Since November last year, the public has been bombarded with the story of stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, revealing a supposed "scandal" of scientific malpractice, stupidly and lazily named "climategate". Further media frenzy erupted over an erroneous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statement that 80 per cent of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. Other climate-related storms in a teacup have been appearing in the corporate media almost on a daily basis. This nonsense is distracting attention from a mountain of evidence that human-induced climate change is accelerating and poses a deadly threat to civilisation.
James Hansen, the leading NASA climate scientist who first warned the US Congress of the dangers of global warming in 1988, gave us his view of media performance on “climategate”:
“The media have done a great disservice to the public. This mess should be cleared up in the next year or so, although the damage may linger a while, because some people who paid attention to sensationalism may not bother with accurate explanations of the truth.
“The impression left from this affair is that there are some parts of the media that care less about responsible reporting than about selling newspapers or other ware. Some of the problem may be honest ignorance, as the quality of science reporting has declined in recent decades. And of course some media are controlled by people who have a political axe to grind.” (Hansen, email to Media Lens, February 18, 2010)
Misleading the Debate on Climate
The excellent Realclimate website at www.realclimate.org, run by authoritative climate scientists, has been diligently issuing rebuttals of the relentless barrage of disinformation churned out by the Daily Mail, the Sunday Times, the Daily Telegraph and, yes, even the Guardian, the self-proclaimed flagship newspaper of the environment. (See Realclimate, ‘Whatevergate,’ February 16, 2010;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/)
A persistent source of skewed journalism during this period has been Jonathan Leake, science and environment editor of the Sunday Times. Serious charges have been made by a number of critics, including climate scientists, about errors and distortions in his reporting. (Realclimate, ’IPCC errors: facts and spin,’ February 14, 2010; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/)
In particular:
* On January 24, the Sunday Times published an article by Leake in which he accused the IPCC of wrongly linking global warming to natural disasters. (Leake, ‘UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters,’ Sunday Times, January 24, 2010; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece). The IPCC called it "a misleading and baseless story." (IPCC, ‘IPCC statement on trends in disaster losses,’ January 25, 2010; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/statement_25_01_2010.pdf)
* On January 31, Leake asserted that an IPCC finding that up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest is vulnerable to even small reductions in rainfall was “based on an unsubstantiated claim”. (Leake, ‘The UN climate panel and the rainforest claim,’ Sunday Times, January 31, 2010; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece). Leake's article was based on "research" by Richard North. North is a well-known climate sceptic and contributor to the Bruges Group, a right-wing think tank. ( http://www.brugesgroup.com/about/columnists.live?person=3)
Leake drew heavily from North's blog in which the sceptic was keen to promote what he dubbed "Amazongate", suggesting a major scandal. But scientists allege that Leake "ignored or misrepresented explanatory information" given to him by two climate experts and that he “published [an] incorrect story anyway”. Realclimate noted that the issue Leake raised is “completely without merit”. (Realclimate, 'IPCC errors: facts and spin,’ February 14, 2010; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/)
Journalist Andrew Rowell, who co-authored the WWF Amazon report that was criticised by Leake, wrote to the Sunday Times:
“Not only did you fail to contact me, but you ignored credible evidence that the [40 per cent] figure was correct. You also ignored evidence that the figure had been backed up by peer-reviewed research both before and after our publication.
“You spoke to Dr Dan Nepstad, one of the world’s leading authorities on fire in the Amazon. You ignored the fact he told you he had published an even higher figure in Nature in 1994 and that subsequent research validated our figure. What you published was demonstrably false and has seriously misled the debate on climate change.” (Rowell, letter, ‘Real threat to Amazon,’ Sunday Times, February 7, 2010; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7017878.ece)
Although the Sunday Times did publish Rowell's short letter, and one from David Nussbaum of WWF, this certainly does not compensate for journalism which is wrong and misleading.
* Leake has also attacked work done on sea level rise by the respected climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf (Leake, 'Climate change experts clash over sea-rise “apocalypse”,’ Sunday Times, January 10, 2010; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece). Rahmstorf stated that Leake’s "biased" article contained factual errors and asked for these to be corrected. The researcher received no response and the Sunday Times made no corrections. Two British scientists cited by Leake said that "they had been badly misquoted." One of them even said that his experience with Leake had made him “reluctant to speak to any journalist about any subject at all”. (Realclimate, ‘IPCC errors: facts and spin,’ February 14, 2010; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/)
* Climate scientists writing for the Realclimate website have cautioned that "there are well-organized lobby forces with proper PR skills that make sure these journalists are being told the 'right' story. That explains why some media stories about what is supposedly said in the IPCC reports can easily be falsified simply by opening the [relevant] report and reading [it]. Unfortunately, as a broad-based volunteer effort with only minimal organizational structure the IPCC is not in a good position to rapidly counter misinformation." (Realclimate, ‘IPCC errors: facts and spin,’ op. cit.)
