Reporting climate change - badly
The New Statesman magazine published an article by David Whitehouse on 19th Dec ‘Has Global Warming Stopped?’ which claimed that the science on CO2 emissions was wrong, and that the world was not heating up in the manner that we now, generally, understand. Whitehouse stated that, based on his analysis of the data:
Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.
Over 600 people wrote in to complain about the veracity of the analysis, and established environmental journalists and campaigner Mark Lynas also responded, pointing out that:
[The author David] Whitehouse got it wrong - completely wrong. The article is based on a very elementary error: a confusion between year-on-year variability and the long-term average… So, a mistaken article reached a flawed conclusion. Intentionally or not, readers were misled…
The journalist’s analysis of the science was wrong. The debate around whether or not we can trust the science needs to be left behind for two reasons. First, it is proven beyond most reasonable doubt. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth report uses statements linked to statistical analysis that show how climate change through human activity is now ‘highly probable’. And second, many are now arguing the cautionary principle: that it is better to act regardless, rather than do nothing just to find out the science was right all along. Can it be left unsaid that the reason the magazine gives for ceasing action on global warming is to save money? Well, I’ve just said it… Not as eloquently as Mark Lynas, however, who explains the precautionary principle as:
Yes, scientific uncertainties remain in every area of the debate. But consider how high the stakes are here. If the 99% of experts who support the mainstream position are right, then we have to take urgent action to reduce emissions or face some pretty catastrophic consequences. If the 99% are wrong, and the 1% right, we will be making some unnecessary efforts to shift away from fossil fuels, which in any case have lots of other drawbacks and will soon run out. I’d hate to offend anyone here, but that’s what I’d call a no-brainer.
Mark is in fact the environment editor for The New Statesman.
I’m writing this on the train to Sunderland. It’s just gone 8am and the sky is a dusty blue; I’m just outside Newark, and the fields on either side of the train line are flooded. Floods do more damage to civilisation than any other form of extreme weather event. Already predictions are that 2008 will be Britain’s wettest year ever. Warmer winters and wetter summers are one of the more general trends, for the UK at least, of what we know as anthropogenic (human caused) climate change.
This is why the reporting of climate change and the representation of the environmental within the media is hugely important, and must be carried out with ever more rigorous journalistic standards, particular where the analysis of science and data is involved. Dana Phillips expresses this mandate clearly in his book The Truth in Ecology, where, regardless of a theory or agenda, the writer (journalist, critic, academic or blogger) must, in the case of the environment, demur to science and accurate, proven, scientific truths. There is more to write on this.
One last thing. The Press Gazette picks up on Private Eye’s comments about The New Statesman and its recent fall in standards of accuracy after its two revise subs - ‘whose job it was to check everything’ - were recently ’sacked by the Barclay [brothers who own the magazine] regime’. Is this a case of issues of ownership affecting the editorial output of the magazine, even indirectly?
Related posts:
- ‘Balance as bias’ in climate change reporting In a New York Times Dot Earth post on 'Climate...
- Climate science reporting: detecting bias The Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News (ClimateSci.org; one of...
- Climate reporting: good, bad, experimental: 1 A number of posts this week from Fiona Fox, Charlie...
- Media’s responsibility to climate change The UK tabloids and US broadsheets were both in the...
- Climate reporting: good, bad, experimental: 2 Yesterday I looked at an example of bad environment reporting....
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
January 19th, 2008 at 11:46 am
You have not reported the article in the New Statesman accurately or fairly. Firstly 600 people did not write in to complain. In fact the majority of the comments were favourable and supportive to Dr Whitehouse’s article. In addition Dr Whitehouse has not said anything radical. If you look at the data produced by the UK Met Office for example you will see that they say the past 7 years are statistically indistinguishable. What Dr Whitehouse asked is that why has the temperature of the earth remained flat when CO2 emissions have rised by 10% in the same period - a valid question that needs an answer. It’s actually yourself that is reporting things badly.
[Reply]
January 19th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Thanks William for your comments. There are a couple of things that I agree with. My headline was far too loaded. And you are right, a large proportion of the comments on the article are in support of Dr Whitehouse’s argument. I picked up this viewpoint straight from the pages of the Press Gazette, and did not spend enough time on the comments to reassess the debate. So I print this as a correction. However, reading Mark Lynas’ response, and particularly his explanation of the data half-way down his entry, he provides a clear, and scientifically-supported, rebuttal of Whitehouse’s “cherry picking” of the data. This, more than anything, is what I wanted to question, as it happens time and again that people (including me) are not careful enough in our reporting, particularly (but not only) online.
