Media attempts to show balance too often create distortion for many issues. This just might be worst in with science issues, where advocates of "sound science" are able to exploit the desire for "balance" as they seek to create uncertainty to undermine public will to action on critical issues. For decades, the tobacco industry managed to forestall serious action through their disinformation and confusion efforts. Efforts to recast Global Warming as somehow natural "Climate Change" are in this tradition -- but threaten the planet's health and humanity's future rather than 'simply' the health of 100s of millions of people.
Today's Washington Post had a clear example of this confusing and distorting pursuit of fair and balanced in their letters section entitled "At the Least, the Debate is Heating Up".
After a series of articles re the 'freak' warm weather in the Washington, DC, area (such as 7 January's Seldom Heard in January: Hot Enough for Ya?), The Washington Post published two letters re Global Warming coverage today under the headline At the Least, the Debate Is Heating Up.
The first letter, by Rebecca Frank, is by someone who clearly knows the science and raises questions about the focus of Post coverage:
I'm shocked that The Post would run a prominent front-page story on the freakish 73-degree January heat and relegate the real news -- that it may or may not be connected to global warming -- to the 23rd paragraph, choosing to focus instead on jolly sun worshipers out in their cars, cramming area parking lotsWith 2006 the warmest year on record in the United States and 2007 shaping up to be even warmer, it won't be long before sitting by the pool in January no longer qualifies as news.
Kudos for Frank for writing ... can't disagree with anything ... and kudos to The Post for publishing.
That is, kudos for The Post until we get to the necessity for a fair and balanced letters section. Joseph Parisi's letter is exactly in the 'spread confusion and doubt' tradition.
In the past three weeks alone, The Post has run no fewer than six articles about global warming, five of them on the front page [Dec. 20, 23 and 27 and Jan. 7 and 10] and a news story on Dec. 19, as well as an editorial [Jan. 7] and three Tom Toles editorial cartoons [Dec. 18 and 24 and Jan. 8].
Good for The Post, its readers, and us (US). I would say that it is about time that The Post start treating Global Warming as a seirous issue meriting serious coverage. (Even though, as above, the seriousness and quality of coverage can be questioned. (For another perspective on this, see Cunctator's
Global warming? Don't ask a weatherman (WaPo edition).)
I'm still waiting, however, for The Post to run just one article explaining why, despite all of this alarmism, we had no hurricanes above Category 3 during the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season and why none of any size hit the United States. If we are to believe Al Gore's claim in "An Inconvenient Truth" that hurricanes Rita and Katrina in 2005 were the products of global warming, how does he explain away the 2006 hurricane season?
Classic questioning and doubt creation.
1. Gore did not claim that any specific storm or storm season was caused by Global Warming -- just that increased storm intensity is exactly in line with what modeling of Global Warming tells us would occur.
2. More broadly, while Global Warming (catastrophic climate change, the climate crisis) modeling shows that there will be more extreme weather patterns (with more extreme rain events and, seemingly at odds, but sensible when discussed, more droughts; more severe storms (Hurricanes / Typhoons / Torados) with lack of clarity over whether there will be more) in a general trend that will intensify as global temperatures increase (inexorably) with increased CO2 (and other GHG gasses). There is not (NOT) any ability to definitely define any specific weather event as 'caused' by Global Warming. It is dangerous to say that a day is warm 'because of Global Warming' as opposed to saying that the weather is in line with the changes that Global Warming suggests will be occurring.
Again, classic questioning which is about to worsen ...
I'm pretty sure that residents of Denver, having been hit by three blizzards in as many weeks, would welcome some global warming right about now.
Wow, look at all that snow, doesn't that prove that Global Warming is BS? Well, we just had the news that 2006 was the warmest year on record in the United States. Globally, there are 146 years of thermometer records. Were you alive in 1861? I wasn't. Were you alive in 1990? I was. Does it say anything that the hottest 11 years of the past 146 have all occurred since 1990? (By the way, the numbers aren't in front of me, but it is something like the hottest 21 of 25 are in the past 25 years ... something like that -- don't hold me to that (correct me in a post ...).)
