Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

Bergslagstroll · Aug 17, 2019

Media have for a long time failed in their reporting about climate change.

“From 2000 through 2016, hundreds of academics, business people and politicians who doubted global warming or attributed rising temperatures to "natural" causes got 50 percent more ink than an equal number of top scientists, according to a study in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed journal.

Even in a more select group of mainstream English language news outlets with high standards of evidence—from the New York Times and The Guardian to The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph—sceptics were still cited slightly more often.

In reality, there has long been overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that global warming—caused mainly by burning fossil fuels—poses a major threat to civilisation and much of life on Earth.”

Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

There you at the same time have had massive disinformation campaigns from the fossil fuel industry.

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public - Scientific American

Doubt over climate science is a product with an industry behind it | Graham Readfearn | Environment | The Guardian

That because of that we are now running out of time in avoiding many of the devastating effects of climate change.

Limiting Warming to 1.5deg Celsius Will Require Drastic Action, IPCC Says - Scientific American

Sheepdog · Aug 17, 2019

Good we should be hearing all evidence for and against.

ttwtt78640 · Aug 17, 2019

The same obvious news media bias exists in the reporting airline and motor vehicle traffic stories - the majority of trips result in no "accidents" but the teeny, tiny number of trips that do not end well get far more news coverage. The same is true of typical and legal gun use - it rarely gets reported, but gun abuse events (called "gun crime") get loads of news coverage. It is something being the exception, rather than the rule, which makes the news media find it more worth noting.

Jack Hays · Aug 17, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
Media have for a long time failed in their reporting about climate change.

“From 2000 through 2016, hundreds of academics, business people and politicians who doubted global warming or attributed rising temperatures to "natural" causes got 50 percent more ink than an equal number of top scientists, according to a study in Nature Communications, a peer-reviewed journal.

Even in a more select group of mainstream English language news outlets with high standards of evidence—from the New York Times and The Guardian to The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph—sceptics were still cited slightly more often.

In reality, there has long been overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that global warming—caused mainly by burning fossil fuels—poses a major threat to civilisation and much of life on Earth.”

Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

There you at the same time have had massive disinformation campaigns from the fossil fuel industry.

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public - Scientific American

Doubt over climate science is a product with an industry behind it | Graham Readfearn | Environment | The Guardian

That because of that we are now running out of time in avoiding many of the devastating effects of climate change.

Limiting Warming to 1.5deg Celsius Will Require Drastic Action, IPCC Says - Scientific American

[FONT=&quot]

Climate News[/FONT]
[h=1]Nature Communications ‘blinks’ over slimy climate blacklist from @UCmerced authors[/h][FONT=&quot]It seems like our complaints (and complaints from hundreds of others) are having an impact, this was just added to the peer Reviewed article Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians on the Nature Communications website. This was just posted: 16 August 2019 Editorial Note: This is an update of…
[/FONT]

Jack Hays · Aug 17, 2019

[h=2]The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on August 14, 2019 by curryja | 216 comments[/FONT]
The latest travesty in consensus ‘enforcement’, published by Nature.
Continue reading →

Jack Hays · Aug 17, 2019

[h=1]NATURE DEFAMATION[/h]Posted on 16 Aug 19 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 2 Comments

Phys251 · Aug 17, 2019

Sheepdog said:
Good we should be hearing all evidence for and against.

Should the media report all the evidence for a flat earth? How about for phlogiston theory? Maybe they should report all the scientific evidence for woo, or seven-day creationism, or whether astrology is accurate. Hell let's just go for broke and have the MSM debate whether babies come from storks.

Jack Hays · Aug 17, 2019

[h=2]Skeptics get 49% more media, and other fairy fantasy stories from Nature Gossip Mag[/h]
Skeptics get banned, rejected, blocked and sacked from the mainstream media yet somehow Nature has a paper on Skeptics getting too much media. Believers don’t have to be an expert to control the news agenda, just a Greenpeace activist, or a teenage girl. Skeptics on the other hand, can be Nobel Prize winners, but the BBC won’t even phone them.

