How the Right-Wing Climate Change Deniers Work Their Evil Magic
Leo Hickman has a nice little piece of investigative journalism in the Guardian about how a right-wing climate myth gets born and spread. In short, a scientist working on whether wind farms might affect localized weather (within 300 meters), gets published. He suggests it might. A right-wing newspaper, in this case the British paper The Daily Mail, picks up on it, effectively rewrites the paper to fit its agenda, and publishes it. Climate change denier websites spread it around the internet. Right-wingers gloat.
Hickman interviewed the scientist involved, who is completely befuddled by what has happened.
I don’t know if there’s anything to be done about this, but scientists rarely have much of an understanding of how the right wingers will misrepresent their research. I mean, what are they supposed to do, stop their research? No. But it would be worthwhile for the leading scientific associations to create PR departments that fight for the proper dissemination and understanding of research and to provide some pushback when the anti-climate change forces make things up.
You know, Erik, there’s a good little book about this called “Don’t Be Such A Scientist” by Randy Olson. Scientists have to communicate better and use good PR because journalists just aren’t the filters of truth they used to be.
I should check this out.
That sounds interesting. I’d also suggest more scientists read Doubt is Their Product and Merchants of Doubt, to better understand the forces arrayed against them and how they operate.
But what could the scientist do in this case?
The first step would be to write a letter to the editor. If that does no good, doing what has been done here is good. In fact, it would be nice to have a whole database of the myths deniers use, traced back to their dubious origins.
The UK libel laws are pretty nasty. Maybe the scientist could sue the paper for defaming his reputation.
Well, Loomis, looks like they could use a little Global Warming in Europe right about now.
It’s been obvious for quite a while that AGW skeptics are not arguing in good faith, but on the off chance that anyone reading this is not already aware of it, the conflation of local weather with climate is rather thoroughly discredited logical fallacy. No climate models of AGW predict there will never again be cold snaps anywhere, nor would I guess Al Gore would.
Apologies in advance if the preceding post was sarcasm that I missed.
Agreed. Even the most slack-jawed of simpletons (and there is no evidence that you, Ted, are particularly slack-jawed) can see that the term “global warming” means that it will be 95 degrees at all times and in all places. As this is obviously not the case, it must said to have been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt and with geometric logic that Al Gore is not only fat, he used to have A BEARD.
Indeed, all the models predict more extreme weather of all kinds (including cold and snow) as a consequence of global warming. Interestingly, the climate scientists are currently suggesting that the melting of the polar icecap is in part responsible for the current conditions in Europe.
Although we can’t really know if the poster was sarcastic (Poe’s Law!), it’s also worth noting that many climate change models predict that Europe would in fact be subject to severe cooling. The melting of the ice caps would stop or reverse the Gulf stream and freeze much of northern and western Europe.
(And obviously, without the caps having melted yet, this isn’t actually what is happening to Europe right now).
Or, as I see, as Dr. Dick says…
wjts, this is a thing of beauty. Thank you, kind madame/sir.