Bishop Hill A falling out
It's fun to watch the tiff that has developed between uber-upholder of the climate consensus Chris Mooney and the New York Times' Andy Revkin. Mooney has written a piece highlighting the growing use in the New York Times climate coverage of what is described (by the headline writer at least) as "weasel words". This is what you and I, gentle reader, would call "statements of uncertainty". Mooney's article was prompted by a study by one of Max Boykoff's students, which find that the New York Times, alone among US newspapers, is now using such terminology much more often and much more so than Spanish newspapers.
In response, Revkin has described Mooney's take as "spin" and wonders why he would prefer the nuances of American journalism to the certainties that apparently dominate Spanish coverage. Mooney of course is a political campaigner and wants public support for his policy preferences, so public understanding of uncertainties is not really going to help his cause. So as long as people like Revkin occasionally lard their articles with expressions of doubt, the Mooneys of this world are going to try to get them to stop.
Reader Comments (16)
The art of zealotry - demonise the unbelievers, expose the heretics and close down any discussion.
Don't you just love the Green Mafia!
French the Language of Love,Spanish the Language of passion
English the Language of Reason and Climate Porn.
Chris Mooney is a vicious political hack. It is a good rule of thumb that whatever he is upset about, take the side opposing him. Can seldom go wrong that way....
Revkin was the lap dog who didn't notice he was being treated as a lap dog. Some years and wisdom and guitar playing later, he's now a human being.
Mooney, not so much.
Splitters!
Anyone who has observed leftists, greens (and other evangelical religious organisations) knows that that the ultimate shibboleth is heresy. It's one thing for someone like Nigel Farage to openly doubt CAGW, that's fine. He can be ignored. No one of 'faith' will listen to him. But if Revkin or Lovelock expresses doubt they might sway the faithful. So it's light the bonfire or drag the counter-revolutionary down to the basement of the Lubyanka.
Hang on a minute.
Wouldn't a serious study of this nature (oxymoron?) have used the IPCC Assessment Rports of 2001 and 2007 as a proper control and comparator???
Surely what matters is whether Spanish or US papers deviate significantly, in an epistemic fashion, from the actual science they are supposed to be communicating.
Actually, the big story in that paper, if you have a look at it, isn't the discrepency between the US and Spanish papers analysed, but the difference between 2001 and 2007.
For both the US and Spanish papers, the authors report a statisitcally significant increase in epistemic markers in 2007 compared with 2001.
So both were consistent with inferring greater uncertainty, but the IPCC were claining that there was increasing certainty.
Just another wierd twist in the real and the apparent in the wacky world of "climate science".
Here is the chart that shows my point:
http://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/renc20/2014/renc20.v008.i02/17524032.2014.906481/20140515/images/medium/renc_a_906481_f0003_b.jpg
One of the fixtures in environmental/climate activism is - pretend in-fighting.
Pretend infighting is usually between the more moderate and the less moderate. In reality, this doesn't matter because both are equally extreme.
The only difference in this situation is Revkin was a journalist and Mooney is an activist. An activist picking on a journalist for the latter not doing the former's bidding.
Revkin has written thousands and thousands of words on climate. What is the ratio of Revkin's words in climate reporting to non-climate environmental reporting, in total? I bet it is pretty high. How do the expressions of uncertainty matter, compared to the huge service Revkin has rendered keeping the non-issue of climate change on a slow boil over years and years?
Revkin, and others, could have gone one-trick pony on climate issues - oversell and overkill. Instead they chose to slowly build its credibility over years, Fabian society style. Arguably, more people think there is at least *something* to the climate issue (when there is actually *nothing*), compared to initial sky-high expectations coming crashing down catastrophically, due to this approach. Where is the appreciation for this service rendered by Revkin?
The climate changes all the time. If and when the climate cause dies, Mooney can climb on the next hobby horse. Journalists' careers on the other hand are built over a lifetime. Why should journalists commit hara-kiri over Mooney's cause and sell their credibility down the river?
Bishop, you write that 'In response, Revkin has described Mooney's take as "spin" '. Is there a link to this response? I couldn't work out where the response is.
Question why are most Scientific Papers published in English.
If Climate Change had been originally a French ,Indian ,Spanish or a German idea would it have ever taken off.
So why end at 2007 and not 2013? Did the grants for newspaper purchase run out st 2007 or are the results for 2013 too controversial, I.e. too "skeptical" for public exposure?
If you wanted to join the PFJ, you'd really have to hate the Romans...
shub +1
"Bishop, you write that 'In response, Revkin has described Mooney's take as "spin" '. Is there a link to this response? I couldn't work out where the response is."
Twitter. https://twitter.com/Revkin/status/473985220673167360
When one's opponents are busy eviscerating each other, leave them alone.
Although in this case I do wish Mr. Mooney great stamina and a sharp knife, to fight long and cut deep.
The more Mooney goes on the more people he turns off.
Gekko:
I can tell you're a fellow Kiwi, you get straight to the 'guts'.
+1