So you’ve probably heard there was some sort of climate agreement reached this past weekend. The spin afterwards was impressive and misleading. (The media’s collective interpretation was mostly perplexing.) Here’s my modest attempt at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media at untangling what went down and what it means for the bigger picture.
There are two recent critiques of science journalism that paint very different pictures of the profession. One of them, an editorial in Nature this week, is more broadly aimed at the news media in general, and decries “scientific ignorance of the press,” agenda-driven stories, and “journalism that favors attitude over accuracy.” The criticism is directed at…Continue Reading…
Shawn Otto, author of the recent book, Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, left an interesting comment at the thread of my recent Yale Forum post: The reason the [climate] skeptics have any power at all is not because what they say is credible, because based on the facts it is…Continue Reading…
It’s really a shame that the U.S. environmental community doesn’t have anyone with the chops or reputation of George Monbiot, the popular British columnist. Monbiot, who has a high profile perch at the Guardian, combines essential talents for a communicator: He is lucid, engaging, and smart. He is also not afraid to call out his…Continue Reading…
I want whatever David Roberts at Grist is smoking. In his latest why-don’t-you-fools-get-it post, Roberts takes aim at his own “climate hawk coalition,” for…um…trying a new approach that backgrounds climate change and refocuses the discussion on innovation, energy security, and economic competitiveness. Now why would they do that? The old (business as usual) approach–Climate doom!…Continue Reading…
At the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, I ask: Are climate skeptics less important and less influential than they “” and their counterparts in the climate-concerned community “” would have us believe?
A reader wonders if there are two different breeds of climate skeptic–the political/ideological variant in the U.S.–where the climate debate resembles a caged match, and the more rational-minded species in Europe: From what I gather, there really are people in the U.S who don’t believe in the greenhouse concept or the radiative properties of Co2, or…Continue Reading…
And extreme discomfort with the issue, judging by this story: In an effort to survey Republicans on climate change, National Journal reporters reached out to every GOP senator and representative. Over the course of several weeks, reporters either attempted to interview lawmakers in person, or called or e-mailed their offices. Most of them “rebuffed repeated inquiries,” according…Continue Reading…
Some of the commentary about how the media covered last week’s big climate sensitivity study in Science prompted me to explore underlying issues that have already been identified by people much smarter than me. Have a read over at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media.
Andy Revkin must feel like a wind dummy everyone’s punching bag. Last week, he had the temerity to say that “climategate” 2, like the 2009 episode, couldn’t be easily dismissed. So of course he got slapped around by all sorts of people in the climate concerned community, including some prominent scientists: You are claiming that…Continue Reading…