask myself the question, “Am I a Science Journalist?” it’s kind of like figuring out which box to check on Facebook for your relationship status. Sometimes, I feel like science journalism and I are in an “open relationship.” I can do other things.

Sometimes, I just feel like just checking the ...

Al Gore and the Enlightenment Ethic

Chris Mooney — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:18:47 +0000

Everybody is talking, and rightly so, about the big Al Gore piece in Rolling Stone on science, reason, and the climate crisis. And it is, indeed, quite a tour de force. Gore is not only a charismatic leader (now that he’s not running for president), he’s a great writer.

Nevertheless, I’m afraid to say that Gore is operating, big time, in liberal Enlightenment mode–precisely what I critiqued in The American Prospect. Let’s give some examples of Gore’s Enlightenment rhetoric:

Admittedly, the contest over global warming is a challenge for the referee because it’s a tag-team match, a real free-for-all. In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.

And:

We haven’t gone nuts — but the “conversation of democracy” has become so deeply dysfunctional that our ability to make intelligent collective decisions has been seriously impaired. Throughout American history, we relied on the vibrancy of our public square — and the quality of our democratic discourse — to make better decisions than most nations in the history of the world. But we are now routinely making really bad decisions that completely ...

Am I a Science Journalist?

Chris Mooney — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:10:13 +0000

It’s quite the question these days, for all of us. And it’s the subject of a panel I have organized for the World Conference of Science Journalists in Doha, which begins in just a few days now:

Am I a Science Journalist?

In the evolving world of science communication, how do we define a science journalist? This panel will discuss whether the venerable word “journalist” can or should be applied to some, all, or none of the new generation of science bloggers and educators who are remaking the field.

Producer/moderator

Chris Mooney, Discover; Point of Inquiry (USA)

Panelists

Ed Yong, Not Exactly Rocket Science (UK)
Moheb Costandi, Neurophilosophy (UK)
Homayoun Kheyri, freelance; BBC World Service (Australia/Iran)
Cristine Russell, Council for the Advancement of Science Writing; Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (USA)

The panelists have to figure out the “answer” to the question more than I do, but it is certainly a conundrum, when almost nobody has a staff job at a publication any longer. Do all science bloggers count as science journalists? The thought gives me pause–I don’t think all of them practice the norms of journalism, though some clearly do.

I ...

When it Comes to Expertise, Even If You’re Outnumbered You Can Always Fight a Guerilla War

Chris Mooney — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:43:33 +0000

This is the third in a series of posts elaborating on my recent American Prospect magazine article entitled “The Reality Gap: Now more than Ever, Republicans and Democrats are separated by expertise–and by facts.”

In my last two posts about my American Prospect piece, I showed how the Democratic Party today has become the chosen party of experts and “empirical professionals,” but also that conservatives have plenty of experts of their own and, indeed, have made a conscious attempt to cultivate them, while also bashing liberal experts for bias. Thus, both sides have many more allied thinkers than they did in the 1970s.

Now, in the third post–this time, the bulk of it is at DeSmogBlog–I explain the psychological consequences of this dynamic. The upshot is when it comes to expertise, you can always fight a guerilla war. Why? Brief excerpt:

First, the experts on both sides argue with each other—in print, on tv, in their own minds, or wherever—and both sides become more convinced they’re right. The theory ofmotivated reasoning predicts that the sophisticated are capable of becoming more extreme and polarized, thanks to both their confidence and also their competence. They’re better at reinforcing their own ...

My New Feature Story in the American Prospect: “The Reality Gap”

Chris Mooney — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:46:17 +0000

How do you explain the current factual and scientific divide that separates the two U.S. political parties today? In the latest American Prospect, I’ve taken a stab.

The explanation isn’t simple–there are many moving parts–but also some key fundamentals: 1) Democrats have vastly more Ph.D.s and experts, and seem to be more factually correct about contested issues; 2) Republicans nevertheless have enough of their own experts and aren’t giving up; 3) neither Democrats nor Republicans are inherently anti-science or anti-expertise, but they rely on these for very different reasons, and do not both share the “Enlightenment ethic” of using science and reason to forge a better society; 4) all this is set against a rightward shifting political backdrop since about 1970; 5) all of the foregoing, in combination with psychology and media, leave us with a “postmodern” discourse that helps nobody. Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness,” writ large.

Anyway, that’s the very, very brief rundown. Here’s how the piece opens:

In March, it was Kerry Emanuel’s turn to do what so many of his colleagues have done before: defend their knowledge and expertise against congressional Republicans.

Emanuel is a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of ...

Fox’s Media Bias and Climate Change

Chris Mooney — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:27:59 +0000

We already know that Fox News viewers are much more likely to be misinformed about the science of climate change. Now, a new study from Media Matters (h/t Kate Sheppard) provides some numbers about the kind of biased coverage that produces this type of result.

Media Matters didn’t look directly at scientific statements–instead they looked at the number of guests, across TV news, who were either for or against EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. Still, presuming that the anti-regulation guests also made misleading scientific statements (no big assumption, given the way this debate tends to go), the result is closely related. And even if they did not, the strong bias with respect to policy vies hints at the likely bias with respect to science:

Media Matters analyzed television news guests who discussed the Environmental Protection Agency’s role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from December 2009 through April 2011. Driven largely by Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network, results show that in 76 percent of those appearances, the guest was opposed to EPA regulations while 18 percent were in favor.

Drilling down on Fox in particular:

81% Of Fox Guests ...

Tornadoes, or Not Tornadoes? Or, How The Media Mis-Covers Climate

Chris Mooney — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:48:05 +0000

Sometimes, it is important to critique one’s allies. A case in point is this piece, by Sharon Begley, which I understand was both at Newsweek and The Daily Beast.

On the latter site it starts off like this:

In a world of climate change, freak storms are the new normal. Newsweek’s Sharon Begley on why we’re unprepared for the harrowing future, and how adapting to the inevitable might be our only option.

Joplin, Missouri, was prepared. The tornado warning system gave residents 24 minutes’ notice that a twister was bearing down on them. Doctors and nurses at St. John’s Regional Medical Center, who had practiced tornado drills for years, moved fast, getting patients away from windows, closing blinds, and activating emergency generators. And yet more than 130 people died in Joplin, including four people at St. John’s, where the tornado sucked up the roof and left the building in ruins, like much of the shattered city.

Even those who deny the existence of global climate change are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year. In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage. The Midwest ...

Is There Any More Research Out There on Fox and the Facts?

Chris Mooney — Fri, 20 May 2011 16:41:58 +0000

On Wednesday I did a post that I knew would draw a lot of comment, listing five studies showing that people who watch Fox News are more likely to be misinformed about an array of issues–the Iraq War, global warming, health care, the Ground Zero mosque, and the 2010 election. This research was all out there in the ether; I just pulled it together.

To this synthesis, there were many replies–but none of the comments that I’ve seen have pointed out that my rundown of studies was incomplete in some way. I find this kind of surprising. One of the studies I cited was from 2003; all the rest were from the last year or so. It would be odd if nothing were lying in between.

This post, then, is just to ask again whether anyone has come across other research pertinent to this subject–Fox, and the facts. If so, post it in the comments.

The Intersection » Media and Science