6 ms·

From the introduction: > Rhode points out that temperatures this week were just under two-tenths of a degree warmer than the previous record. “Two-tenths doesn

From the introduction: > Rhode points out that temperatures this week were just under two-tenths of a degree warmer than the previous record. “Two-tenths doesn’t sound like a lot—but in ocean terms two-tenths is actually a lot because it doesn’t warm as quickly as the land,” he says. As you can see from the chart’s record of past years, March is normally when average sea surface temperatures start declining. But then the article wanders away from that point before saying when the temperatures do start declining. This is a big failing of science advocacy as it relates to journalism, public policy, and public discourse. Two-tenths of a degree requires interpretation to understand its significance, and it feels like a small number. Instead, lead with something like the oceans should have started cooling down a month ago but they haven't. It's more relatable and gets right to the point. I'm neither criticizing this article nor science journalism in general. I just wanted to draw a comparison to the issue where science communicators need to figure out how to more effectively present information to journalists, policy makers, and the general public.

23B1 3y ago
Journalism continues to let humanity down as a (rightfully) protected profession that simultaneously uses that protection to operate with both impunity and irresponsibility. And I'm not talking about political bias (though that contributes greatly to the distrust people have in media), I'm talking about what you describe; the failure to communicate nuance, the rush to publish without a clear picture of the facts, the use of emotional manipulation to generate clicks, the oversimplification or misrepresentation of the truth. It doesn't matter when you're reporting on celebrity gossip. It matters greatly when you're reporting on things that could destroy our species.
- logifail 3y ago
  > It doesn't matter when you're reporting on celebrity gossip Umm, personally I find that fairly distasteful too. "Paparazzi pictures of Jack Nicholson, Gene Hackman and Bridget Fonda have circulated online, feeding into an odd desire to force reclusive actors back into the spotlight"[0] Now everything is done in service of ever more clicks and hence ads, I find myself less and willing to consume traditional journalism. At all. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/21/hollywood-actors-privacy-paparazzi-trend https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/21/hollywood-actor...
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Journalism has always been about ads, they just used to be bad at it.
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      It's more correct to say they could still be profitable while being bad at it. In the last 10 or so years, journalism has been captured by the dynamics of online advertising while the outlets themselves have become increasingly consolidated under profit-driven corporate masters. For a long time the newsroom, especially of TV and radio networks, was considered a cost center, but that was OK because the entertainment departments brought in the money. Now news organizations themselves are supposed to be profitable, which leads to incentives being skewed towards views and ad revenue.
    - logifail 3y ago
      > Journalism has always been about ads, they just used to be bad at it I'm not sure what definition of "bad" we'd need to use (and btw, "bad" for whom?) for that claim to be true.
- specialist 3y ago
  Evergreen food fights (eg bias, partisanship) serve to distract from the base truth: Ad-based biz models (corporate media) do not hold power (elites) to account. Journalist David Roberts (https://www.volts.wtf https://www.volts.wtf) does deep dives on climate crisis and renewable energy. Here he explains why he couldn't do this work as an employee of corporate media: David Roberts: The Transition to Carbon-Free Energy: A Story of Tech, Politics, & Community Jay Kapoor (VSC Ventures) podcast Apr 23rd, 2023 https://youtu.be/RTQo_TID804?t=60 https://youtu.be/RTQo_TID804?t=60 TLDR: Ads-based -> maximize audience & clicks -> publishers & editors aggressively dumb down content. Per Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky's Five Filters model of Propaganda in a nutshell.
jfengel 3y ago
Science journalists are no better at describing chemistry, paleontology, or condensed matter physics. The climate is controversial because there are people who want it to be controversial. There are plenty of articles that are perfectly clear, and have been for decades. Having this article be blinding clear and unambiguous would not change the underlying induced distrust. No amount of editing will fix climate denialism until the denialists cease making it a culture war, or readers decide they'd rather take an interest in reality.
- specialist 3y ago
  All true. It's also an unequal fight, per the asymmetry of bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law The merchants of doubt dominate media. And spend billions of dollars shaping discourse. Whereas intellectually honest explainers are fighting on hostile territory. The meager amount of constructive debate we do have happens despite the system.
  - revelio 3y ago
    Who is spending "billions of dollars shaping discourse" exactly, unless you mean governments and their academics? The idea that people don't trust climatologists because they get paid not to is simply an absurd lie. It's the other way around: the budgets are all on the side of the academics. Take it from climatologists themselves, talking about who are these skeptics who cause them so much trouble? http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4986-augsept-2009-phil-jones-are.html http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4986-augsept-200... They are mostly people who correspond on the Climate Audit blog site. They all seem to have infinite time as they are all retired.
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      ExxonMobil reports record first-quarter profits of $11.4bn: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65427372 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65427372
fauxpause_ 3y ago
You can use your eyeballs and look at the chart. The temps have not begun to decline yet. I’m kind of annoyed by the idea of criticizing scientific journalism but not reading the charts referenced to form your own conclusion tbh.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nunuvit 3y ago
  I specifically said that I'm not criticizing the article or science journalism, but I edited my comment to further clarify that I'm only using the article as an example to tangent into a related issue. The actual facts and conclusions about the temperature are immaterial. I barely snuck in the edit before the time limit, so it's still probably not as clear as it should be. I had to do another edit earlier when I realized that I had inadvertently invited criticism of science journalism, again despite the fact that I said I wasn't criticizing it. Maybe I should have followed my own advice and opened by saying it's a tangent.
ChainOfFools 3y ago
> something like the oceans should have started cooling down a month ago but they haven't. I don't disagree with your overall point, that science communication is frustrated by stubborn impedance mismatches between authors and the different audiences they're trying to reach. However I would point out that if the article were written according to the example that you have just given, within minutes some crank would go find the original paper, skim the abstract and locate the actual 2/10 degree fact. They would then blast social media with hot takes about how climate hoax scientists have once again spun a "nothingburger" story into a panic by deliberately concealing the "troof"
- nunuvit 3y ago
  I'm not really concerned about that. You're right that propagandists will always find a way to exploit whatever you say or don't say, no matter how you say it. It's a fool's errand to try to manipulate the discourse through self-censorship, which is why I don't advocate for it. I'd have been perfectly satisfied if the temperature statistic was quoted in the very next sentence after the one I suggested. I did say "lead with", but it's kind of buried. My only point was that science advocates need to modernize their persuasive argument repertoire.
jeifhfofhdk 3y ago
most philosophy schools start when someone points out language is about setting meaning more than communication of meaning. from plato to Confucius... > I'm neither criticizing this article nor science journalism in general yes, you should be criticizing. specially the work of someone who decided to write for a living. why people insist on thinking you can be neutral on mass media? there's a newsroom joke where the editor, on a slow easter sunday, shouts to one of the idle reporters to just write something about christ. to which the reporter automatically replies "for or against?"
- nunuvit 3y ago
  In practice it tends to be more cathartic than constructive. The advocate is always going to have a greater stake in their cause than the middle man. I wrote my original comment that way because I prefer to discuss strategies for advocates. I am actually critical of mass media, I just let other people do the criticizing. You make a good point about appearing neutral. Next time I'll try a different approach to inviting a different type of discussion.
DelightOne 3y ago
How is it supposed to cool anyway when there's less and less ice storing the chill? I mean.. where is the coldness supposed to come from.
- igor47 3y ago
  The coldness comes from space, which is very very cold. We tend to lose most of our heat to space via radiation, rather than convection. The difference is between one of those infrared dish heaters, and a heater that blows warm air. CO2, being rather opaque in the infrared, doesn't let the heat escape into space. Instead, the radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere, heating the planet and the oceans