I am not a mathematician or scientist, but I have tried to understand the science to be able to write appropriately on the subject. First, on this particular blogosphere debate, I have found the analysis of Tamino at Open Mind extremely useful, and not only talking to the converted. Second, having studied the representation of climate change, I wanted to ensure I understood the phenomenon historically. I would definitely recommend James Fleming’s ‘Historical Perspectives of Climate Change’ (Oxford University Press, 1998). Fleming is pretty even-handed in his history of how climate change has been measured and viewed, and it gives credence to the argument that the world is indeed warming up (and yes, back in the 1950s, when Vanity Fair published an article on the subject, the world thought it a good thing).
And back to the more qualitative data: you may notice that Mark Lynas’ blog at http://www.marklynas.com is powered by Spanner, who also make films. One of which is called ‘Baked Alaska’. The documentary evidence they provide in that film is difficult to refute. It’s only 26 minutes, I would highly recommend it to you.
Chris Rapley, new head of London’s Science Museum, was recently quoted in an interview saying: “So many roads lead to the polar regions, if you really want to understand how the planet works… I am in a position to have seen the evidence that climate change is real, is caused by humans, and it’s serious enough that we need to do something about it.” I have not been lucky enough to visit the Antarctic, but as someone who sometimes has doubts about the science (but not too often) I want to see this huge part of our planet before it disappears. As I’m sure you know, it has disappeared before. But never so quickly.
[Reply]
January 19th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Amazing what u can find on the internet - bad reporting.
Given your inaccurate reporting I am glad I am not one of your students!
The analysis by Lynas, taken from Real Climate is, is poor, anyone with any knowledge of statistics can see that. I see there is a full and convincing rebutal here
http://eye-uk.blogspot.com/2008/01/british-government-renames-islamic.html
I suggest you read the artticle by Whitehouse properly but then that obviously isn’t your style.
[Reply]
January 19th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Thanks for your comments Brian. The email explanation from Dr Whitehouse on Eye-UK is a fair response, but it doesn’t convince me that claims for global warming to have stopped “perhaps permanently” can be supported. The body of statistics, from the early work of the British meteorologist G Callendar (who first reported anthropogenic climate change through the burning of fossil fuels in 1938) right through to the contemporary climate data available at NASA GISS, remain for me convincing.
What this debate has certainly done is persuade me to return to the data analysis. I’ve just put this blog up as a long term resource for my work as I return to teaching and research after a gap away. What I perhaps have done is fall into the same trap as Dr Whitehouse when reporting on environmental issues: a certain blindness to broad analysis, and an eager use of subtle but still powerful rhetoric.
The language of Dr Whitehouse’s article is crafted to stimulate those eager to either support or contradict his claims. It set out to be contentious in its syntax and the form, not only the content, of its argument. He’s a very good writer for populist science readers, as attested by his plaudits on http://www.davidwhitehouse.com. I imagine that’s why Mark Lynas took longer to reflect on his response.
I’d like to analyse this article in more depth, and will post more fully on the rhetoric of reporting climate change very soon. For me, Dr Whitehouse begins his article by arguing for an effort to understand what is happening in his assessment of the data, before “hundreds of billions of pounds” are spent “needlessly”. His final line asserts: “We must explain why global warming has stopped.” His argument is, essentially, that we must not act–spend money on mitigation activities–until we explain this new factor. And that is a perspective. But not one that I particularly wish to support. The weight of evidence still persuades me that a precautionary principle should be taken. As do the stories: have you read Elizabeth Kolbert’s ‘Field Notes from a Catastrophe’?
[Reply]
March 19th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Suggest you download NASA GISS latest data jan07 to jan08 on land/ocean temperatures - it will be described as a ‘blip in the general trend’ and it may take another three or four years before the whole anthropogenic co2 hypothesis has to be revised - whitehouse is right, solar magnetics is the main driver - and the recent fall was predicted by Theodore Landscheidt in 2003 paper in Energy & the Environment- a full analysis will be available on ethos website in next week or so - also - it DOES matter what the main driver is because at this stage, global cooling if only for a decade, will wreak havoc on world food supplies, and the co2 mania takes resources in the opposite direction - there IS no mitigation, and adapatation is crucial but attracts absolutely minimal resources -
regards
Peter
[Reply]
October 27th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
alex,
i respect,but firmly disagree with your comments.
einstein was reported as saying,one questioning scientist should be listened to.
there are many questioning,there are few deniers,almost all sceptical of the assertions surrounding the hypothesis of catastrophe,agree that warming is happening,what is in doubt,and has to be proven,not to a limited degree,but scientifically proven method that humans are causing the problem,this has not happened.
why do you wish to stifle debate?we would all be better informed if regular discussions took place,fair,balanced argument,all the information exposed.this does’nt happen,
you have all the media(most) reporting as you wish,bloggers offer information to the contrary,that’s democratic.
i don’t agree with you,i believe that you are wrong,but i defend your right to be heard,where will the sceptical be heard??we have rights too.
best wishes.
[Reply]