Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

The Washington Post Doubles Down on False Balance

Posted on

"The Washington Post Doubles Down on False Balance"

Share:

google plus icon

Two weeks ago I wrote about how the Washington Post embraced false balance in its flawed piece on the Heartland affair.  Not only did the Post quote the head of an organization known for “spreading misinformation” and “personally attacking climate scientists to further its goals,” it also quoted the long-debunked Richard Lindzen. And it quoted a confusionist to frame the “debate” as a he-said/she-said, when it is really about climate science vs. misinformation.

Now the Post has doubled down with another dreadful piece of false balance, but attempts to rationalize it with this rewriting of history:

There is no question that climate scientists have mobilized in recent years to talk more publicly about greenhouse-gas emissions from activities such as driving and coal-fired power plants. For years there were only a handful of researchers on both sides of the debate: the late Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider and James E. Hansen, who directs NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, spoke about the risks associated with climate change while Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, questioned the extent to which humans contributed to the problem.

Now dozens of climate scientists have taken on a more public-advocacy role, contending that mounting evidence suggests the world needs to curb greenhouse-gas emissions from the industrial and transport sectors or risk disastrous consequences.

No. For years there have been hundreds of climate scientists willing to explain climate science to the media and public and policymakers. Indeed, a 2010 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, “Expert credibility in climate change” — coauthored by Schneider — reaffirmed the broad scientific understanding of climate change, while questioning the media’s reliance on a tiny group of less-credibile scientists for “balance.” That analysis concluded:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 1) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and 2) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

There have never been more than a handful of climate researchers willing to spread misinformation and confusion. The status quo media simply doesn’t care if the person they’re quoting has been wrong again and again and again, has published few if any significant articles in the field in recent years, or actually continues to spread disinformation that has been long debunked in the scientific literature. But they should.

Lindzen has been debunked by leading climate scientists for years (see here and here). Yet the media still quote him as if he were a credible climate researcher. Same for Spencer (see Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Roy Spencer and Should you believe anything Roy Spencer says).

But the Post wants to rationalize yet another piece that “balances” climate scientists with disinformers and confusionists.

It is worth pointing out that false balance isn’t just about who you quote but what you quote them saying. The new NPR ethics handbook, which I will have a post on tomorrow, spells this out:

At all times, we report for our readers and listeners, not our sources. So our primary consideration when presenting the news is that we are fair to the truth. If our sources try to mislead us or put a false spin on the information they give us, we tell our audience. If the balance of evidence in a matter of controversy weighs heavily on one side, we acknowledge it in our reports. We strive to give our audience confidence that all sides have been considered and represented fairly.

This is precisely what the Washington Post article does not do. The article is full of false balance, a scale with the reporter’s thumb pressed down on the side of misinformation to give it equal weight. And so while it quotes some credible scientists, we have this nonsense:

Georgia Institute of Technology atmospheric scientist Judith Curry says human activity is contributing to climate change but it remains uncertain whether it is or will be “the dominant factor.”

She said she respected Gleick’s scientific work but worried about where his activism had taken him.

“Colleagues trying to make criminals out of themselves, and each other, is just an insane situation,” she said.

Just an insane situation. Seriously.

It is absurd to quote Curry’s crocodile tears on this subject when she spends a great deal of her time these days smearing climate scientists (see “Judith Curry abandons science“), specifically calling them “dishonest” (see here). But at least that statement is a matter of opinion.

This isn’t:

Judith Curry says human activity is contributing to climate change but it remains uncertain whether it is or will be “the dominant factor.”

Now this is the Post is letting a source mislead it and its readers. The scientific literature makes clear that It’s “Extremely Likely That at Least 74% of Observed Warming Since 1950″ Was Manmade; It’s Highly Likely All of It Was. As NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has pointed out, “Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling,” so other than a small amount of internal variability, the overwhelming majority of the warming we’ve seen is from human emissions.

But does the Post point this out? No. It lets Curry’s unscientific opinion stand.

Even more absurd, is the “will be” part of the sentence. If Curry actually said it, it is the most nonsensical thing she’s ever said. In any case, it’s among the most nonsensical things the Post ever wrote on climate. The other factors — solar forcing, volcanoes, internal variability in the oceans — are either variable or random, but they aren’t going to steadily grow (unless Curry knows something that no other climate scientist knows).

The contribution of human activity is, however, just going to accumulate and grow steadily (see The Radiative Forcing of the CO2 Humans Have Put in the Air Equals 1 Million Hiroshima Bombs a Day“). Indeed, the lags in the climate system mean “We Are Just Now Experiencing the Full Effect of CO2 Emitted [by] the Late 1980s.”

So even if a scientist or journalist could possibly believe we don’t know whether humans are the dominant factor in climate change today, only an unserious scientist or uninformed journalist could possibly believe it won’t be the dominant factor in the coming decades. To present Curry’s statement with no scientific response at all is worse than false balance. It is unrebutted misinformation.

Here’s more false balance from the Post:

Several academics who question the notion that human activities are driving dangerous warming said Gleick’s actions show that climate scientists cannot be trusted. William Harper [sic], a Princeton University physics professor who is chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote in an e-mail that Gleick’s actions demonstrate how radicalized several of them have become.