23B1 3y ago

Journalism continues to let humanity down as a (rightfully) protected profession that simultaneously uses that protection to operate with both impunity and irresponsibility. And I'm not talking about political bias (though that contributes greatly to the distrust people have in media), I'm talking about what you describe; the failure to communicate nuance, the rush to publish without a clear picture of the facts, the use of emotional manipulation to generate clicks, the oversimplification or misrepresentation of the truth. It doesn't matter when you're reporting on celebrity gossip. It matters greatly when you're reporting on things that could destroy our species.

logifail 3y ago
> It doesn't matter when you're reporting on celebrity gossip Umm, personally I find that fairly distasteful too. "Paparazzi pictures of Jack Nicholson, Gene Hackman and Bridget Fonda have circulated online, feeding into an odd desire to force reclusive actors back into the spotlight"[0] Now everything is done in service of ever more clicks and hence ads, I find myself less and willing to consume traditional journalism. At all. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/21/hollywood-actors-privacy-paparazzi-trend https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/apr/21/hollywood-actor...
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Journalism has always been about ads, they just used to be bad at it.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    It's more correct to say they could still be profitable while being bad at it. In the last 10 or so years, journalism has been captured by the dynamics of online advertising while the outlets themselves have become increasingly consolidated under profit-driven corporate masters. For a long time the newsroom, especially of TV and radio networks, was considered a cost center, but that was OK because the entertainment departments brought in the money. Now news organizations themselves are supposed to be profitable, which leads to incentives being skewed towards views and ad revenue.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > Journalism has always been about ads, they just used to be bad at it I'm not sure what definition of "bad" we'd need to use (and btw, "bad" for whom?) for that claim to be true.
specialist 3y ago
Evergreen food fights (eg bias, partisanship) serve to distract from the base truth: Ad-based biz models (corporate media) do not hold power (elites) to account. Journalist David Roberts (https://www.volts.wtf https://www.volts.wtf) does deep dives on climate crisis and renewable energy. Here he explains why he couldn't do this work as an employee of corporate media: David Roberts: The Transition to Carbon-Free Energy: A Story of Tech, Politics, & Community Jay Kapoor (VSC Ventures) podcast Apr 23rd, 2023 https://youtu.be/RTQo_TID804?t=60 https://youtu.be/RTQo_TID804?t=60 TLDR: Ads-based -> maximize audience & clicks -> publishers & editors aggressively dumb down content. Per Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky's Five Filters model of Propaganda in a nutshell.

