See David Roberts's follow-up post on this topic.
--
Today brings two of the most jaw-droppingly moronic stories I've ever seen, both in Politico, both written by Erika Lovley, who one can only assume is either the most dimwitted, gullible reporter in D.C. or ... um, I can't think of another explanation.
Remember those articles you'd see five years ago, "balanced" stories on global warming science quoting the same small group of deniers, citing the same debunked myths, and conspicuously failing to reference a single peer-reviewed scientific paper or reputable scientific organization? The ones you thought self-respecting media organizations had finally tired of running?
These are worse than that. In a sane world they would prompt a retraction and an apology from Politico, not to mention professional embarrassment for every reporter who shares an office with Lovley.
It looks like she has fallen for press releases from Marc Morano, Sen. James Inhofe's house blogger. Morano sends trashy blasts to reporters all the time, but most of them have the good sense to ignore him. Seems he found a mark.
First, "Scientists urge caution on global warming" begins this way:
Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.
The most notable feature of this "growing accumulation of global cooling science" is that Lovley doesn't cite a single piece of it. Seriously. Not one.
Lovley tells us that a "small, growing number of scientists" are questioning the consensus on warming. Who are these scientists? First, there's notorious skeptic and Weather Channel founder Joseph D'Aleo, who is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. He's also a member of the American Meteorological Association, which considers him an outlier and is one among dozens of scientific bodies that have endorsed the scientific consensus. D'Aleo's signal contribution is to refute climate science using ... the Farmer's Almanac.
The only other scientist cited by name is ... wait for it ... Patrick Michaels, the oldest, crustiest, most quoted skeptic on the planet. (You may recall that Virginia's governor recently asked him to stop embarrassing the state by using the title "state climatologist.")
The same old skeptics. Where is this "growing number"? Oh, wait:
More than 31,000 scientists across the world have signed the Global Warming Petition Project, a declaration started by a group of American scientists that states man's impact on climate change can't be reasonably proven.
Yes, Lovley is seriously citing the "petition project" from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which was roundly debunked way back when it first surfaced in 1998 and has been debunked dozens of times since (see, e.g., the National Academy of Sciences, MIT's John Tirman, RealClimate, Tim Lambert, or the Union of Concerned Scientists). The original petition was deceptive; only a handful of signatories come from relevant scientific disciplines; you can put yourself on the petition online. All this could be uncovered with a simple Google search, which was apparently beyond Lovley's journalistic abilities.
As further evidence, Inhofe "aides report that they have received countless e-mails from scientists worldwide supporting [global cooling] theory." They haven't released these names or emails, but hey, if Inhofe aides say so it must be legit, right? Who's more credible on climate science than James Inhofe and his aides?
In the entire article, not one scientist is quoted defending basic global warming consensus, which is supported by a vast array of peer-reviewed research and the vast majority of climate scientists. The one countervailing quote goes ... to Al Gore's spokeswoman.
But all that circa-'90s dumbassery pales before the second story, "Tracking 'The Gore Effect'," which is about the "effect" whereby it gets cold or snows when Al Gore speaks.
That's really what the story is about.
It contains this priceless passage, which is my nominee for the single stupidest sentence written by any journalist this year, possibly this century:
While there's no scientific proof that The Gore Effect is anything more than a humorous coincidence, some climate skeptics say it may offer a snapshot of proof that the planet isn't warming as quickly as some climate change advocates say.
Read that again. "Some" skeptics say it "may" offer a "snapshot of proof" that the planet isn't warming "as quickly" as "some climate change advocates" say. A journalist wrote that sentence. Politico published it.
If this is the level of journalism Politico finds appropriate, do you think you can trust its other stories?
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Senate Democrats push climate bill through committee
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Comments
View as Flat
Smokey Posted 6:39 am
25 Nov 2008
"In the entire article, not one scientist is quoted defending basic global warming consensus, which is supported by a vast array of peer-reviewed research and the vast majority of climate scientists."
Screw quotes. Screw peer review. Screw consensus.
There's a basic tenet of science that you're missing here: real scientists test their hypotheses and produce new data. Period. That's what's missing from global warming skeptics, antievolutionists, antivaccationists, and those who claim that animal research doesn't work.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 8:02 am
25 Nov 2008
But getting a bunch of scientists together such as the IPCC to reach a consensus must have been like trying to make cats march in a parade! Scientists don't do "consensus" unless somehow their work is peer reviewed, replicated, and somehow years later their work becomes the accepted norm. Last I checked, there were some hypotheses and theories that Einstein proposed (relativity, unified theory) that still have not been completely vetted.
