Want some sense of the nature of our media. Consider the following
story about climate change. This story by TV3 of NZ is about the receding Ngozumpa glacier in the Himalayan Mountains. If you listen to this story you get the impression that this is tangible evidence for global warming. It is not. Even if it were, there is the insinuation that Copenhagen will or could do something about it. It is full of emotive language, full of contradictions and baseless assertions. How can you equate Copenhagen with research? Copenhagen is about imposing taxes on people to address problems. It is not about further research funding.
In defense of such scientists - he problem is a babe in the woods. He was probably given a day to get his story and video, and no time to research this issue. His university training was probably an Arts rather than a science degree, and he probably never studied the concept of critical thinking. So what can we expect of him?
Anyway I was annoyed about this story sufficiently to send a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Committee in NZ. I was not alone in my annoyance with this story. There were 5 other complainants on the TV3 website.
My complaint could have been written better if I had a written transcript of the story. However it was good enough if the Standards Committee considered the story in context. I did not expect them to take a word-for-word analysis of the story. I expected them to apply the rigorous analysis to the story, rather than my complaint.
The
basis of my complaint was:
Complaint-Details: The program outlines a lot of assertions about evidence for global warming which were just farcical. There was the internal collapse of caves/caverns in the glacier. This was attributed to signs the glacier was no longer moving. In fact moving glaciers fracture. Receding glaciers are not in themselves evidence of global warming since the alternative is less snow accumulation. There has actually been global cooling in recent years despite rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Do we ever hear that H2O is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2? Do we ever here that CO2 is a fertiliser for plants not a pollutant? The report concluded that this was \'definitive evidence\' of global warming. It was not. This was the author\'s own \'spin\' on the article. If this was a one-off it would be just a mistake. But there is a systematic effort by \'liberals\' in the media around the world to misrepresent the facts. We never get the alternative view based on critical thinking. There is either a definitive global warming or there is a need for more evidence. Why do we never hear from well-known critics like Prof Bob Carter at James Cook University. In this case, a 2nd scientist said there was a lot of false or outlandish assertions made. Yet the journalist does not pull back from his agenda.The Standards Committee
response to my complaint can be downloaded
here.
My response to the Standards Committee is:
Upon reviewing the Committees response to my complaint I can only conclude that they did not understand my complaint, so let me elaborate. The response was also inadequate.
A number of things have to be acknowledged:
1. The glaciologist has a bias in terms of seeing his research considered important. It serves him to see some consequence for it. If not for the 'anthropogenic' global warming hypothesis, his work would be just a curiosity.
2. Being a glaciologist with ten years experience analysing a glacier is not a substitute for facts or logic. That would be an 'appeal to authority' - a flaw of logic. For the record I am a geologist who understands the mechanics of glacial movement.
3. I don't have a transcript of the story, but one of my points was that, if you see any assertion in the story suggesting that the this is evidence of climate change, or if this is insinuated, that is a bias in the story. Or a rationalisation if you prefer. The reporter should have sought independent, critical feedback to such an insinuation. Lest we all be scared by evidence which is skewed. I would refer the Committee to the following article. See
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7553.
I wonder whether the Standards Committee actually contacted the glaciologist to see whether he supports the conclusions made in the report.
The response from the reporter was even skewed with colourful language:
1. A 'healthy glacier' - there is no such thing - it is not a living thing, yet the reporter is describing the ice as if it had qualities of a living thing. If he was a romantic poet it would be fine, but this is reporting of science, which requires more disciplined analysis and objectivity.
2. The glacier is 'rotting from the inside' - again romantic, but not evidence of anything. Glaciers are always melting, and there are dynamics between snow accumulation and melting - which is glaciation. Melting is not good or bad as far as science is concerned. Implicitly he is saying there is an anthropogenic cause to global warming. Where is the evidence?
One of the problems with the media is that they lack knowledge of the topics which they report upon. Was James Mates a science graduate? Did he have any understanding of glaciers? This shows a clumsy lack of research if he isn't because he has no capacity to critically assess the scientist for the short time that he is with him. Also it is easy for him to misinterpret his comments. He is under financial pressures, and he meets a shy glaciologist which does not say much. What happens? We get an inaccurate story. I remember a story where a reporter was covering the story of a gold mine, and because explorers use diamond drilling as a ore resource assessment tool, he thought it was a gold and diamond mine. This suggests that the media needs more specialised journalists who can report on technical issues or specialised content, as well as generalists who can broadly cover issues.
From the following quote:
Reporter: So, we're seeing here a close-up view of the death of a glacier?
Glaciologist: Exactly. It is just collapsing in on itself.
This sounds like a glaciologist being agreeable, i.e. a nice guy rather than making a scientific statement. Really it shows the reporter putting words into the mouth of the glaciologist. What is the 'death of a glacier'? Since glaciers are moving ice, it could only mean no more snow accumulation. Very hard to believe at those elevations when there is accumulation down to 1800m. So the insinuation is that the snow is melting faster than it is falling. All we are seeing in fact is a period of receding of the glacier. They are a natural phenomena. If this was suggested to the glaciologist I am sure he would agree.
The reporters closing statement was:
We’ve been shown definitively what’s happening deep inside the biggest glacier in this part of the Himalayas. What it means what if anything the world needs to do about it, well those answers are needed and soon.
We were not shown the mechanics of how a glacier works? We were given emotive language. It was not scientific or educational. It was emotive, inaccurate and misleading. The fact that its the biggest glacier is not relevant either. Its a cry for action, and it alludes to a climate change problem. Its sensationalism, whether it be subtle or blatant. Why do we need answers soon? Will the world lose all its glaciers?
For years we have been told ice sheets are melting in Antarctica - global warming? No, just skewed, context-dropping reporting. Yes, one she has been rescinding for lack of snow accumulation, and the other three ice sheets have been growing.
------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon
www.sheldonthinks.com
