Truthout has published a book excerpt from Unprecedented, subtitled Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?
Author David Ray Griffin addresses the failure of United States’ Big Media to cover climate change fairly, quoting three scientists who explain why this is a mistake.
Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway:
[O]nce a scientific issue is closed, there’s only one “side.” Imagine providing a “balance” to the issue of whether the Earth orbits the Sun, whether continents move, or whether DNA carries genetic information. These matters were long ago settled in scientists’ minds. Nobody can publish an article in a scientific journal claiming the Sun orbits the Earth.
James Hansen also regards misapplied science to be a major problem in communicating scientific conclusions to the public. He wrote:
The scientific method requires objective analysis of all data, stating evidence pro and con, before reaching conclusions. This works well, indeed is necessary, for achieving success in science. But science is now pitted in public debate against the talk-show method, which consists of selective citation of anecdotal bits that support a predetermined position. Why is the public presented results of the scientific method and the talk-show method as if they deserved equal respect?
And he references John Oliver’s segment on the topic:
In May 2014, John Oliver humorously demonstrated on his fake TV news show, “Last Week Tonight,” what this would mean in a “Statistically Representative Climate Change Debate.” Having described the typical TV debate between a climate scientist and a climate denier, he pointed out that the debate should really be representative of the two positions. So after having two more people join the denier, Oliver brought in 96 more to join the scientist.
See for yourself – Oliver’s always interesting (and fun).