Heated debates

Post categories: All stories in production

George South | 11:41 UK time, Friday, 25 July 2008

The web. It's a great place to find out new things, challenge one's preconceptions and expose urban myths and untruths. And the sheer number of citizen journalists and bloggers makes it trivially easy to point out shoddy reporting.

Or, perhaps not. The blogosphere can also seem like an echo chamber where those with non-mainstream beliefs can find like-minded souls, and tune out opposing ideas. As Charlie Brooker found out last week after attacking 9/11 conspiracy theorists on Comment is Free, the internet is the natural home for 'truthers'; his post attracted more comments than any other in the history of the site .

Few issues polarise people as much as the reality of man-made global warming. On Monday, Ofcom's long-awaited judgement on Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle was published. You can read the report itself here. So what was the verdict? Over to the blogs:

Ok, so they weren't quick but they got there in the end. The TV regulators have finally came out and said that the 'Documentary' the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' was not up to scratch. In fact, they said a lot more than that but in language that wasn't quite as direct as it might have been. Michael Greenwell

Great Global Warming Swindle Cleared How shoddy is the case for global warming theory than 37 professors between them cannot convince Ofcom of a single uncorrected error in The Great Global Warming Swindle? In all, this witchhunt against The Great Global Warming Swindle has failed utterly to discredit it, discrediting instead the accusers. Andrew Bolt

Ofcom rules that The Great Global Warming Swindle was biased and unfair (...) It was unfair to the IPCC, David King, and Carl Wunsch and breached a requirement of impartiality about global warming policy. The complaint is a thorough demolition of all the falsehoods in the Swindle... Deltoid

None of the complaints alleging lack of due impartiality in the science portion (sections 1-4) was upheld. Not one. The only bone thrown to the complainants was a finding that there had not been due impartiality in the portion talking about Africa - an issue that Bob Ward and the Myles Allen 37 didn't even mention. A humiliating defeat ... for the professors ...it's hard to imagine a more thorough stuffing of the complainants. They were lucky they didn't have to pay costs. Climate Audit

Overall: C4 gets stuffed on this one, with most of the complaints upheld. Stoat

OfCom's key finding, after their minor technical criticisms, is devastating. The film "Did not mislead audiences so as to cause harm or offence". But the main thrust of the complainants was that Channel 4 had misled audiences. The OfCom verdict amounts almost to an endorsement of the film. Straight Talking

Confused? In some ways, the online coverage of the Ofcom verdict is reflective of the larger climate change debate. Such a mixed and heavily caveated report lends itself to multiple interpretations. In the wider scientific skirmishes over climate change, the exact same observations and facts about, for example, levels of sea ice and historical CO2 levels have been used to draw quite different conclusions. How can this be?

Dr Patrick Leman is a Reader in Psychology at the University of London. He told us that the same piece of evidence can be used by different people to support very different accounts of events. People tend to consider new information to be more plausible if it confirms their pre-existing beliefs - a phenomenon known as confirmation bias - and the nature of the web can be to amplify and exaggerate this bias. Here's an extended version of the interview we recorded earlier.

Full screen view

Bookmark with:
del.icio.us |
Digg |
Newsvine |
NowPublic |
Reddit
- What's this?

Comments

1. At 1:20pm on 25 Jul 2008, AMrsTrellisNthWales wrote:
Dear Friends of the Earth,
Are you worried by your carbon footprint? A bucket of Flash will soon sort that out.
Yours etc., Mrs Trellis.

Complain about this comment
2. At 1:39pm on 25 Jul 2008, larkspip wrote:
Stratford MP John Maples has changed his mind about climate change after reading Nigel Lawson's book. He used to fear it, now he's not so convinced.

Complain about this comment
3. At 1:51pm on 25 Jul 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
This paper
should be required reading before engaging in any discussion of media coverage of any "scientific" subject:
"In reporting political, legal, or other advocacy-dominated stories, it is both natural and appropriate for honest journalists to report "both sides" of an issue. Got the Democrat? Better get the Republican!

