Media Coverage of Climate

Posted by on

Chris Mooney, in his excellent CJR piece on media coverage of political/science controversies, quotes from a study by Maxwell T. Boykoff and Jules M. Boykoff of the coverage of climate controversies in major newspapers:

The Boykoffs analyzed a random sample of 636 articles. They found that a majority ? 52.7 percent ? gave ?roughly equal attention? to the scientific consensus view that humans contribute to climate change and to the energy-industry-supported view that natural fluctuations suffice to explain the observed warming. By comparison, just 35.3 percent of articles emphasized the scientific consensus view while still presenting the other side in a subordinate fashion. Finally, 6.2 percent emphasized the industry-supported view, and a mere 5.9 percent focused on the consensus view without bothering to provide the industry/skeptic counterpoint.

Not to be outdone, the Media Research Center?s Free Market Project has done a study of its own:

No Science Debate Allowed: Broadcast news programs presented the claims of liberal environmentalists that global warming is a given, that mankind is to blame for it, or both, 55 percent of the time (77 stories). That?s six times more often than they showed valid scientific objection to global warming theories.

“Claims of liberal environmentalists?” That’s a bit of a giveway.

Adopting the Tactics of the Other Side

Posted by on

One of my frustrations with the climate change debate is the way both sides misuse the science. I’ve brought this up before with respect to hurricanes, and Roger Pielke Jr. today notes that it’s happening again:

On occasion here at Prometheus we’ve observed that within the scientific community proponents of action to mitigate climate change have an increasing tendency to misjustify, overstate, or misuse science in support of their agenda. By engaging in such hyperbole, the scientist-advocates are, ironically enough, adopting some of the exact same tactics that opponents of action to mitigate climate change have been criticized for by many of the exact same proponents of action.

Blogging the Now

Posted by on

There’s this ethos in the blogword where you’ve gotta be snap snap now, blogging at the speed of light the coolest things that you’ve heard about right this instant. But one of my favorite reads is Rich Burridge, who cheerfully does the exact opposite (that’s Rich on articles he found in the January 1989 Omni).

Another favorite, from the August 1992 Smithsonian – fish that don’t look like fish.

I imagine Rich with a big stack of old magazines in the den – maybe he’s picking them up at garage sales, or even better, maybe he’s saved them the whole time.

It’s a great antidote to the hubris of the now.

Michael Fumento Doesn’t Let Up

Posted by on

The back story: On my other blog, I also discussed the whole Fumento/Lambert/Lancet thing, observing that “We’re left with two possibilities here, neither of them pleasant. Fumento, who styles himself a journalist, either misrepresented the study’s conclusions, or he hadn’t read it.”

The thoughtful Mr. Fumento responds, via email:

First, it seems to me that any nationally syndicated columnist, including those I can’t stand, is a journalist — whether John Fleck acknowledges it or not. Second, I dropped one of my arguments from the TCS piece only because it confused people with simple minds. Like you. As it happens, I also had to cut 200 words even as I added in new information. So we are faced with two possibilities here, neither pleasant. A) You’re not particularly bright; B) You’re not particularly bright.

This guy’s great! He should get a blog!

More From Fumento

Posted by on

I got an email today from the ever-thoughtful Michael Fumento:

Earth to Inkstain and Lambert: Other than Inkstain caring what Lambert says and Lambert caring about what Inkstain says (perhaps), nobody cares what either of you says. Not only are you fully contained in the blogosphere, you’re actually in a much tinier realm than that. Meanwhile of the many places my piece on the Lancet trash appeared is today’s Daily News, weekend population above 500,000. You attack not out of a sense that injustice has been done regarding the Lancet report, but out of jealousy. But if you cleaned up your act, you might just find that somebody somewhere, even with a circulation of ten, would occassionally print you. Alas, you will not. You are a lost cause.

I am of course chastened and humbled by Mr. Fumento’s obviously superior intellect and publishing prowess. Maybe, if I clean up my act, I might just find that somebody, somewhere, even with a circulation of 110,000, might regularly publish my work. Wouldn’t that be cool!

Return of the Cranes

Posted by on

Saw my first Sandhill cranes of the season, picking through a plowed-under chile field along the river in the South Valley. They’re big birds, the biggest you see ’round here, tall with a six-plus-foot wingspan. Their bodies are a drab grey, which makes their red crest all the more striking. They migrate here for the winter, making a healthy living picking through the bits the farmers leave behind.

Gladwell on Resiliency

Posted by on

A friend points out Malcolm Gladwell’s latest, on our remarkable resiliency, as opposed to our 21st century commitment to long-term suffering:

We suffer from what Wilson and Gilbert call an impact bias: we always assume that our emotional states will last much longer than they do. We forget that other experiences will compete for our attention and emotions. We forget that our psychological immune system will kick in and take away the sting of adversity. ?When I talk about our research, I say to people, ?I?m not telling you that bad things don?t hurt,?? Gilbert says. ?Of course they do. It would be perverse to say that having a child or a spouse die is not a big deal. All I?m saying is that the reality doesn?t meet the expectation.?

On the Bus

Posted by on

What was it the Merry Pranksters used to say? “You’re either on the bus or you’re off the bus.”

Daughter Nora sends along this:

So, yesterday, i was feeling a little dejected from the results of the election as I stepped on the bus. Following me, was a class of small children around first or second grade. This entire class took up most of the bus, so I sat at the back with a few of the kids. There were two boys who were back there, and one of the boys was taunting the other one “You like boys, you like boys!” The boy who was being taunted pouted and then glared, “My GRAMMA says it’s okay to like BOYS.”

What? Way to go, Gramma!

And then a bunch of other kids got caught up in the conversation. I thought they were going to be picking on the boy too, but no, they joined his side! “My uncle likes boys!” “My sister likes girls.” “My uncle likes boys and his boyfriend brings me COOKIES!” and so on and so on. The teacher just smiled and sat back, letting them handle it.

At that moment, even if just for a moment, i realized that Life really isn’t -that- bad.