There is a broad, nearly universal consensus among scientists that rapid climate change is occurring, and that nearly all of that change since 1950 has been caused by human activity. As one atmospheric scientist stated, “We are more sure that greenhouse gas is causing climate change than we are that smoking causes cancer.”

Now, you may not like that. You may believe that their consensus is wrong.
But you cannot deny that the consensus exists.

Or can you?

Recent surveys by Yale and George Mason universities have found that only about 15% of Americans are aware that the expert climate consensus exceeds 90%. Most Americans think that the scientific community is split on the issue of climate change. *

How can this be?

Well, why wouldn't they? I have been watching news coverage of climate change for over a decade. It usually goes like this:
A new study is published about climate change. The media reports a one line summary of what the study concluded. Then the media finds two guys. One will be a believer in climate change, one will be a denier. Often neither of them are actual scientists. More likely both are political operatives from each tribe. The media treats both with equal credulity, and lets the cameras roll while these guys yell at each other for 30 seconds.

At the conclusion of this little show, the media believes that they have done a good job. Why? They have been 'fair'. They have 'let the viewer decide'. They have shown 'both sides'. 
They treat climate change like a political issue. Heck, they even refer to it as the climate 'debate', as if discussing the existence of climate change is like arguing about whether your high school should be given the funds to build a new gym.

What's wrong with this? Well, the viewer sees two guys on opposite sides of the issue afforded equal time, being treated by the journalist with equal credulity. And the viewer quite naturally assumes that there is an equal split on the issue. But, the thing is, science is about truth and fact. Water boils at 212 F at 1 atmosphere of pressure. There is no valid other side that says it boils at 67F. There is no valid school of thought that says that 2+2=9.

Journalists have fundamentally misread what their job is. Their job is not to give equal time and equal credulity to 'all sides'. That is just laziness. The press' job is to present truth. Trump is either lying or not. Climate change either has a scientific consensus or it does not.

Let me put it this way: If someone says that it's raining and someone says that it isn't, it's not the press's  job to quote them both. It is the press's job to get off your butt, go over to the friggin window, and find out which is true.
Journalism 101.


* https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/22/trump-thinks-scientists-are-split-on-climate-change-so-do-most-americans

Last edited by Goose (10/23/2018 6:25 am)