econintersect.com
       
  

FREE NEWSLETTER: Econintersect sends a nightly newsletter highlighting news events of the day, and providing a summary of new articles posted on the website. Econintersect will not sell or pass your email address to others per our privacy policy. You can cancel this subscription at any time by selecting the unsubscribing link in the footer of each email.



posted on 14 January 2017

Science Loses Out To Uninformed Opinion On Climate Change - Yet Again

from The Conversation

-- this post authored by Phillip Williamson, University of East Anglia

Ocean acidification is an inevitable consequence of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That's a matter of fact. We don't know exactly what will happen to complex marine ecosystems when faced with the additional stress of falling pH, but we do know those changes are happening and that they won't be good news.

The journalist James Delingpole disagrees. In an article for The Spectator in April 2016, he took the sceptical position that all concerns over ocean acidification are unjustified "alarmism" and that the scientific study of this non-problem is a waste of money. He concluded that the only reason that the study of ocean acidification was ever funded at all was because there was insufficient (and decreasing) evidence for global warming and it acted as a "fallback position".

Having had the role of science coordinator for the UK Ocean Acidification research programme and being involved in relevant national and international projects for around ten years previously, I know such claims - which Delingpole presented as facts - to be false. I also spotted a range of other errors and inaccuracies in his piece.

Having first gone to The Spectator with my concerns, in late August I submitted a formal complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). The key issues were whether or not due care had been taken to avoid publication of inaccurate information, and whether comment and conjecture had been clearly distinguished from fact.

At the end of a long and frustrating process IPSO's final ruling was published on January 5 and it doesn't seem we are much further forward. My complaint was rejected on the basis that the article was "clearly a comment piece" and that it was not IPSO's role to resolve conflicting evidence for contentious issues.

Facts are sacred

Freedom of speech, and of the press, is, of course, extremely precious. Yet that freedom also brings responsibility. The Editors' Code of Practice - which IPSO claims to uphold - requires the "highest professional standards". Let's remind ourselves of what this means when it comes to accuracy:

i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.

That would seem clear enough. So let's look at just one of Delingpole's paragraphs and judge for ourselves whether these standards were met:

Ocean acidification theory appears to have been fatally flawed almost from the start. In 2004, two NOAA scientists, Richard Feely and Christopher Sabine, produced a chart showing a strong correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 levels and falling oceanic pH levels. But then, just over a year ago, Mike Wallace, a hydrologist with 30 years' experience, noticed while researching his PhD that they had omitted some key information. Their chart only started in 1988 but, as Wallace knew, there were records dating back to at least 100 years before. So why had they ignored the real-world evidence in favour of computer-modelled projections? When Wallace plotted a chart of his own, incorporating all the available data, covering the period from 1910 to the present, his results were surprising: there has been no reduction in oceanic pH levels in the last century.

That might look like a plausible argument based on fact. But the Feely/Sabine chart which was of concern to Wallace was published in 2006, not 2004; the chart didn't start in 1988, but covered the period 1850-2100; and no data had been omitted, since it showed an idealised, theory-based relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ocean pH. Meanwhile the "real-world evidence" was from extremely unreliable early measurements, uncorrected for natural variability, that when combined gave physically impossible year-on-year changes in global pH. And Wallace's analyses have not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Delingpole did not contact any of the individuals mentioned to obtain first-hand accounts of the issues of concern.

How ocean acidification works according to the experts. UK Ocean Acidification Programme

To be fair, several of Delingpole's inaccuracies, such as NERC (the Natural Environment Research Council) rather than Defra being the main funder of the UK Ocean Acidification research programme, were acknowledged by IPSO - but the regulator ruled that they were not "significantly" misleading, neither cumulatively nor individually. It didn't seem to matter to IPSO that calling science's approach to acidification "alarmism" - and implying that researchers have said that everything in the sea will die - is rather different from the well-established scientific knowledge that ocean acidification really does affect sensitive species, such as corals, and will therefore disrupt ecosystems.

Fair comment?

The Editor's Code of Practice has this to say about opinion and comment:

The press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

So read this statement from Delingpole:

Ocean acidification - the evidence increasingly suggests - is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons.

Is this just an honest opinion, a statement of fact, or wilfully misleading and clever rhetoric? That depends on what is meant by "evidence". If it means quality research carried out by scientists with expertise in the field, the statement is factually incorrect. But if evidence includes anything said by non-experts, such as Delingpole, then that's an increase, right?