“Some scientists feel that any hint that something may be rotten in the state of climate is a threat that must be countered by any means possible,” wrote Harper, suggesting that many scientists can fundraise by projecting dire climate impacts.

It is of course William Happer who chairs the GMI, a leading promoter of disinformation — is there no fact-checking or googling at the Post? Happer has been widely debunked by climate scientists — see here.  Does the Washington Post rebut Happer’s false charge or point out that GMI raises money from fossil fuel companies by promising to spread misinformation? Of course not.

As Chris Mooney notes in his reply to this article, “Don’t Blame the Victims: Why Public Outreach By Climate Scientists is More Vital Than Ever,” it’s true that “climate researchers have become much more politically engaged. They’ve sought to become better at communication, and to have a greater influence on public policy. They’ve tried to establish rapid response capabilities, and also, better ways of protecting themselves from political harassment and lawsuits.” But the key point is that:

This didn’t happen by accident. It happened because there has been a long term campaign to attack and discredit climate science, and obscure what we actually know. Ultimately, researchers decided that they couldn’t just be silent as their knowledge was distorted, or as their colleagues were attacked.

So what did they do? Just what Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan would have done—and in fact, did repeatedly on the public issues of their day. They spoke out.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. In fact, it is essential. Scientific knowledge is a powerful thing, which is precisely why it is of vital importance that it gets communicated, accurately, in such a way as to influence public policy. If that isn’t happening, then not only is it natural for scientists to step up—they have a moral obligation to do so, and to do so effectively.

Indeed, the poor and declining media coverage of climate change has left a huge vacuum that those with scientific information have naturally tried to fill.  Mooney continues:

I say this, incidentally, because I was appalled by an article in the Washington Post today, which at least online was entitled “In climate wars, radicalization of researchers brings risks.” I know that reporters often don’t control their titles, so maybe the word “radicalization” was not Juliet Eilperin’s fault. But in the article itself, Eilperin also says that climate researchers have been “politicized,” which is also negative and judgmental, and misleading.

The thrust of the article is that the Peter Gleick-Heartland Institute affair is an indicator of growing scientist politicization around climate change. But just because one researcher (Gleick) did something that he now says  he regrets—soliciting documents under a false identity—does not mean that we get to tar climate researchers as radicals or political operatives.

Thankfully, the Post has now changed the headline to “In climate wars, advocacy by some researchers brings risks.” But the article remains chock full of false balance, a scale with the reporter’s thumb pressed down on the side of misinformation to give it equal weight.

Let me give the final word to the 2010 study co-authored by Schneider:

Preliminary reviews of scientific literature and surveys of climate scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the twentieth century…

A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims.  This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy….

Despite media tendencies to present ‘both sides’ in ACC debates [anthropogenic climate change], which can contribute to continued public misunderstanding regarding ACC, not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the climate system.  This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change..

Related Posts:

« »

22 Responses to The Washington Post Doubles Down on False Balance

  1. Paul Magnus says:

    “This didn’t happen by accident. It happened because there has been a long term campaign to attack and discredit climate science, and obscure what we actually know. ”

    It also happens because the WP is part of that campaign, lock stock and barrel.

    A sequel on How the world defeated itself….

  2. ltr says:

    What a shameful article. What word other than shameful should I use to describe such an article? This is journalism of deceit.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      ‘Shameful’ is, in my opinion, inappropriate. The MSM propaganda machine lost all sense of shame, guilt or conscience years ago. This is despicable, Daffy Duck despicable.

  3. For the WaPo to claim it has a “science” section is as absurd as to claim it has a business section.

  4. Peter says:

    The Post is heavily moderating the aforementioned article mentioned by JR.

    The site is being inundated by deniers at a rate of 3 to 1. Is this a surprise to us here? The Mainstream Press looks for false balance and will do so till it is no longer possible.

    They can deny the facts, the data, distort, using the usual lies, nonsense and corporate subterfuge till their ad revenue disappears like Rush Limbaugh’s advertisers are doing. now

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Every MSM site I know has become dominated by denialists over time. ‘Moderation’ to promote Rightists and deter the Left (ie deniers and rationalists)is an integral tool of thought control. Some outfits here, like the ABC’s ‘The Drum’, do it so poorly, so obviously, that it is obvious that they are acting on instructions from above, have no shame in serving the ideological cause, and know that they can get away with it.

  5. Lou Grinzo says:

    The WaPo has figured out the ultimate in media cost cutting measures: Making up stuff instead of taking the extra time to investigate and report reality.

  6. Mike Roddy says:

    I used to deliver the Washington Post when my dad worked in the Pentagon, and now I feel like chopping off my arm, I’m so ashamed.

    This is clearly all about money. Even their cub reporters aren’t that dumb. Who and why, Joe?

  7. Leif says:

    Hear, hear!

    As only you can do Joe.

    Two Palms Up,

    Leif

  8. SecularAnimist says:

    The “new NPR ethics handbook” sounds great. I hope they start actually following it soon.

    As it is, NPR is as bad as the Washington Post, or the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, or any of the other corporate media outlets that regularly receive well-deserved criticism here.

