Message from Jan - Keeping mum on climate change?
- 28 Jun 06, 05:32 PM
Over the last month or two the Planet Earth Under Threat team has been talking to scientists worldwide, looking for research and 鈥榮tories鈥 to include in our radio series on climate change. Many of the biologists, ecologists, phenologists and other -ologists we鈥檝e approached are more than happy to talk to us about their research and its possible implications. But we鈥檝e also noticed an unexpected reaction in some quarters: a reluctance to discuss the interpretation of data and occasionally an unwillingness to talk to the media at all. What鈥檚 going on?
Is it simply media fatigue around a current hot topic? That might be part of it, as researchers on high profile and much-quoted studies do get bombarded with requests from reporters and filmmakers for interviews or access to their study sites. However, most such scientists have found workable ways to deal with the interest. For example, when I approached Ian Stirling and Nick Lunn, who head up the well-known in Hudson Bay, they told me they simply limit the number of film crews and journalists they take into their study sites each year to make it manageable.
No, there seems to be something else going on. On the PEuT team we think this is partly down to the media itself: everyone鈥檚 looking for the snappy one-liner, the new sensationalist climate change story that will keep the debate fired up. Understandably, many scientists are wary of making any statements that could be worked over in this way. See Stephen Schneider鈥檚 for a good overview of what the media should keep in mind when reporting on such a complex issue as climate change.
But as well as mis-reporting by the media, some scientists seem reluctant to discuss their findings for fear of criticism from their peers. What could be worse than being accused of being unscientific, of coming to unfounded conclusions that the shifts they鈥檙e recording is caused by climate change? When palaeoclimatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues published a paper showing average world temperature over the last 1000 years and producing the now-famous 鈥榟ockey stick鈥 graph, climate change sceptics were quick to attack his scientific methods. The subtext seems to have been that if his methods were suspect, then the graph showing an upswing in temperatures in the last century or so was wrong and therefore climate change wasn鈥檛 for real. The debate in the scientific press was .
Questioning the reality of climate change is obviously a good thing. It鈥檚 probably true that climate change has been a very easy bandwagon to board: wow, it was hot on Saturday, yep, climate change is obviously on its way鈥 An avocado on a tree in London? Well what do you expect 鈥 it鈥檚 global warming innit?? But, on a serious note, it seems a shame that some researchers now feel apprehensive about discussing the implications of their findings. Surely we need as much information about what鈥檚 happening as possible and an open debate on the subject. It鈥檚 a big topic and the stakes are very high. Could it be the high political and economic stakes that are putting unprecedented pressure on the people at the sharp end - the researchers working in the field?
Comments Post your comment
Jody,
Thanks loads for the Schneider link. It should be required reading for anyone who is truly interested in scientific truth and the uncertainties involved.
You write, "Surely we need as much information about what鈥檚 happening as possible and an open debate on the subject. It鈥檚 a big topic and the stakes are very high." Yes, we do need as much information as possible, but in our age of soundbytes have we the patience to listen to it?
Reading Stephen Schneider's webpage is a good place to start to gain a sense of perspective:
"Citizens' and scientists' unwillingness or inability to enter into the climate change debate has proven to be a mutually reinforcing and devastiating behavior that contributes to false-dichotomy reporting and "in the box" or "balanced" journalism: polarizing an issue (despite it being multifaceted) and making each "side" equally plausible, mainly for the sake of simplicity but sometimes also to "sex up" a story by introducing bipolar conflict. ... To redress the problem, all three groups must raise their consciousness. Journalists do indeed need to replace the knee-jerk model of "journalistic balance" with a more accurate and fairer doctrine of perspective that communicates not only the range of opinion, but also the relative credibility of each opinion within the scientific community. Just as a good scientist records and analyzes all relevant data before reaching conclusions, a good reporter will not just take a story at face value, but will delve deep into the issue to ensure accuracy and see how many varying opinions there truly are."
Thanks again
ed
Complain about this post
An interesting post and I found the link useful too. As someone who specialises in teaching and public outreach in the Geography department of a research led University I work closely with scientists.
I think you have correctly identified most of the problems, however, I suggest the way Scientists are funded may be having an effect. Their careers are centered around building their reputations in their respective areas of expertise, generally there is much less career benefit for them if they explain their science to the public. This leads them to think of talking to the press as a waste of their time, better to invest time in writing another academic paper.