jfengel 3y ago

Science journalists are no better at describing chemistry, paleontology, or condensed matter physics. The climate is controversial because there are people who want it to be controversial. There are plenty of articles that are perfectly clear, and have been for decades. Having this article be blinding clear and unambiguous would not change the underlying induced distrust. No amount of editing will fix climate denialism until the denialists cease making it a culture war, or readers decide they'd rather take an interest in reality.

specialist 3y ago
All true. It's also an unequal fight, per the asymmetry of bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law The merchants of doubt dominate media. And spend billions of dollars shaping discourse. Whereas intellectually honest explainers are fighting on hostile territory. The meager amount of constructive debate we do have happens despite the system.
- revelio 3y ago
  Who is spending "billions of dollars shaping discourse" exactly, unless you mean governments and their academics? The idea that people don't trust climatologists because they get paid not to is simply an absurd lie. It's the other way around: the budgets are all on the side of the academics. Take it from climatologists themselves, talking about who are these skeptics who cause them so much trouble? http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4986-augsept-2009-phil-jones-are.html http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4986-augsept-200... They are mostly people who correspond on the Climate Audit blog site. They all seem to have infinite time as they are all retired.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    ExxonMobil reports record first-quarter profits of $11.4bn: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65427372 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65427372

fauxpause_ 3y ago

You can use your eyeballs and look at the chart. The temps have not begun to decline yet. I’m kind of annoyed by the idea of criticizing scientific journalism but not reading the charts referenced to form your own conclusion tbh.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nunuvit 3y ago
I specifically said that I'm not criticizing the article or science journalism, but I edited my comment to further clarify that I'm only using the article as an example to tangent into a related issue. The actual facts and conclusions about the temperature are immaterial. I barely snuck in the edit before the time limit, so it's still probably not as clear as it should be. I had to do another edit earlier when I realized that I had inadvertently invited criticism of science journalism, again despite the fact that I said I wasn't criticizing it. Maybe I should have followed my own advice and opened by saying it's a tangent.

ChainOfFools 3y ago

> something like the oceans should have started cooling down a month ago but they haven't. I don't disagree with your overall point, that science communication is frustrated by stubborn impedance mismatches between authors and the different audiences they're trying to reach. However I would point out that if the article were written according to the example that you have just given, within minutes some crank would go find the original paper, skim the abstract and locate the actual 2/10 degree fact. They would then blast social media with hot takes about how climate hoax scientists have once again spun a "nothingburger" story into a panic by deliberately concealing the "troof"

nunuvit 3y ago
I'm not really concerned about that. You're right that propagandists will always find a way to exploit whatever you say or don't say, no matter how you say it. It's a fool's errand to try to manipulate the discourse through self-censorship, which is why I don't advocate for it. I'd have been perfectly satisfied if the temperature statistic was quoted in the very next sentence after the one I suggested. I did say "lead with", but it's kind of buried. My only point was that science advocates need to modernize their persuasive argument repertoire.

jeifhfofhdk 3y ago

most philosophy schools start when someone points out language is about setting meaning more than communication of meaning. from plato to Confucius... > I'm neither criticizing this article nor science journalism in general yes, you should be criticizing. specially the work of someone who decided to write for a living. why people insist on thinking you can be neutral on mass media? there's a newsroom joke where the editor, on a slow easter sunday, shouts to one of the idle reporters to just write something about christ. to which the reporter automatically replies "for or against?"

nunuvit 3y ago
In practice it tends to be more cathartic than constructive. The advocate is always going to have a greater stake in their cause than the middle man. I wrote my original comment that way because I prefer to discuss strategies for advocates. I am actually critical of mass media, I just let other people do the criticizing. You make a good point about appearing neutral. Next time I'll try a different approach to inviting a different type of discussion.

DelightOne 3y ago

How is it supposed to cool anyway when there's less and less ice storing the chill? I mean.. where is the coldness supposed to come from.

igor47 3y ago
The coldness comes from space, which is very very cold. We tend to lose most of our heat to space via radiation, rather than convection. The difference is between one of those infrared dish heaters, and a heater that blows warm air. CO2, being rather opaque in the infrared, doesn't let the heat escape into space. Instead, the radiation is reflected back into the atmosphere, heating the planet and the oceans