    For example, not long ago Morning Edition ran a fairly long, fairly detailed story about the catastrophic effects of the ongoing drought in Mexico — and did not mention or even hint at anything to do with climate change.

    Not to mention that they literally read Republican talking points as NEWS, on their half-hour NEWS updates, on a regular basis.

    Not to mention that they have lately been gleefully thanking the American Petroleum Institute’s “Vote 4 Energy” propaganda campaign for being a corporate underwriter of their programming!

    • Timeslayer says:

      Well said. So many liberals are in denial of the fact that we do not have a single respectable mainstream news source in this country.

      I’ve been a Nation subscriber for about 9 years and it is excellent. It’s disappointing how few liberals read it. Apparently they don’t mind their intelligence being insulted on a daily basis by the likes of the New York Times.

      TS

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        It’s the same in Australia. Every MSM source is hard Right and driving further Right every day. The only redeeming feature is the mirth-inducing hysteria of the deranged Right, who still loudly complain of ‘Leftwing vias’ when no real Leftwinger has appeared in the MSM for decades. Let’s face it-what hope has humanity when the elites are diabolically wicked and masses of the public are morally insane and mentally deranged?

  9. Sasparilla says:

    Thank you Joe for picking this apart.

    Head vice on this one. Wow, what an awful rewritten history according to denier’s in the WP – that was just unreal. I’m not sure the WSJ could have done that, well they would.

    “For years there were only a handful of researchers on both sides of the debate:”

    Were they kidding? Lindzen wasn’t on the other side of the issue because he was testifying that there wasn’t an ozone hole and that the hole wasn’t because of CFC’s and before that he was testifying in support of the cigarette companies that cigarettes didn’t cause cancer.

    I’m looking forward to the NPR article – that is something new with them and out of the mainline news orgs out there I would rate them the least worst (as SecularAnimist points out they have their issues, but have apparently acknowledged they’ve missed it and are trying to fix it – that’s alot better than the rest).

    Wow, this was really bad. These forces have almost our entire media system manipulated.

  10. John Tucker says:

    Real science relies shockingly little on ethics and honesty. As a matter of fact it places most value on repeatability and logical conclusions.

    Its always been that way. These so called “science” reporters and bloggers are the exact opposite of what they clam to be. They see science as a rhetorical discussion aimed at convincing a majority, and of course they overstate their value in the process.

  11. Steve Bloom says:

    Well, that article sure must be resulting in some interesting pillow talk in the Eilperin-Light household.

  12. Raul M. says:

    once had a fun try at writing a statement that could be read right side up from either side of the table. It was overly limiting as there are not many letters that represent from both sides of the table or numbers (6 or a 9)” capital E or a 3″
    Needless to say I didn’t come up with much that could be read upright from either side.

  13. Tom King says:

    Having failed to accurately report the most important events in the last 15 years, I wonder how the media will report their own demise? Who will write the op-eds about why the serious people have stopped reading?

  14. dana1981 says:

    The Curry quote is probably correct. She’s been making the denialist blogger-level mistake of confusing short-term variability with long-term trends. See here:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/certainty-monster-vs-uncertainty-ewok.html

    Lindzen is now taking his misinformation campaign on tour abroad.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-london-illusions.html

  15. Brian R Smith says:

    With daylight of reason fading: a climate scientist and his equally desperate gang of supporters peer (yes..) over the cliff at the turbulent river of public opinion below. Jagged rocks of ignorance and disinformation down there. Heavily armed, cash-soaked posse of lobbyists, oily liars and right wing lunatics with Congressional badges coming up fast from behind.

    Turning the metaphor back to the source..

    Butch: “If we fight, they’ll stay right where they are and starve us out.Or go for position, shoot us. Might even get a rock slide started, get us that way. What else can they do?”

    Sundance: “They could surrender to us but I wouldn’t count on that”

    Here’s the rest, the best:

    Off The Cliff
    http://movieclips.com/LCGT-butch-cassidy-and-the-sundance-kid-movie-off-the-cliff/

    “I cant swim!”
    “What are you crazy? The fall will probably kill ya!”

    We need to ignore and evade the bastards and take the direct route. The river’s where it’s at.

    • Brian R Smith says:

      Back-peddling, I meant “ignore & evade” in a limited, tactical sense. Not that we should yield ground, but rather change the rules when necessary.

  16. Chris Winter says:

    “For years there were only a handful of researchers on both sides of the debate…”

    This, I would say, defines the problem with the media: Unless someone is speaking out, the issue is not newsworthy. Hence, because for years most climate scientists quietly did their research out of the public eye, when a few finally decided to speak about the reality of the problem, for the media it became a dispute with nearly equal numbers on each side. Of course, their reporters don’t have the time or the budget (or the inclination, probably) to actually dig into the substance of the issue; they just read the press releases.

    Toward the end of the article, she writes: “And now, even the scientists who have argued most forcefully against climate skepticism are worried about the latest act in the climate wars.”

    No. It’s not climate skepticism they’re arguing against, it’s climate pseudo-skepticism: skeptical-sounding assertions with no facts or observations to back them up.