Hopefully this is changing, firstly because the public deserve to have scientist's work explained, ultimately, the public fund us. Secondly, it is vitally important that public, scientists and politicians have an informed debate about global warming because its dire effects are already beginning to happen.
I have plans for a podcast explaining global warming through the framework of the Gaia theory, hopefully I'll soon have the time.
Complain about this post
Quite possibly one of the causes of reluctance to discuss interpretation or to even talk to the media may be ... the media itself.
People don't seem to read anything difficult these days. They get what passes for news information from television and tabloid newspapers, both of which they consider to have oracular vision. Unfortunately, both TV and tabloid must necessarily trivialise in order to fit the news within the limited attention span of the modern viewer/reader, and to accomodate the lack of time and space for detailed assessment. This makes it necessary for these media - including, sadly, the 主播大秀 in its relentless drive for ratings - to publish lurid headlines in order to grab attention.
Thus we get things like the MMR vaccine idiocy, which will result in greater infant mortality because of a completely unjustified reluctance to vaccinate, thus eroding herd immunity. We get hysteria about foreign criminals, but silence about the vastly greater number of domestic criminals released only to offend again. And we get climate change boiled down to CO2, a ridiculous and frankly incorrect trivialistion of a complex problem into a simple headline.
Is it any wonder scientists, who deal with highly complex issues, don't want to talk to the media, who reduce everything to simplistic headline grabbing melodrama?
Complain about this post
This might be helpful: There was a long discussion on about the interpretation of what looks like the exponential rise of CO2 over time. I don't think the debaters reached a resolution, but as a scientist (astronomer), I found the discussion very interesting, especially when they discussed their methods for analyzing the data and their interpretation of the data.
Complain about this post
Great article.
Complain about this post
Amara,
Thanks for that little journey into an (un)illuminating discussion. It illustrates the rearranging the deck chairs simile very well, with a sideswipe and riposte at the precautionary principle.
Your own work looks interesting and seems to agree with you (mind the dust!). Glad you had the time to drop us a note here in the less rarified zone.
Vaya con Gaia
ed
"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who
make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians
have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine
man in the bonds of Hell."
-- St. Augustine
Complain about this post
1. Stephen Schnider is definetly doing his bit for publicising climate change; i ended up on his mailing list after posting an article about some of his work. He is amazingly prolific, in his advocacy and his science.
2. Do you realy have to ask why scientists are reluctant to speak to the media? As Stephen points out in a recent essay; journalists still, ususally 'balance' arguments about climate change, one skeptic and one genuine scientist. The idea of balance has been entirely corrupted by marketing execs at oil companies but...the media are the ones who have fallen for it. Balance is a good thing, but on either side of what? Education in the subject matter you are covering is what is required for this, not a fant impression of the various associated ideologies. The point to be blanced around now is will clmate change be catastrophic or just huly damaging...i`m sure from yur research you will have found that.
3. If climate change was an easy bandwagon to jump on then why has it taken over a hundered years from its prediction by Ahrenius before it is being excepted; the science was ignored, it is only now that we are seeing the results of these predictions that action is being mooted as a serious option.
