Curtis Brainard of CJR‘s Observatory blog (1/29/10) complains about the lack of coverage of what he calls “Glaciergate”:
Almost two weeks ago, the Sunday Times, a British newspaper, “broke” the story that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had made significant errors in its 2007 report on the impacts of global warming….
The report stated that there was a very high likelihood that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035 if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Three days after the Times published its article, the IPCC essentially admitted that this was an error (while glaciers in the region are melting, they are unlikely to vanish that quickly) and apologized (pdf) for the “poorly substantiated” claim.
In the days after the story first broke, the New York Times and the Washington Post each ran one print article about the Himalayan glaciers error. The Christian Science Monitor, now published online, produced one piece, and the Associated Press and Bloomberg sent a couple of articles over the wire.
Unfortunately, thatâ┚¬Ã¢”ž¢s about it. Meanwhile, outlets in the U.K., India and Australia have been eating the American media’s lunch, churning out reams of commentary and analysis. Journalists in the U.S. should take immediate steps to redress that oversight.
But the New York Times never reported the IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 before publishing the debunking article. The Washington Post mentioned it in a story (11/22/09) that focused on the Indian environmental minister’s rejection of the claim. The Christian Science Monitor had one piece (11/5/99) on melting Himalayan glaciers that quoted a source saying “the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”–but this was not a quote from the IPCC report, which wouldn’t appear for another eight years, but from the International Commission on Snow and Ice, which was part of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences.
None of these papers, then, thought that the IPCC’s statement that the Himalayan glaciers would likely melt by 2035 was in itself worth mentioning, let alone basing a story around. So how much effort should the same papers spend reporting on the withdrawal of this claim? That depends on whether you think melting glaciers, or scientific misstatements about melting glaciers, are the bigger threat to humanity.
You see the same emphasis on science process trivia over the actual phenomena scientists are studying in a British Guardian story headlined “Leaked Climate Change Emails Scientist ‘Hid’ Data Flaws” (2/1/10), which is no doubt getting a lot of U.S. traffic today via a link from Drudge. In the fifth paragraph, the story reveals that contrary to the implication of the headline and subhead (“Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures”), the story actually has no bearing on the reality of climate change:
The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.
And how do they do that, exactly?
Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.
So essentially this story reveals that before a scientist was cleared of suspicions of scientific wrongdoing, he was suspected of scientific wrongdoing. Stop the presses!
That a respectable paper like the Guardian would trumpet this as an important scoop–and that a media watchdog like CJR would be calling for more in this vein–is a testimony to how deeply the “Climategate” hackers have distorted the discussion over the most important environmental issue of our lifetimes. See the brand-new issue of Extra!: “‘Climategate’ Overshadows Copenhagen: Media Regress to the Bad Old Days of False Balance” (2/10) by Julie Hollar.
Jim, while I agree with the main point, I don’t understand what you’re getting at saying that the corpress didn’t pay much attention to the 2035 claim in the first place, so why should they give much space to its being in error.
That’s a pretty grave prediction, and should’ve received commensurate coverage, don’t you think? Doesn’t it show how pathetically the corpress deals with environmental issues that this should’ve passed almost unnoticed?
And its retraction should’ve likewise received major attention – as the acknowledgment of a mistake, not as some goddamn conspiracy theory propagated by the climate change deniers. Of course, this afforded the opportunity to examine how and why these fools create these “teapot tempests” – but the MSM isn’t interested in that, are they?
That wouldn’t be “fair and balanced”, would it?
I wonder how they would’ve handled the whole “Is the earth round or flat?” controversy back in the day?
Doug, there are many pieces of evidence that demonstrate that global warming is happening, including the shrinking of glaciers around the world. The prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035–which was, after all, just a prediction–was a tiny part of an overwhelming case, and the fact that it wasn’t thought to be worth mentioning by our major newspapers reflects the significance they accorded it. The idea that it should be worthy of far more attention now that it’s been called into question is a sign of the power that the denialists have to set the agenda not only of media but of media critics.
Jim, I think you misunderstood me, at least partially.
A reputable source predicting such an outcome within thirty years would seem to be something that should be worth more than passing mention. That it wasn’t shows, to me, that the corpress both ignorantly and wilfully ignore the reality of the coming disaster – which many millions are already experiencing.
And that it was, in fact, an error, should receive more than passing mention as well – but not as it’s being framed by the deniers. However, a responsible media would take the opportunity to expose just how they twist the facts.
In other words, giving exposure to the deniers’ claims to expose their duplicity.
But, of course, that won’t happen given our current media landscape, will it?
I hope that’s clearer. If you disagree with it, so be it, but I want you to be straight on just what I’m trying to say.
Jim,
I see your point here, but think you misunderstood the point of my column. I was not calling on the American press to cover the glaciers error with blinders on, ignoring all other context, such as the overriding fact that around world they are indeed melting at an alarming rate. Journalists need to hold the IPCC accountable for its errors, but the story â┚¬“ done right â┚¬“ would remind readers that the vast majority of its conclusions remain valid and that global warming is a very real concern. Moreover, I wasn’t calling on journalists to cover the glaciers error per se, but rather the crisis in public confidence currently afflicting the IPCC. Much of the criticism that led to the crisis was unjustified and journalists need to report that. Take for example, the recent allegation that the IPCC overstated the Amazon’s sensitivity to a decline in rainfall. The panel’s statement was, in fact, accurate, but the source it chose to support it was downright awful. If reporters don’t get in there and explain the full context of these alleged gaffes, a lot of good science will get thrown out with the bad. In other words, ignoring the controversy surrounding the IPCC won’t make it go away, but addressing it head-on just might. I’m surprised that you don’t seem to agree.
Sincerely,
Curtis Brainard, CJR
A very important point that almost nobody mentions is that the only mistake the IPCC made, and the only thing they apoligized for, was not applying the same high standards to checking into this prediction as they usually do. That does not make the conclusion that the glaciers could melt as soon as 2035 false, it just means there is not yet enough evidence to say with confidence that is true. It still could very well be true.
In general the IPCC has been too conservative and cautious in its predictions, so much so that many things have already proven to be worse than even their worst case scenarios, and it’s less than 3 years from the time the reports were published! If the news media was really being fair, they would mention this in their accounts, so that people would know that in general things are more urgent than the IPCC reports indicate. And I’m talking about things that have actually happened, not predictions that we won’t know the accuracy of until another 25 years have passed.
Related piece:
Climate Change Scientists Losing ‘PR War’ to Vested Interests
A Nobel peace prize-winning Welsh physicist says climate change scientists are losing “a PR war” against sceptics with vested interests.
by BBC News
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/12-1