Science and the Press

[Pangloss]

I was just watching the noon news today while I ate my lunch, and I almost lost that lunch when I heard a local reporter doing a story on the upcoming climate change report, which is due out tomorrow. The station had just done a report on the tsunami and was doing one of those after-story chat things with the local weather girl, and he actually suggested that the recent tsunamis may be the result of global warming.

 

No. Really.

 

Is it just me or are these people actually getting *dumber*?

[geoguy]

The way I keep sane is falling back on what a prof once told us. Reality is reality regardless of what lens people look at the universe through. The Earth is not carried on the back of a tortoise, man wasn't created by a god in his image and that tsunami had nothing to do with climate change.

 

The ignorance of man is irrelevent. What does it matter in the greater scheme of things? The physical properties of mass and energy are unaltered, the Earth orbirts the Sun and the speed of light is unchanged.

 

Otherwise, don't sweat the small stuff. What does it matter is some folks are getting dumber? It just puts you up higher on the intelligent curve.

[swansont]

Dumber? Possibly. But when it comes to the media and science, I don't think there's all that far to go. Most journalists — even the science ones — simply aren't trained in science very much. Things have to get simplified for them, and then they try and explain it to others. A lot gets lost in translation.

[Sayonara]

They are supposed to have researchers working for them when they are reporting outside their field (i.e. all the time).

 

I am sure there must be plenty of journalists with just the right foolish/ignorant/arrogant balance to think they can do without.

[Gypsy Cake]

In their defence, a lot of the time they are reporting new theories and discoveries of which the science community are still undecided.

 

But that tsunami was not a result of global warming.

[geoguy]

One issue is when 'bad' science is repeated until it becomes the accepted norm among the common populace. Often a 'throw away' comment or a speculative paper is picked up and the media runs with it. What is no more than an unsubstantiated theory can be eventually morphed into 'scientists say' or 'Experts...blah...blah'.

 

I could see an honest fellow paleontologist getting snookered on Jeopardy if the category 'fossils' came up. Wouldn't get many points for answering:

 

"Alex, what is damned if I or anyone else would know that one without a lot of unsubstantiated speculation"?

[Gypsy Cake]

I suppose quite often it comes back to the poor scientist that mentioned it. They give an interview on the new work their doing, it's blown out of proportion, and then they're questioned by the media as to why they were wrong.

 

I think the reporters should make clearer how much of the scientific community they're referring to when claim "experts say..." and also make clear at what point the research is at.

[bascule]

I was just watching the noon news today while I ate my lunch, and I almost lost that lunch when I heard a local reporter doing a story on the upcoming climate change report, which is due out tomorrow. The station had just done a report on the tsunami and was doing one of those after-story chat things with the local weather girl, and he actually suggested that the recent tsunamis may be the result of global warming.

 

No. Really.

 

Is it just me or are these people actually getting *dumber*?

 

Can I just say this?

 

Never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever trust climate science reporting, ever.

 

(CAVEAT to ever ever ever ever: Unless they're publishing the actual paper sans editorial)