Sloppy journalism

The day began well; I went and re-interviewed the amino acids/cancer researcher for the Alumni Association, this time in a pub. We agreed it was a lot nicer than the Cross-Cancer Institute where he works, since it's an integrated research facility and cancer hospital; he told me he once saw a dead body wheeled in front of him in the hallways. I said perhaps it helped remember what you're working for. He agreed to a point, but said it's also hard to concentrate on experiments with 'that sort of thing' always around the next corner.

We paused for a moment then continued chatting, about the article, about Alberta, about science. We talked a lot, which is good, since I haven't exactly decided how to shape the article yet. But it doesn't need to be submitted for a couple of weeks, so I have time to work out the particulars.

I drank two pints of 'pop' with the researcher, having only eaten a bowl of cereal, then foolishly decided I could walk all the way to pick up my package in the middle of industrial Edmonton without lunch. A touch of the shakes later and I found myself in McDonalds, reading a discarded copy of today's Edmonton Sun. Then I came across an article that really got on my nerves. It was the antithesis of everything I believe in regarding integrity in science reporting. The guy actually suggested Googling was a valid way to learn about the current state of climate science. I immediately decided to pen a reply, even if just for my own catharsis. The first draft was a bit 'angry', but hopefully I managed to tone it down :D

Anyway, here is the original article.

And here is my letter to the editor:

Peter Worthington’s article ‘Stormy weather for IPCC’ (20^th September 2010), if full of errors and assumptions, many of which could be refuted with basic research.

A recent report has deemed that the IPCC needs stricter controls to protect the integrity of its reports, but this in no way means the underlying science is called into question. This same conclusion was made by three separate independent reports into the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit email leak; which found absolutely no evidence of misconduct, and again, no change to the strength of the underlying science linking human activities to climate change.

As for the ‘huge sums of money’ pulling climate scientists towards a supposed conspiracy, I encourage him to remember that climate change scientists began with the same basic earth science skills as oil exploration scientists, then let us ask who has more to gain? Climate scientists are not in it for the money.

It seems Worthington has made no effort on his part to do any independent research, and instead to simply regurgitate the assumptions of The Spectator. I’m sorry; he did do some of his own research, he Googled climate change. But if Worthington thinks that the blogosphere is the appropriate place to find out the current state of any science, where people are free to post any supposition they like without peer review, then he is seriously misguided.

Even Worthington’s ‘frivolous aside’ about cow farts shows his complete lack of care for the facts. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but much shorter-lived in the atmosphere. Even so, the rising rates of methane from cows are still due to human development; with more of the world eating burgers every day, more farting cows are required to provide them.

I agree that Dr. Pachauris should step down as the head of the IPCC body, but only because he has not been the best figurehead for integrity, not because there is anything wrong with the science of climate change the body portrays.

Finally, if Worthington thinks that we are too inferior to have impact on the planet, perhaps he should have flipped forward a few pages in his own newspaper and read about the gigantic gyre of plastic clogging the Pacific Ocean.

Yours,

Hayley Dunning