In science, it's different. There are rarely just two polar opposite sides, but rather a spectrum of potential outcomes, oftentimes accompanied by a considerable history of scientific assessment of the relative credibility of these many possibilities. A climate scientist faced with a reporter locked into the "get both sides" mindset risks getting his or her views stuffed into one of two boxed storylines: “we’re worried” or “it will all be OK.” And sometimes, these two "boxes" are misrepresentative; a mainstream, well-established consensus may be "balanced" against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible. Any scientist wandering into the political arena and naively thinking "balanced" assessment is what all sides seek (or hear) had better learn fast how the advocacy system really functions."
Happy debating!

xx
ed

Complain about this comment
4. At 11:00pm on 25 Jul 2008, jollyrationalist wrote:
For those that don't know, Climateaudit.org is linked to vested interests and is not a source of objective information on climate science.
It is run by
Steven McIntyre a minerals consultant and Ross McKitrick is an economist. Both are linked to ExxonMobil funded thinktanks.
Source: www.exxonsecrets.org

Neither has any background in climate science.

Complain about this comment
5. At 06:38am on 26 Jul 2008, jollyrationalist wrote:
Andrew Bolt is a journalist with anti global warming views - his views regarding climate are apparently based upon predjudice and misconceptions, but are clearly lacking any kind of objective assessment of the facts.

He wrote:
"In all, this witchhunt against The Great Global Warming Swindle has failed utterly to discredit it, discrediting instead the accusers."

Clearly Bolt cannot understand the complaint against TGGWS, or the detailed science behind it. Sadly, neither can OFCOM! OFCOM is a toothless and utterly useless watchdog.

Bolt claims that he "fearlessly cuts through the myths and the spin to tell you the bottom-line facts behind everything from global warming to terrorism..," from sourcewatch.org

This kind of mindset can be summed up with the following saying: -
'Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made-up!'

Complain about this comment
6. At 07:34am on 26 Jul 2008, jollyrationalist wrote:
The really important thing to consider when reading posts that make anti-science claims, e.g.: -
'why are these scientists so stupid'?

Google the Dunning-Kruger effect

It will explain a great deal!

Complain about this comment
7. At 12:55pm on 26 Jul 2008, jollyrationalist wrote:
Re: 2. larkspip wrote:

'Stratford MP John Maples has changed his mind about climate change after reading Nigel Lawson's book. He used to fear it, now he's not so convinced.'

From www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net
About Nigel Lawson, Lord Lawson of Blaby:

"Lord Lawson is a politician and was Chancellor of the Exchequer between 1983 and 1989. He has no relevant scientific credentials and therefore could not be considered an “expert” in the evaluation of contemporary climate change science."

Would anyone ask an archaeologist to fix a broken-down car?
Would one consult a tribologist about gamma-ray bursts?
Would one consult a plumber about the health of a child?
Would one consult an architect about the finer details of criminal law?

If your answer to any of these is yes, please stop reading now, there is no saving you!

Otherwise:
Why would anyone choose to take the advice of a layman, albeit a famous one, over the combined work of the world's most eminent climate scientists?

This is surely, not the action of a rational person!

While I haven't read his book [and I don't intend to, I read science, not science-fiction], I have heard Nigel Lawson in the Swindle and on the World Service and everything he said about the climate was wrong and not based upon the science. He should get his facts right!

Lord Lawson should study the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Complain about this comment
8. At 1:20pm on 26 Jul 2008, Ed Iglehart wrote:
Jolly,
"Google the Dunning-Kruger effect"
Thanks for that. It raised a smile of recognition.

It's not exactly a new recognition worthy of a Nobel, though:
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance
Confucius

Ignorance is a voluntary misfortune
Nicholas Ling

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument
William G. McAdoo

Minds are like parachutes-they only function when they are open
Thomas Dewar"
Or, what better precedent than Socrates?
"According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone was wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that none was wiser. Socrates believed that what the Oracle had said was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle through approaching men who were considered to be wise by the people of Athens, such as statesmen, poets, and artisans, in order to refute the pronouncement of the Oracle. But questioning them, Socrates came to the conclusion that, while each man thought he knew a great deal and was very wise, they in fact knew very little and were not really wise at all. Socrates realized that the Oracle was correct, in that while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggests a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spends as Athens' benefactor.[9] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock."
[Wikipedia]

Salaam, etc.
ed

Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

Jump to more content from this blog

About this blog

The programme that starts with its listeners. Join daily discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.