3 ms·

This is a problem of science journalism. We don't want all scientists' predictions to agree - there should be a range that reflects the real uncertainty. But co

This is a problem of science journalism. We don't want all scientists' predictions to agree - there should be a range that reflects the real uncertainty. But combine this with the demand for big headlines, and you have a broken way of conveying predictions to the public.

macinjosh 7y ago
I think so too. But why don't we ever hear the scientific community come out and stand up for themselves? I imagine that would be considered news in and of itself. I reckon its because there is a social and possible economic price to pay to say anything that detracts from a sense of emergency around the climate. It is a toxic culture now similar to that of the 'woke' wing of the left or the pro-gun wing of the right. If anyone wants the general public to take this issue as seriously as it should be FUD is not the way to go. I think it hurts more than it helps.
- comicjk 7y ago
  Well, I'm a scientist and I'm talking about it... If scientists knew how to fix science journalism, we would. It's not just climate. Cancer research and diet research have the same problem, and if battery capacity had doubled for every headline saying it had, we would be charging our phones once a year. But the science journalists argue that they're not lying, just picking the most interesting stories, and that otherwise no one would read them at all. If scientists came out with a statement that science journalism is a fraud, it might be sensational enough to make the news, but it wouldn't be true. If they said science journalism needs reform - well, I'm sure you can find plenty of blog posts arguing this, but not a lot of media coverage.
  - macinjosh 7y ago
    > If scientists came out with a statement that science journalism is a fraud, it might be sensational enough to make the news, but it wouldn't be true. You're arguing the extremes here. Scientific organizations could easily publicize their displeasure with how their work is communicated to the public without calling the media fraudsters. Give me a break.
    - comicjk 7y ago
      If you see smart people not doing something they could easily do, maybe it's not so easy? Example: the American Council on Science and Health put together a ranking of science journalism sources, putting Nature at the top, and Nature responded telling them they weren't helping. https://www.nature.com/news/science-journalism-can-be-evidence-based-compelling-and-wrong-1.21591 https://www.nature.com/news/science-journalism-can-be-eviden... I admit I'm speculating a bit when I try to explain why reforming science journalism is difficult, but I'm pretty sure empirically that it is difficult.
      - macinjosh 7y ago
        Not my problem.
chrisco255 7y ago
The climate is a non-linear dynamic system. Even if you had the perfect computer model to represent the earth's climate system, if your input parameters were off by even the slightest bit you'd be way off base in 5, 10, 50 years. That's why weather predictions are useless more than 10 days out and why we can't predict hurricane movement more than a couple of days out and our uncertainty increases as a function of time. This stuff is way more nuanced and complex than anyone lets on. You can't even begin to explain it in a one part article...and meanwhile, fearful headlines remain top click targets.

macinjosh 7y ago

I think so too. But why don't we ever hear the scientific community come out and stand up for themselves? I imagine that would be considered news in and of itself. I reckon its because there is a social and possible economic price to pay to say anything that detracts from a sense of emergency around the climate. It is a toxic culture now similar to that of the 'woke' wing of the left or the pro-gun wing of the right. If anyone wants the general public to take this issue as seriously as it should be FUD is not the way to go. I think it hurts more than it helps.

comicjk 7y ago
Well, I'm a scientist and I'm talking about it... If scientists knew how to fix science journalism, we would. It's not just climate. Cancer research and diet research have the same problem, and if battery capacity had doubled for every headline saying it had, we would be charging our phones once a year. But the science journalists argue that they're not lying, just picking the most interesting stories, and that otherwise no one would read them at all. If scientists came out with a statement that science journalism is a fraud, it might be sensational enough to make the news, but it wouldn't be true. If they said science journalism needs reform - well, I'm sure you can find plenty of blog posts arguing this, but not a lot of media coverage.
- macinjosh 7y ago
  > If scientists came out with a statement that science journalism is a fraud, it might be sensational enough to make the news, but it wouldn't be true. You're arguing the extremes here. Scientific organizations could easily publicize their displeasure with how their work is communicated to the public without calling the media fraudsters. Give me a break.
  - comicjk 7y ago
    If you see smart people not doing something they could easily do, maybe it's not so easy? Example: the American Council on Science and Health put together a ranking of science journalism sources, putting Nature at the top, and Nature responded telling them they weren't helping. https://www.nature.com/news/science-journalism-can-be-evidence-based-compelling-and-wrong-1.21591 https://www.nature.com/news/science-journalism-can-be-eviden... I admit I'm speculating a bit when I try to explain why reforming science journalism is difficult, but I'm pretty sure empirically that it is difficult.
    - macinjosh 7y ago
      Not my problem.

chrisco255 7y ago

The climate is a non-linear dynamic system. Even if you had the perfect computer model to represent the earth's climate system, if your input parameters were off by even the slightest bit you'd be way off base in 5, 10, 50 years. That's why weather predictions are useless more than 10 days out and why we can't predict hurricane movement more than a couple of days out and our uncertainty increases as a function of time. This stuff is way more nuanced and complex than anyone lets on. You can't even begin to explain it in a one part article...and meanwhile, fearful headlines remain top click targets.