Nature, the former science giant, just launched the tenets of science over the event horizon. This paper is Argument from Authority rolled into false equivalence, and powered with cherry-picked errors in both category and in categorization. Nonsense on a rocket. It’s not what science is, and it’s not what journalism should be either. And Nature is supposed to be both. Judith Curry calls it The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ and the worst paper she has ever seen in a reputable journal.

….

Both David Evans and I get a mention on what is effectively Nature‘s blacklist. What an honour! No really — there are 386 great names. Even more of an honour is a mention on Judith Curry’s site “blogs she’s learnt something from”. (By some freak, my name comes right after Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaver, Nobel Prize winner. Career-high I tell you!) But seriously, Marc Morano tops the Nature blacklist, and no man deserves it more. Congratulations Marc! . . . .

Sheepdog · Aug 17, 2019

Phys251 said:
Should the media report all the evidence for a flat earth? How about for phlogiston theory? Maybe they should report all the scientific evidence for woo, or seven-day creationism, or whether astrology is accurate. Hell let's just go for broke and have the MSM debate whether babies come from storks.

That would be awesome. Id like to see hour long debates on national tv about these kinds of subjects.

Phys251 · Aug 17, 2019

Sheepdog said:
That would be awesome. Id like to see hour long debates on national tv about these kinds of subjects.

r/woosh

Phys251 · Aug 17, 2019

Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Skeptics get 49% more media, and other fairy fantasy stories from Nature Gossip Mag[/h]
Skeptics get banned, rejected, blocked and sacked from the mainstream media yet somehow Nature has a paper on Skeptics getting too much media. Believers don’t have to be an expert to control the news agenda, just a Greenpeace activist, or a teenage girl. Skeptics on the other hand, can be Nobel Prize winners, but the BBC won’t even phone them.

Nature, the former science giant, just launched the tenets of science over the event horizon. This paper is Argument from Authority rolled into false equivalence, and powered with cherry-picked errors in both category and in categorization. Nonsense on a rocket. It’s not what science is, and it’s not what journalism should be either. And Nature is supposed to be both. Judith Curry calls it The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ and the worst paper she has ever seen in a reputable journal.

….

Both David Evans and I get a mention on what is effectively Nature‘s blacklist. What an honour! No really — there are 386 great names. Even more of an honour is a mention on Judith Curry’s site “blogs she’s learnt something from”. (By some freak, my name comes right after Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaver, Nobel Prize winner. Career-high I tell you!) But seriously, Marc Morano tops the Nature blacklist, and no man deserves it more. Congratulations Marc! . . . .

You're going to launch a full-fledged ad hominem, pure conspiracy theory attack at one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world?

Jack, Jack, Jack. You gotta learn how to bluff.

Sheepdog · Aug 17, 2019

Phys251 said:
r/woosh

I guess you are just not interested in anything.

Jack Hays · Aug 17, 2019

Phys251 said:
You're going to launch a full-fledged ad hominem, pure conspiracy theory attack at one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world?

Jack, Jack, Jack. You gotta learn how to bluff.

In this, as in much else, Professor Judith Curry points the way to integrity.

"This ranks as the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal."

The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’

Posted on August 14, 2019 by curryja | 212 comments
The latest travesty in consensus ‘enforcement’, published by Nature.
Continue reading →

bubbabgone · Aug 17, 2019

Jack Hays said:
[h=2]The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/14/the-latest-travesty-in-consensus-enforcement/"]August 14, 2019[/URL] by curryja | 216 comments[/FONT]
The latest travesty in consensus ‘enforcement’, published by Nature.
Continue reading →

"Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists."
It's contrarians vs scientists.
Not very subtle, huh.

Phys251 · Aug 17, 2019

Jack Hays said:
In this, as in much else, Professor Judith Curry points the way to integrity.

Backing up a spammed commentary with a spammed commentary I see. :lol:

Let me know when you produce something of value around here.

Jack Hays · Aug 17, 2019

Phys251 said:
Backing up a spammed commentary with a spammed commentary I see. :lol:

Let me know when you produce something of value around here.

The paper in question is a slimy hit piece of a type that has sadly become too common among AGW advocates. It seems that even the editors of Nature Communications are having second thoughts. Please see #4. Meanwhile, legal action is probably pending.

