Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNYT Blows Holes In Both Feet With Farcical Article On Poor, Oppressed Climate "Skeptic" John Christy
The New York Times missed the mark big time in its new profile of John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and prominent climate skeptic who finds himself a target of suspicion and derision, and sometimes even insults from his peers. Ostensibly, its an examination of the way that climate science has become politicized, to the extent that those with dissenting views are silenced or attacked by the cult of mainstream climate science. In reality, its an overly credulous and sympathetic portrayal of someone who, his claims having been almost completely discredited, is trying to spin the story in a way that makes him out to be a victim.
Perhaps, writer Michael Wines speculates, the reason why other climate scientists are so mean to Christy (people drew mean cartoons about him!) is because hes providing legitimacy to those who refuse to acknowledge that the consequences of climate change are likely to be dire. The use of the word legitimacy is questionable: Unlike those who contest the scientific consensus on climate change with little or no background in climate science themselves, Christy does boast a bevy of credentials, as Wines is careful to denote. Christys actual research, on the other hand, along with the data that he insists, in the profile, to be beholden to well, thats been deflated, disproven and debunked by all manner of other, highly qualified experts. A dispute over his inaccurate climate models that Wines dismisses as a scientific tit for tat, meanwhile, is seen by others as a conscious attempt to misinform the public, in the interest of promoting climate skepticism.
EDIT
None of this is to suggest that there shouldnt be a debate about science, or that all climate science is settled. Most of what we know about the future effects of climate change, including just how severe they will be, remains decidedly unsettled, and will remain so until they actually come to pass. Because 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is contributing to changes in our climate, the debate now can and should be about what the evidence suggests, and what we ought to do about it. But the reason why Christy has attracted so much vitriol is because hes on the radical fringe of both of those conversations: hes using error-laden research and misleading claims to advocate for some adaptation and zero mitigation. The American Association for the Advancement of Science compares such a strategy to barreling down the highway without the benefit of seat belts or airbags; more colorfully, in Wines article, MIT professor Kerry Emanuel suggests Its kind of like telling a little girl whos trying to run across a busy street to catch a school bus to go for it, knowing theres a substantial chance that shell be killed. She might make it. But its a big gamble to take.
Christys supporters are already up in arms about that one. But the comparison is apt, and its the reason why, even if history does turn out to vindicate Christy, he wont be remembered as an anti-establishment hero. Hell just be someone who, against all evidence to the contrary, got really, really lucky, and put not just a little girl, but the entire world at risk in the process.
EDIT/END
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/16/new_york_times_climate_skeptic_debacle_how_a_new_profile_sets_back_science/
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)The fucking main stream media is too stupid and lazy to find their collective asses with either hand at high noon.
This he said/she said divorce court style reporting is good for entertainment reporting (which is a joke in itself), but hardly good enough for the public at large. Asshole news organizations...