Of course, Parisi's seemingly innocent questioning doesn't end there as Parisi continues to take material seemingly straight from the Frank Luntz school of school of Global Warming (oops -- Climate Change) skepticism.
The bigger issue, though, is this: Many of the same global-warming doomsayers of today were warning 30 years ago of forthcoming cataclysmic global cooling. Were they wrong then, or are they wrong now? And if they were wrong then, why should we believe them now?
There is mass scientific consensus about the reality of Global Warming and that humanity's activities are contributing to an acceleration. There is debate, perhaps, over the speed and extent of implications, but there is no questioning of basic facts.
Parisi statement that "many of the same ... doomsayers were warning ... of global cooling" is, at best, incredibly misleading.
* There were concerns about cooling -- dimming -- due in no small part to sulphur and other emissions from coal electricity generation that were spewing particulates into the atmosphere that were reflecting solar radiation. And, by the way, that were contributing (causing) such pleasant side effects like acid rain. Efforts to control that damage and other implications reduced the particulates, allowing the solar radiation in, and enabling the increasing CO2 to capture this radiation.
* More importantly, "the bigger issue", is that there was no scientific consensus around "cataclysmic global cooling". There was no Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that had multiple reports, with basically every nation in the world signing onto the report, that agreed on the basic science and many of the implications. Global Warming / Climate Change has a scientific consensus that never existed with global cooling -- which was a hypothesis that did not stand up to scientific scrutiny, but which caught on in the journalist (tabloid-like) community.
This inability to separate deep scientific agreement from developing concepts is one that doubters seek to exploit. From Frank Luntz's guidance re Global Warming:
"The scientific debate remains open. [NOTE: Not true.] Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. [NOTE: Sadly, true.] Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate ..."
One of the (many) powerful slides in Gore's briefing/An Inconvenient Truth for me derives from the study comparing scientific studies (no questioning of Global Warming) with media reporting (53% of articles with skeptics being given 'balance'). (Boykoff's & Boykoff's Balance as Bias (pdf) documents how news reporting systematically suggests uncertainty in the scientific community -- an uncertainty and discord that is not seen when looking at scientists' own writings, work, and words.
The idea that journalistic practices systematically create a bias against accurate reporting is not exactly "news" to those who study journalism and did not appear first in An Inconvenient Truth. For example, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University had a special issue re Global Warming (pdf) of Nieman Reports in Winter 2005. Here are two of its articles: Context and Controversy: Global Warming Coverage which notes that: "journalistic practices -- such as objectivity and striving for balance -- contribute to conveying this message of uncertainty." See also Ross Geldspan's Disinformation, Financial Pressures, and Misplaced Balance: A reporter describes the systemic forces that work against the story of climate change being accurately told.
The Union of Concerned Scientists just published Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change, which documents one of the major efforts to foster uncertainty about Global warming/Climate Change to forestall any real action.
Thus, there are those with real political and fiscal imperatives to foster doubt and uncertainty about Global Warming. The Washington Post's publication of Parisi's letter is yet another clear example of just how well that works.
The Washington Post's letters section At the Least, the Debate Is Heating Up is such excellent example of why we must question media reporting on scientific (and other serious) issues. "Fair and Balanced" means ill-informed all too often ... and not just for Fox News.
MY DRAFT LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Joseph Parisi's letter to the editor is classic Global Warming skeptic material, stating seemingly reasonable questioning to foster doubt among readers but without ability to stand up to serious scrutiny. Parisi points to few serious hurricanes in 2006 and snow in Denver as reasons to question Global Warming, even though worldwide data shows that the eleven hottest global temperature years (since records began in 1861) have been since 1990. Parisi points to 'cataclysmic global cooling' hypotheses from 40 years ago as proving that the global scientific consensus around the basic data of Global Warming is hogwash. As with the tobacco industry and cancer, there are those with fiscal and political reasons for fostering doubt in the public when the scientific experts don't share that doubt.About 15 percent of Americans believe that the Apollo missions never occurred and were staged in movie theaters in the desert. Would The Washington Post, in reporting re the space program, seek to be fair and balanced in giving this 15 percent equal voice to Astronauts, Astronomers, and Academic experts? Why give prominent voice to Global Warming / Climate Crisis deniers, who are similarly at odds with facts? Publishing Parisi's letter does a disservice to The Washington Post's credibility, to its readers, and to the nation.