Matter of fact, most scientists hate each others guts - by profession, university, corporation, politics, where they publish, or whatever.
You have to admit one thing, the Conservative Model really works and it has scared the chit out of the people who really do treat this stuff seriously, as a threat to our environment and ecology: us liberals. People actually believe that line of hooey!
sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Smokey Posted 9:05 am
25 Nov 2008
I know, but politics is about framing, and the "skeptics" are winning politically when we adopt their frames. Such battles should never be fought on the basis of credentials, quotes, or consensus--just the data.
For me, the most effective frame is a parody of the milk ads. Just ask, "Got data? Until you generate some, you're not practicing science in this matter."
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:44 am
25 Nov 2008
Given that the review paper citing abstracts of a series of reports and summarizing findings into a concise whole is a well known and practiced scientific technique I don't see the validity of your criticism.
A valid criticism is that the so-called "journalist" in the politico piece is in no way qualified to judge the difference between legitimate scientific findings and political blather by whack jobs with science degrees. Not that I have a science degree but I can recognize there is a difference between peer reviewed works and Anthony Watts blog.
Politico's acceptance and promotion of such low-standard work should taint the rest of site. It screams "we'll accept any old trash as content" reducing it from journalism to something akin to Twitter.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:55 am
25 Nov 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 12:34 pm
25 Nov 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:57 pm
25 Nov 2008
This IS the level of competence on foxnews, she is well suited to work there. And since Rupert the pirate (arrrhhh) now owns the Wall Street journal, she might even be hired there too?
Meanwhile over at the NYT, we see Bill Kristol. So tell me again how this woman has violated modern journalistic standards? Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Smokey Posted 12:15 am
26 Nov 2008
"Smokey, your criticism of the OP is that it doesn't cite data..."
Not at all. My criticism is that the practice of quoting people concedes too much to pseudoscientists.
"... when in fact it cites numerous sources that summarize and collate legitimate scientific findings and only legitimate scientific findings."
You've checked them all? Do you realize that very few reviews are peer-reviewed?
"Given that the review paper citing abstracts of a series of reports and summarizing findings into a concise whole is a well known and practiced scientific technique I don't see the validity of your criticism."
Given that reviews (they cite papers, not just abstracts) don't count as scientific productivity and are rarely peer-reviewed, I think you don't understand my point at all.
"A valid criticism is that the so-called "journalist" in the politico piece is in no way qualified to judge the difference between legitimate scientific findings and political blather by whack jobs with science degrees."
I agree. That is shown more effectively by making the top criterion the production of new data, not by gathering quotes from both "sides."
"Not that I have a science degree but I can recognize there is a difference between peer reviewed works and Anthony Watts blog."
So, do you realize that reviews are rarely "peer reviewed works"?
"Politico's acceptance and promotion of such low-standard work should taint the rest of site. It screams "we'll accept any old trash as content" reducing it from journalism to something akin to Twitter."
I agree completely. My only criticism of the piece here was the concession of important ground to climate change deniers.
Permalink
bkrell Posted 6:18 am
26 Nov 2008
Permalink
Anna Haynes Posted 11:47 am
26 Nov 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:45 pm
26 Nov 2008
Intern/reporter
The Wall Street Journal
(Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; DJ; Newspapers industry)
September 2006 -- December 2006 (4 months)
I traveled to Phoenix, Tampa and New Orleans to cover various aspects of the 2006 Congressional races. I also blogged for Washington Wire.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
hank Posted 4:04 pm
26 Nov 2008
Repeating the bogosity only reinforces it in people's memories.
Got facts? Cites?
And well said, Anna. Agreeing with you:
[new] See Mashey on this
Best commentary on this so far: John Mashey's
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:28 pm
26 Nov 2008
Those dimmest bulbs are the executives. They actually believe foxnews/rush radio bullshit like this reporter regurgitated onto Politico.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 5:07 pm
26 Nov 2008
Whiskerfish
Permalink
busby Posted 2:26 am
27 Nov 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:02 am
27 Nov 2008
Is this typical? "Fair and balanced" blatant outdated, controversial talking points often increase readers for awhile, who then find the IT department is under funded. And thus never bother to return.
I didn't save a link to Politico, will any new readers, given the problematic operation of their site? Probably not.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
bobclive Posted 6:55 am
28 Nov 2008
Permalink
naught101 Posted 3:12 pm
03 Dec 2008
check out http://www.envirowiki.info, the knowledge database for environmentalists and activists.
Permalink