All these issues may seem technical or unimportant to anyone but scientists or most of the public. But IPSO's overall message is that ocean acidification is just a matter of opinion - not a hard-won, testable understanding of the likely effects of human-driven changes on the marine environment. This view of science is pernicious and has serious policy consequences. Why support any research if 250 peer-reviewed papers produced by the UK Ocean Acidification research programme can all be summarily dismissed as worthless?

IPSO: a watchdog with few teeth?

From a back of the envelope analysis of IPSO's published statistics on its adjudications on complaints it appears that about 18% of those investigated are upheld. I can't pretend to be an expert on the nature of complaints about the press and don't know what proportion is vexatious or can be dismissed out of hand, but it's important to note that the overwhelming majority of complaints received by IPSO - at least 95% by my calculation - are not investigated or taken further, since they come under the heading complaints IPSO could not deal with. This might be good news for publishers, but seems a very depressing statistic for those who feel wronged by the press.

IPSO annual report 2015, Author provided

Does this really mean that anything goes if it is presented, however tenuously, as "comment" or "opinion"? Doesn't "care taken" involve basic fact-checking and making a proper effort to contact quoted or maligned individuals before publication? Are political blogs, disputed newspaper coverage and think-tank reports reliable information sources, while properly peer-reviewed scientific literature can be disregarded?

IPSO annual report 2015, Author provided

There's a passionate debate going on in journalism at the moment about regulation - and most journalists believe, probably correctly - that the industry should be its own watchdog. But these sorts of decisions make you wonder whether they are up to the task. All this is in my opinion, of course.

The ConversationPhillip Williamson, NERC Science Coordinator, University of East Anglia

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments <<<<<<

Click here for Historical Opinion Post Listing










Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted.  As the internet is a "war zone" of trolls, hackers and spammers - Econintersect must balance its defences against ease of commenting.  We have joined with Livefyre to manage our comment streams.

To comment, using Livefyre just click the "Sign In" button at the top-left corner of the comment box below. You can create a commenting account using your favorite social network such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn or Open ID - or open a Livefyre account using your email address.



You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.





Econintersect Opinion


search_box

Print this page or create a PDF file of this page
Print Friendly and PDF


The growing use of ad blocking software is creating a shortfall in covering our fixed expenses. Please consider a donation to Econintersect to allow continuing output of quality and balanced financial and economic news and analysis.


Take a look at what is going on inside of Econintersect.com
Main Home
Analysis Blog
Minsky’s Theory of Asset Prices: Why Minsky Was NOT a Neo-Monetarist
The BuildZoom And Urban Economics Lab Index: Third Quarter 2016
News Blog
January 2017 Philly Fed Manufacturing Survey Significantly Improves and Remains In Expansion.
December 2016 Residential Building Sector Mixed
14 January 2017 Initial Unemployment Claims Rolling Average Improvement Continues
Stock Market Bull Faces Important Test
Infographic Of The Day: Movies That Struck Oil
Early Headlines: Asia Stocks Mixed, Dollar Steady, Oil Up, Top US Poll Priority Is Health Care, Tough Questions For Tom Price, Russia Has Buyer's Remorse, Mexico Fears Trump And More
Documentary Of The Week: Value And Thermodynamics
Can Serena Make It 23
Number Of Bitcoin ATMs By Country
How Old Is Our Moon?
Advantages And Disadvantages Of The EU According To Business Leaders
What We Read Today 18 January 2017
January 2017 Beige Book: Reading Between The Lines - Little Change in the Rate of Growth
Investing Blog
Technical Nuggets: Is There A Trump-Air Pocket Ahead?
Technical Thoughts: Three Trading Ideas
Opinion Blog
A New Deal With Capitalism Requires A Revolution In Politics And Markets
A Letter To Warren Buffett And Charlie Munger About Hiring Proven Whistleblowers
Precious Metals Blog
Four Catalysts Drive Gold And Silver For 2017
Live Markets
19Jan2017 Pre-Market Commentary: Wall Street To Open Flat, Building Permits Down, Philadelphia Fed Manufacturing Up, Jobless Claims Down
Amazon Books & More






.... and keep up with economic news using our dynamic economic newspapers with the largest international coverage on the internet
Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government





























 navigate econintersect.com

Blogs

Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day
Weather

Newspapers

Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government
     

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed
Google+
Facebook
Twitter
Digg

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution

Contact

About

  Top Economics Site

Investing.com Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2017 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved