When the Pack Overruns the Story
I don’t know about you, but I’m still getting whiplash from the write-ups of the splashy Cornell University study that concluded shale gas is probably every bit as potent a greenhouse gas as coal and oil. (I first wrote about the study here.)
Let’s retrace the course of the media coverage this past week. Hang on tight.
First, in the peer reviewed paper itself (published in the journal Climatic Change), it bears pointing out that the authors admit their data is “limited” and based in part on “PowerPoint slides from EPA-sponsored workshops.” On Tuesday, BBC’s Richard Black wrote a credulous article on the Cornell study that doesn’t mention this at all. Yet lead author Robert Howarth is quoted in the story, saying to Black:
We have used the best available data [and] the conclusion is that shale gas may indeed be quite damaging to global warming, quite likely as bad or worse than coal.
In the article, Howarth also declares:
We have produced the first comprehensive analysis of the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas.
That same day, April 12, Joe Romm covers the study in detail at Climate Progress, writing that (my emphasis),
as the lead author Cornell Prof. Robert Howarth explained to me in an interview, it is based upon very limited data.
Near the end of his post, Romm returns to the issue of the data (my emphasis):
Given the bombshell nature of the conclusions, I asked Howarth what his confidence was in the results. He is very clear that this is “poorly documented information” and that we “did our best with sparse data.”
Well, either BBC’s Black didn’t think to ask about the dearth and quality of the data, or Howarth wasn’t as clear about it with him. (Matt Ridley heaps scorn on Black’s story, and says he “will never trust a story from Black again.”)
Nearly all the mainstream media coverage of the study, such as this story by Tom Zeller in the NYT, quoted another perspective on the research findings, but only that representing the natural gas industry, and you can imagine what they had to to say about the study. None of the initial news stories I have read bothered to quote other climate scientists or energy experts on the merits of the Cornell study. Indeed, in a follow-up post, Zeller focuses on criticisms of the study made by Energy in Depth, a group representing “small and independent” oil and gas companies.
Other stories, such as this one in The Philadelphia Inquirer, and this one by MIT’s Technology Review, followed suit, each quoting Energy in Depth’s rebuttal. (Via Science Journalism Tracker, here’s a round-up of the initial wave of stories.)
What gives? You mean no researchers unaffiliated with the gas industry could be found (or were willing to go on the record) to comment on the Cornell study’s methodology or conclusions?
Well, not entirely. By today, after the headlines had faded, Nature published a story quoting Henry Jacoby, former co-director of the Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, calling the study “very weak”. Also today, Michael Levi, an energy expert with the Council on Foreign Relations, writes over at his blog that the Cornell analysis
is based on extremely weak data, and also has a severe methodological flaw (plus some other questionable decisions), all of which means that his [Robert Howarth’s] bottom line conclusions shouldn’t carry weight.
That said, I agree with Levi that,
Howarth’s basic question is an important one: what happens to the claimed emissions benefits of natural gas once you include the methane leaked in its production and transport?
What I wonder is, if in the journalistic stampede to cover seemingly “bombshell” results (as Romm characterized) some basic questions about a study’s merits fell by the wayside. Ironically, it was Romm–a guy I’ve often criticized for his bombastic style–who came the closest to journalistic due diligence and managed to separate himself from the pack.
While shale gas is a very tempting, it is indeed a new resource harvesting technology. “Fracking” does have the problem of contaminating water tables. Shale gas will be found to have the same carbon “foot-print” of natural gas, but, the fracking process of shale gas will need to be controlled. NG comes from oil production, so, no fracking is needed.
If Romm was the Climate Hawk he aspires to be, he might have responded in a more Environmentally Responsible manner by learning “How it’s Made” and skipping the articles from BBC, AGU or Nature.
The assumption of this piece appears to be that any response from researchers associated with the gas industry should be discounted – “you can imagine what they had to say about the study”.
This seems to me to be obviously fallacious. Should we discount Howarth because he is associated with the environmental movement? (Lots of video around of him speaking at rallies)
Bishop Hill,
That assumption would be yours. I have no objection to a response from industry being included in the reporting. In fact, I would say it’s necessary in this case. My point was this, that
None of the initial news stories I have read bothered to quote other climate scientists or energy experts on the merits of the Cornell study.
The only thing surprising about this is that anyone would be surprised that a story is covered by pack journalism to present a favored political view. This is standard practice in the media. Why is it so surprising?
Tom Gray,
I think you misunderstand. I’m not suggesting that “pack journalism” in in this case deliberately “favored a political view.” (Black seems the obvious exception.)
Rather, I’m suggesting that the competitive metabolism drove reporters to rush out their stories. I Probably should have mentioned in the post (for contextual purposes) that everyone seemed to be playing catch up to this story in The Hill, that somehow got wind of the study before anyone else.
So instead of the normal embargo procedures, once the Hill published its piece, there was a mad scramble for journos push a story out while the news was fresh. That means few reporters had the time to read the study thoroughly enough and do reporting beyond the obligatory interviews with one of the researchers and then the “balance” response from industry.
Keith, another climate story about the awful things that will follow if we don’t give up our standard of living – but with very little factual basis. Straight from the peer reviewed literature, of course.
This does not strike me as unusual in the least.
At other times, you’ve criticized Eli, Tobis, and others for naivete about the news business when they complain about similar problems with sloppy, rushed journalism that fails to “read the study thoroughly enough and do reporting beyond the obligatory interviews with one of the researchers and then the ‘balance’ response from industry.” What’s different here?
P.S., Good on you for giving Romm credit for his exemplary performance here.
Jonathan (7),
Apples and oranges.
Michael is prone to broad, sweeping generalizations about science journalism that John Fleck and I have repeatedly tried to discuss with him (to no avail). If you’d like to point me to a particular post of Michael’s that is similar to mine without condemning the entire profession, I’ll take another look at it.
As for Eli, his grunting amuses me.
If I had time yesterday with that post, I might also have pointed out that there is a lack of intellectual consistency among climate bloggers (such as Romm and Tobis) with respect to the media coverage of the shale study. If those were news stories that gave a pass to a study with weak climate data and methodology by a prominent skeptic, you can bet you would have read blaring “head-in-vice” condemnations from the usual crowd.
Instead, Romm is forgiving and there’s silence elsewhere. Why do you suppose that is? Why do people who normally plead for more rigorous, contextual climate journalism not seem bothered by the coverage of the Cornell shale study? A curious thing, wouldn’t you say?
Gavin has posted on this at RealClimate.
I believe Keith @8 points out an interesting trend. Bad science done by skeptics = BAD SCIENCE, bad science done by pro-AGW = silence or kid gloves treatment because while the methods were poor their heart was in the right place.
Bad science = Bad science
This reminds me of a similar case that happened in January when a study claimed there would be 2.4C of warming by 2020.
Keith: Good point about broad generalizations vs. specifics. Fair point, too, about the importance of consistency in expectations for journalists.
Thinking once more about this, I observe that the way this story was covered fits the “Futility” part of Eli’s adaptation of Hirschman. You can’t do anything about global warming because even a clean-ish fuel like gas is worse than coal.
Re “futility”. I would say that the reality is along the lines Gavin suggests in his piece – there are no easy solutions. There ARE solutions, but they do impose real costs and sacrifices by various groups of people. So the “futility” argument is a kind of denial of taking responsibility for the problem in refusing to try to achieve a solution.
gavin’s characterization of you was odd, keith.
I suggest folks take a look a the exchange between Cornell’s Robert Howarth and Michael Levi at the latter’s blog. It’s in the comment thread.
Very interesting.
“I mean, why bother with independent scientists when the industry can tell you exactly what you are supposed to think?”
Hilarious. You gotta love Gavin.
Something’s happening… first a Gradie Student starts showing signs of self-awareness and actual independent thought in a previous post, NOW Romm comes out with something akin to.. (oh, what’s the word?).. objectivity? Yes! That’s it, ‘objectivity’. It seems something really IS happening.. maybe the Chinese have changed the mix in our water supply additives? Noooo! This is too dramatic! It sounds like another Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Poor Joe. Poor old Joe!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049366/
As someone, who many years ago tried to get samples and information out of the coal industry (funny enough it was for a closely related study where we wanted a block of coal maybe a m^3 to measure the volatiles AND we were funded by the DOE coal labs) Eli sympathizes with Howarth. The industry, and this extends to the frackers, simply does not believe that telling anything to anyone has any advantage because what they are about is at best on the edge of regulations.
Excellent analysis Keith. Sorry I haven’t posted on this but triple crunch on various fronts. One thing that puzzles me a bit is why this is such a big deal now given that the issues were all aired in January with the pre-paper rollout of Howarth’s analysis. The bottom line to me, then and now, is that when there’s a lack of data surrounding a contentious issue – and here the fuzziness is both in the inventory of gas leaks as well as the debate over CH4 vs. CO2 in the greenhouse – that provides free running room for advocates of all stripes (including scientists who wear “no fracking” buttons and energy industries).
What I wrote in January remains relevant now:
Gas Leaks on the Path to a Post-Fossil Future – http://nyti.ms/g4TiDX
@14 Keith
I realize you’ve got a good “blog roll” but I’ve never read Michael Levi’s and I’m glad I checked it out, I don’t know much about him but he seems pretty non-partisan and thus credible in my books.
What struck me in particular about his piece is his final paragraph:
“I worry about what this paper says about the peer review process and the way the press treats it. This article was published in a peer-reviewed journal that’s edited by talented academics. It presumably got a couple good reviews, since its time from submission to publication was quite short. These reviewers don’t appear to have been on the ball. Alas, this sort of thing is inevitable in academic publishing. It’s a useful caution, though, against treating peer review as a mark of infallibility, as too many in the climate debate ““ both media and advocates ““ have done.”
This strikes home to me what I am ultimately most suspicious of in the climate change debate. While it goes without saying that there are so called “skeptics” that are ideologically invested in being biased against any evidence of significant negative externalities of the free market system; so too is it true that there are those who are ideologically invested in the idea that free market, industrial society is a horrible, cruel failure. I do not believe that either is rationally correct.
Those whom genuinely believe in the science of AGW must divest themselves of the poor, ideologically driven studies of both sides. There must be equal reprimand given to papers that “reach”. While I certainly don’t proclaim to speak for anyone other than myself, as someone who was once a “believer” but is now “skeptical”, people such as Mr Kloor and Mr. Revkin (even Watts has given props)are exponentially more credible because they call out the crap from both the Moranos and the Romms of the world. I recognize that neither of those journalists may agree with anything I write; nevertheless I appreciate them all the more for it!
Whomsoever is a person of “integrity” or “science” must be willing to destroy what they believe-especially what they believe is “right”. “Am I wrong?” is the question every modern partisan must ask.
*Full Disclaimer* I am a lowly shift worker coming off a long stretch of shifts and so I realize that this is probably not the best or most coherent of comments. Apologies.
Menth
I completely agree that both sides should engage more in self appraisal of their motivations and how these motivations impact the integrity of their actions.
[…] the latter category, at the moment, is the recent burst of assertions and press coverage over the extent of climate impacts from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking — centered on a new […]