Complain about this post
I believe any hope that the problem of climate change can be solved within the existing economic framework of Neo-Liberal Capitalism will prove to be utterly unfounded. To try to put this right without rectifying the clapped out global financial system won鈥檛 work and environmentalists doing so will carry on coming up against a brick wall. They need to look at the way this system works and intellectually grow beyond the conditioning that economics and finance can only be understood by economists and financiers. Of course its true that they are doing something very useful in highlighting to the unaware the 鈥渆lephant standing in the corner鈥 but we鈥檙e all locked in to an international economic system that most effectively blocks substantial change. **New Para**
Let me try to explain. The two main cornerstones of Western economies are usury and speculation. Usury in that the vast majority of money in circulation has been electronically created by the commercial banks and is called by them 鈥渃redit鈥 and is lent to Governments and individuals for quick profit not for a particular motive of world betterment. Nothing moves when electronic money circulates when you use your debit card, direct debits, cheques etc and when Governments borrow money- all that happens is that the drawer鈥檚 data entry is debited (decremented) and the payee鈥檚 is credited, (incremented). So this money can be created at negligible cost to the banks because it is created and exists only as a DATA entry in our electronic bank accounts and is exchanged between them as such only. The stuff in your wallet/purse created by the Royal Mint for the Bank of England (whose revenue DOES accrue to the state) represents a tiny fraction of the 鈥榤oney鈥 that exists, the vast majority originated as loans mostly created- yes, out of thin air- by the commercial banks under this 鈥渇ractional reserve banking system鈥, circulates electronically and the vast profit (interest) levied on all of us accrues to bankers not Governments. For more information on how this amazing system has evolved (which one could be forgiven for thinking has been deliberately designed with a main aim to enrich private financial elites) in the UK and many, many countries I refer you to the expert writings & progressive proposals at www.jamesrobertson.com. Even pretty low corporation tax is often avoided by the use of foreign tax havens, (At least 拢20 Billion total in the UK per annum avoided at 2003 figures- [War on Want pamphlet]). The need for the continuing increase of the assault on the world鈥檚 resources substantially stems from the imperative of 鈥渆conomic growth鈥 which is necessary to keep up with the ever spiralling overall interest payments due on the explosion of different types of loans created by commercial banks and other private interests. I read that the exponential growth in private credit has been allowed to occur with all its wanton increase in the consumption of resources and debt hardship because of outsourcing by corporations of huge amounts of skilled & unskilled jobs to developing countries with cheap labour and minimal regulations under globalisation (鈥渃orporate flight鈥). With the generally decreasing availability therefore of properly paid quality jobs, to make ends meet governments and individuals in richer nations have had to be allowed to borrow more and more. I recommend the reading of the website and books by the US professor of economics Ravi Batra who has a lot of hard hitting and extremely interesting things to say on this matter, www.ravibatra.com. **New Para**
I refer to the 鈥榗ornerstone of Speculation鈥 in that National economies and their populations are utterly dependant on the $2 Trillion or so (equivalent) that changes hands electronically every DAY- untaxed- around the world on the 鈥渇inancial markets鈥 in search of speculative quick profit unrelated to any exchange of real goods or services. Utterly dependant because National Governments create hardly any of the money that is in circulation at all as I have already explained and they need to compete internationally to keep on attracting this privately created & transmitted globally mobile electronic money which has become the lifeblood of all our economies. Financiers and corporations increasingly trade IN money not WITH money, since deregulation in the 1980s- eg Removal of foreign capital exchange controls (and credit controls) which happened then. Why did we multi-nationally cede so much control over our economies then to those which to many might seem like a load of locusts? Are the ones (IMF, WB?) who inspired our national leaders to do this still in positions of influence? In this 鈥渓iberalised鈥 regime why create, innovate and trade in cumbersome goods when one can make far more far quickly and with far less risk just by moving money (data) and money instruments between computers around the world? Almost all the global financial institutions and even many corporations are at it. A 鈥渕onstrous global casino鈥 in the words of sustainable economics columnist Hazel Henderson. Any government that even publicly SPEAKS of restricting it, or taxing it, or significantly environmentally regulating the stock market listed business that it invests in, or getting off the absurd merry-go-round of competing with other nations to clamp down on corporation tax so as to attract employment and capital, or creating their OWN electronic money, or even threatening tax havens, faces economically disastrous capital flight to nations NOT doing so within hours on the trading computers on the stock markets and the derivatives computers of the international corporations and banks. You see how the financier oligarchy has got us all over a barrel? No Government dare even publicly consider democratically demanded change to the status quo. No corporation dare significantly reduce the current quick profit return to its international capital investors by SIGNIFICANT investment in alternative forms of energy & transportation as to do