Now, following the LTE, as a board member of a non-profit focused on fostering informed discussion of energy issues, I will offer to set up The Washington Post editorial board, its editors, and its reporters with a session with experts who will walk them through the basic issues so that they are better able to deal with letters like Parisi's.
I will also suggest that The Post consider doing a serious investigative series about scientific consensus on Global Warming and efforts to sow doubt about Global Warming. And, if this investigative reporting backs what I wrote (which I know it would), that The Post then end giving any forum to Global Warming Deniers.
Please use comments for any suggestions about this LTE.
ACTION ITEM:
As I just published an OPED re Energy/NIMBY in the WashPost, I doubt that my LTE on this will be picked up. Thus, please take up the pen (keyboard) with me to send LTEs. But, not just LTEs, also contact editors:
* LTEs: letters AT washpost DOT com
* Ombudsman: ombudsman AT washpost DOT com
* Fred Hiatt: hiattf AT washpost DOT com
* Howard Kurtz: kurtzh AT washpost DOT com
* Jackson Diehl: diehlj AT washpost DOT com
And, don't keep this questioning to just The Washington Post. Challenge questioning reporting re Global Warming whenever you see it. Or praise good reporting and discussions, such as USAToday's 11 January Winter's Worrisome Warming.
NOTES:
1. Consider joining Daily Kos Environmentalists.
2. The definition of a giant in my world is a midget standing on the shoulders of giants. And, re dealing with Global Warming doubters, if I do any good, it is due to the excellent work of others. Some other discussions at DailyKos re this topic include: Deviltower's 12 January Science Friday: There is No Controversy. Re ExxonMobil, see recent diaries by BruinKid (Exxon to cut ties with global warming skeptics! Or so they say), LeftyCoaster (Exxon Condemned For "Manufacturing Uncertainty" About Global Warming), and DaveJ (New Report About Exxon Funding Lies) (last two related to the Union of Concern Scientist's 3 January 2007 report Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change). For an excellent discussion (with a magnificent graphic) of Global Warming deniers, see Eternal Hope's More Elephant Dung on Al Gore debunked.
3. Answer the Call to turn us (US) away from a catastrophic path on Global Warming.
4. And ... Imagine Life Differently ... Imagine it Better ... And Seek to create that better life
Cross posted from Daily Kos
Anyone else writing to The Post?
There's an El Nino.
El Nino is a weather phenonomenon that alters weather patterns. It starts in the Pacific Ocean and then spreads east, globally.
It changes the jet stream and what happened this past summer is that because of that ocscillation, a high pressure area sat over Florida and much of the Southeast and Gulf coasts. Storms were still able to form, but the high pressure acted like a wind shear and it sheared the tops off the storms.
El Ninos also affect weather patterns in our area. It's part of what is responsible for our freakish warm weather. What it does is keep the jet stream from bringing us the normally cold Canadian air and Alberta clippers and other systems that normally would make us cold. Instead, it pumps warmer air from the South up our way.
El Nino has nothing to do with global warming. It's just a phenomenon that arises every few years and is responsible for upending normal weather patterns every place. Once it goes away, by next year, there will be a return to more frequent deadly storms in vulnerable coastal areas because our ocean waters are in fact warmer than in the past and it's that warmer water that provides the fuel for storms.
We'll go back to colder winters but more snow storms because the storms will still churn out of the warmer waters in the South and the colder air from Canada will reach down here again. It's that combination that gives us snowstorms.
Anybody who thinks that a temporary weather phenonemon disproves global warming, as Mr. Parisis seems to, is foolish. We have plenty of data from a large majority of mainstream scientists that our atmosphere is heating up. We have a rise in the ocean's temperature, melting of polar ice caps, a pattern of more frequent severe weather, etc.
Residents in Florida are grateful for this year's reprieve from deadly weather, but know that it's only a temporary reprieve at best. Nobody should stake the future of our planet on one freak year.
Global warming is real. It's not about one 73 degree day in Northern Virginia or lack of storms in Florida and New Orleans. It's about overall patterns that have been traced for years now.