Jack Hays · Aug 17, 2019

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[h=1]IN THE TANK – CLIMATE “CONTRARIANS” BLACKLISTED?[/h][FONT=&quot]Heartland’s Donald Kendal and Jim Lakely are joined by Isaac Orr in episode #204 of the In The Tank Podcast. This episode features work from Nature Communications, the Cato Institute, and the Goldwater Institute. Heartland’s Donald Kendal and Jim Lakely are joined by Isaac Orr in episode #204 of the In The Tank Podcast. This weekly…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

Quaestio · Aug 17, 2019

Phys251 said:
r/woosh

yikes!

PoS · Aug 18, 2019

Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Skeptics get 49% more media, and other fairy fantasy stories from Nature Gossip Mag[/h]
Skeptics get banned, rejected, blocked and sacked from the mainstream media yet somehow Nature has a paper on Skeptics getting too much media. Believers don’t have to be an expert to control the news agenda, just a Greenpeace activist, or a teenage girl. Skeptics on the other hand, can be Nobel Prize winners, but the BBC won’t even phone them.

Nature, the former science giant, just launched the tenets of science over the event horizon. This paper is Argument from Authority rolled into false equivalence, and powered with cherry-picked errors in both category and in categorization. Nonsense on a rocket. It’s not what science is, and it’s not what journalism should be either. And Nature is supposed to be both. Judith Curry calls it The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ and the worst paper she has ever seen in a reputable journal.

….

Both David Evans and I get a mention on what is effectively Nature‘s blacklist. What an honour! No really — there are 386 great names. Even more of an honour is a mention on Judith Curry’s site “blogs she’s learnt something from”. (By some freak, my name comes right after Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaver, Nobel Prize winner. Career-high I tell you!) But seriously, Marc Morano tops the Nature blacklist, and no man deserves it more. Congratulations Marc! . . . .

:bravo::rock

Bergslagstroll · Aug 18, 2019

Phys251 said:
Should the media report all the evidence for a flat earth? How about for phlogiston theory? Maybe they should report all the scientific evidence for woo, or seven-day creationism, or whether astrology is accurate. Hell let's just go for broke and have the MSM debate whether babies come from storks.

That the evidence of manmade global warming is so overwhelming that even federal agencies under Donald Trump and fossil fuel companies have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Statements on Paris climate agreement | ExxonMobil

Bergslagstroll · Aug 18, 2019

ttwtt78640 said:
The same obvious news media bias exists in the reporting airline and motor vehicle traffic stories - the majority of trips result in no "accidents" but the teeny, tiny number of trips that do not end well get far more news coverage. The same is true of typical and legal gun use - it rarely gets reported, but gun abuse events (called "gun crime") get loads of news coverage. It is something being the exception, rather than the rule, which makes the news media find it more worth noting.

It have a lot do with the fact media wanted to 'balance' their reporting. While lacking the knowledge and insight in how overwhelming the evidence for manmade global warming was and how little credible the scientists and other so called "experts" propped up by the fossil fuel companies had. There this have had a huge negative impact on policies and the public's understanding of climate change

"Since the early 2000s there has been little disagreement among scientific experts over the fundamental evidence supporting the existence, origin, and societal significance of anthropogenic climate change (CC)1,2,3,4. Yet, while an anthropogenic cause is supported by an overwhelming majority of climate change scientists (CCS)5, climate change contrarians (CCC) have successfully organized a strong voice within politics and science communication in the United States6,7.

Historians of science have detailed the political origins of the CCC movement, documenting how its strategic efforts succeeded in distorting the science-based narrative on multiple fronts, e.g., by promoting the idea that there is a lack of scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic CC6,8,9,10,11,12, despite the fact that objective research has found little evidence for such a claim. One study comparing consensus scientists with unconvinced scientists found that the 2–3% of researchers unconvinced by evidence for anthropogenic CC were not only small in group size but also had substantially lower levels of authority in the CC literature10. Another study surveying ∼3000 earth scientists found the highest levels of CC consensus to be among the most expert climatologists5."

Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians | Nature Communications

ttwtt78640 · Aug 18, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
It have a lot do with the fact media wanted to 'balance' their reporting. While lacking the knowledge and insight in how overwhelming the evidence for manmade global warming was and how little credible the scientists and other so called "experts" propped up by the fossil fuel companies had. There this have had a huge negative impact on policies and the public's understanding of climate change

"Since the early 2000s there has been little disagreement among scientific experts over the fundamental evidence supporting the existence, origin, and societal significance of anthropogenic climate change (CC)1,2,3,4. Yet, while an anthropogenic cause is supported by an overwhelming majority of climate change scientists (CCS)5, climate change contrarians (CCC) have successfully organized a strong voice within politics and science communication in the United States6,7.

Historians of science have detailed the political origins of the CCC movement, documenting how its strategic efforts succeeded in distorting the science-based narrative on multiple fronts, e.g., by promoting the idea that there is a lack of scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic CC6,8,9,10,11,12, despite the fact that objective research has found little evidence for such a claim. One study comparing consensus scientists with unconvinced scientists found that the 2–3% of researchers unconvinced by evidence for anthropogenic CC were not only small in group size but also had substantially lower levels of authority in the CC literature10. Another study surveying ∼3000 earth scientists found the highest levels of CC consensus to be among the most expert climatologists5."

Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians | Nature Communications

OK, but there is a difference between denial of X and saying that X is the major (primary?) cause of Y and/or requires (political) action plan Z.

For example, one is not denying that mass shootings exist or contribute to "gun crime" if (when?) they point out that mass shootings are a only a small part of total "gun crime" ("gun deaths"?) or object to the assertion that a specific "gun control" law is going to have a significant impact on mass shootings or even on total "gun crime".

Many so called "deniers" can agree that AGW exists along with other influences (causes?) of "climate change", yet not see AGW as reason to "scientifically" support a carbon tax or other massive expansion of government power/control.

COTO · Aug 18, 2019

Jack Hays said:
Skeptics get 49% more media, and other fairy fantasy stories from Nature Gossip Mag

Skeptics get banned, rejected, blocked and sacked from the mainstream media yet somehow Nature has a paper on Skeptics getting too much media. Believers don’t have to be an expert to control the news agenda, just a Greenpeace activist, or a teenage girl. Skeptics on the other hand, can be Nobel Prize winners, but the BBC won’t even phone them.

Nature, the former science giant, just launched the tenets of science over the event horizon. This paper is Argument from Authority rolled into false equivalence, and powered with cherry-picked errors in both category and in categorization. Nonsense on a rocket. It’s not what science is, and it’s not what journalism should be either. And Nature is supposed to be both. Judith Curry calls it The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ and the worst paper she has ever seen in a reputable journal.
Both David Evans and I get a mention on what is effectively Nature‘s blacklist. What an honour! No really — there are 386 great names. Even more of an honour is a mention on Judith Curry’s site “blogs she’s learnt something from”. (By some freak, my name comes right after Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaver, Nobel Prize winner. Career-high I tell you!) But seriously, Marc Morano tops the Nature blacklist, and no man deserves it more. Congratulations Marc! . . . .

Their methodology does seem like complete garbage. They limit their sampling to a small list of specific names (huge statistical no-no), filter by keyword (also indefensible), and then ignore whether the coverage being received is positive or negative.

It should never have made it past the review process. The fact that it did says something about the journal.

You've been led down the garden path with this one, @Bergslagtroll.

Taylor · Aug 18, 2019

Last I checked, the government was spending as much or more on "outreach and education" on climate change as it was on actual research.

COTO · Aug 18, 2019

bubbabgone said:
"Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists."
It's contrarians vs scientists.
Not very subtle, huh.

At least it wasn't "Here we show via direct comparison that the evil guys are featured in 49% more media articles than the good guys."

Glass half full. :coffeepap

Climate deniers get more media play than scientists: study

Sometimes wrong

Traveler

Traveler

Traveler

Purge evil with Justice

Traveler

Purge evil with Justice

Purge evil with Justice

Traveler

Purge evil with Justice

Traveler

Traveler

Minister of Love

Sometimes wrong

Panthera Uncia

Panthera Uncia