so invites a declining share price and capital flight to corporations not doing so. The intellectual economist Lyndon LaRouche in Executive Intelligence Review (see below) actually uses the term 鈥淔inancier Oligarchy鈥 referring to the way our 鈥榙emocracies鈥 are going under the economic & corporate globalisation I have already described. If you think carefully about it you might realise that under neo-liberalism what we as nations are all having to do is compete to make often fabulously wealthy owners of international capital- grow even richer- for no effort. Before anyone pulls the 鈥減ension funds鈥 鈥榦ld chestnut鈥 on me, let me retort that I recently heard on a 主播大秀 programme that only 20% of shares are owned by pension funds. A POSSIBLE SOLUTION to re-establish control over international capital and corporations by electorates and governments is proposed by 鈥淭he Simultaneous Policy鈥 at www.simpol.org and I believe progressives might feel their strategy warrants consideration. **New Para**
Most mainstream media outlets are owned by stock market listed corporations. Does anyone believe such a corporation will allow SERIOUS debate in its pages or TV stations, of reform to the international financial system when it is this system that is the investment hand that feeds it, both owning the shares and placing the corporate adverts? Does anyone seriously believe that one example tabloid and TV/news station owning international corporation that currently pays no corporation tax in the UK by the use of tax havens will seriously allow such debate in its media outlets? I鈥檓 not suggesting columnists and editors are directly told what to say and what not to, but they know there are limits which they must not cross if they are to retain their jobs which are mostly in the form of shortish term renewable (or not) contract posts. And most of them seem never to have asked themselves what money really is, who creates it, who administers its circulation, who profits from it and why no Government of left OR right credentials strangely refuses to reinstate fair corporate taxation and environmental regulations ONCE IN POWER despite the obvious dire financial state of our public services, worsening annually, and the developed countries still paltry overall help to the developing ones whose populations are starving to death in their millions monthly for the want of the huge surplus of food per capita that exists worldwide (Some 10%- look up UN Statistics). It should be obvious surely that there鈥檚 a CHRONIC lack of money for foreign aid and public services for all our government鈥檚 pathetic obfuscation that the latter need more 鈥渕odernising鈥, ie. another round of cuts. The neo-liberal free movement of capital & corporations is leaving the competing nations鈥 governments with a chronic lack of cash for public spending on virtually everything- from palaces to prisons.**New Para**
I believe that Planet Earth鈥檚 environment is in a sad and perilous state which each day brings it nearer to the critical, and that even the most dire prophecy falls short of the calamity facing the world today, (this quote from www.share-international.org). Anyone who seriously believes that humanity can burn off gigantic amounts of carbon into the atmosphere daily over some 200 years (in the form of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels) that had been gradually accumulated beneath the earth over hundreds of MILLIONS of years, and while annually cutting down tens of millions of acres of atmosphere purifying tropical forests- all of this without incurring MAJOR upheaval and destruction to the earth鈥檚 life supporting natural climate systems- is conditioned and deluded indeed. **New Para**
I believe that only a total and systemic collapse of the world鈥檚 financial system will bring humanity to its senses and- (even though I know this itself would cause major trauma for a while because we have allowed stock market listed corporations to take over most food and energy production and distribution worldwide)- it is my belief and hope that this is coming to pass. (I refer again to the writings of economics professor Ravi Batra). The men of money鈥檚 selfish greed and competition is over-reaching itself at long last and the frantic efforts to prop up the system behind the scenes are at long last crumbling. 鈥淭he REAL economy has fallen out from under the markets which have been artificially propped up by accounting tricks, enormous and unpayable debt loads, and mass delusion on the part of the markets and the public鈥 (John Hoefle banking columnist, and refer also to the writings of economist鈥檚 Lyndon LaRouche鈥檚 Executive Intelligence Review for more information, www.larouchepub.com). The signs of the oncoming collapse are obvious for those who look beyond their own narrow interests and look below the surface at powerful people鈥檚 MOTIVES- not what they SAY but what they DO and WHY that might be- with objectivity. People who bother to READ & STUDY widely. Anyone who thinks that substantially unrestrained powerful people in today鈥檚 out of democratic control globalised capital/corporate world will not try to manipulate to retain and enhance their own selfish interests, and who denounces those who highlight this as 鈥渃onspiracy theorists鈥, is deluded and conditioned indeed. They have just not reflected seriously on the sad condition of greed and fear of loss as well as spiritual poverty and poverty of intellect that dominates the natures of many, many of our fellow human being financier oligarchs in power. We live in a competitive economic culture which makes a VIRTUE out of consumption and greed and it's essential we realise it, detach from it and protest peacefully against it. If we want to survive un-decimated as a species, we鈥檝e surely got some major waking up to do- and quickly.
Complain about this post
WE DETERMINE THE DEFINITION OF CLIMATE. THE MORE HATE WE DIRECT TO THE EARTH. THE WORSE IT WILL GET
Complain about this post
www.vhemt.org is the answer !
Complain about this post