Yesterday, Senator James Inhofe, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, gave a lengthy speech on the senate floor. The topic? “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming.” In it, he concludes:
The American people deserve better -- much better -- from our fourth estate. We have a right to expect accuracy and objectivity on climate change coverage. We have a right to expect balance in sourcing and fair analysis from reporters who cover the issue. Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific “consensus” of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science. After all, there was a so-called scientific “consensus” that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted. Breaking the cycles of media hysteria will not be easy since hysteria sells -- it’s very profitable. But I want to challenge the news media to reverse course and report on the objective science of climate change, to stop ignoring legitimate voices this scientific debate and to stop acting as a vehicle for unsubstantiated hype.
In related news...In response to statements by one of John's favorite punching bags, William Gray, professor emeritus of meteorology at Colorado State University, in which Professor Gray labels global warming a 'big scam" the Denver Post writes:
Science by its nature is disputatious - with every idea challenged, tested and retested. It's always been that way.
In the 18th century, Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz sparred over claims to the discovery of calculus.
About 140 years later, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was challenged - based on the science of the day - by Harvard University professor Louis Agassiz and the British Museum's Sir Richard Owen.
Now the battle is over global warming, or more accurately over myriad details - like temperature readings and the thickness of sea ice - upon which the larger idea is based.
On one hand, the fight is a natural part of the scientific process. But it also creates dissonance and uncertainty.
...and...
While science is comfortable with uncertainty, policymakers are not, and that is what has turned this scientific debate into front-page headlines.
...and what has lead to indifference on the part of the public. For once I was ahead of a story. I'm just a little leary of the company I'm starting to keep.