* As Realclimate observes: “the IPCC assessment reports reflect the state of scientific knowledge very well”. The researchers then continue:
"What is seriously amiss is something else: the public perception of the IPCC, and of climate science in general, has been massively distorted by the recent media storm. All of these various 'gates' – Climategate, Amazongate, Seagate, Africagate, etc., do not represent scandals of the IPCC or of climate science. Rather, they are the embarrassing battle-cries of a media scandal, in which a few journalists have misled the public with grossly overblown or entirely fabricated pseudogates, and many others have naively and willingly followed along without seeing through the scam."
Realclimate calls for the media to issue formal corrections of mistaken reporting, but questions "whether the media world has the professional and moral integrity to correct its own errors." (Realclimate, ‘IPCC errors: facts and spin,’ op. cit.)
We wrote to Leake on February 16, asking for his response to the above points. He emailed back the following day to defend his reporting, but he was unwilling for his reply to be made public.
Concluding Remarks
Journalistic scrutiny of genuine errors in climate science, and of the reluctance of besieged climate scientists to release data to notorious climate sceptics, is reasonable enough. But the media’s misinformation and distortion, and its failure to respond to criticism, suggests there is something seriously awry with journalism.
Worse still is media silence on the powerful forces that are obstructing real action on climate. Truly responsible and accountable media would be:
* Exposing the numerous corporate-funded think tanks, mainstream media and websites cynically pushing climate scepticism in an attempt to prevent action on climate change that would hurt short-term corporate profits.
* Exposing the long, wretched history of big business campaigns to manipulate and control the public mind to protect short-term profits. The record is fully documented, almost beyond belief, and virtually ignored. Media bias on this issue is so extreme that many members of the public perceive climate science, rather than climate scepticism, as the cynical product of greed for funding. Thanks to corporate media silence on these corporate machinations, the truth has been exactly reversed!
* Challenging corporate media for taking huge sums in advertising revenue to promote climate-wrecking products and services.
* Exposing the oil giants who use propaganda to falsely promote themselves as ‘green’.
* Highlighting the inherently biocidal logic of corporate capitalism, structurally locked into generating maximised revenues in minimum time at minimum cost to powerful private interests.
James Hansen puts it all in perspective in his recent book:
“The gap between public perception and scientific reality is now enormous. While some of the public is just becoming aware of the existence of global warming, the relevant scientists - those who know what they are talking about - realize that the climate system is on the verge of tipping points. If the world does not make a dramatic shift in energy policies over the next few years, we may well pass the point of no return.” (Hansen, ‘The Storms of my Grandchildren,' Bloomsbury, London, 2009, p.171)
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
An excellent resource for countering the arguments of climate sceptics is provided here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
For detailed analysis of Jonathan Leake’s climate reporting in the Sunday Times, see Tim Lambert’s compendium at: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/leakegate/
Write to Jonathan Leake
Email:
jleake@sunday-times.co.uk
Please copy your emails to us:
Email: editor@medialens.org
Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us
Email: editor@medialens.org
A new Media Lens book, 'NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century,' by David Edwards and David Cromwell has just been published by Pluto Press. John Pilger writes of the book:
"Not since Orwell and Chomsky has perceived reality been so skilfully revealed in the cause of truth."
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/newspeak.php
We are grateful for donations received to date. The best way to support us is to send a monthly donation via PayPal or a standing order with a UK bank. If you currently support the corporate media by paying for their newspapers, why not support Media Lens instead? http://www.medialens.org/donate
Please visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org
We have a lively and informative message board: http://www.medialens.org/board
“The media have done a great disservice to the public. This mess should be cleared up in the next year or so, although the damage may linger a while, because some people who paid attention to sensationalism may not bother with accurate explanations of the truth.
“The impression left from this affair is that there are some parts of the media that care less about responsible reporting than about selling newspapers or other ware. Some of the problem may be honest ignorance, as the quality of science reporting has declined in recent decades. And of course some media are controlled by people who have a political axe to grind.” (Hansen, email to Media Lens, February 18, 2010)
Misleading the Debate on Climate
The excellent Realclimate website at www.realclimate.org, run by authoritative climate scientists, has been diligently issuing rebuttals of the relentless barrage of disinformation churned out by the Daily Mail, the Sunday Times, the Daily Telegraph and, yes, even the Guardian, the self-proclaimed flagship newspaper of the environment. (See Realclimate, ‘Whatevergate,’ February 16, 2010;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/) A persistent source of skewed journalism during this period has been Jonathan Leake, science and environment editor of the Sunday Times. Serious charges have been made by a number of critics, including climate scientists, about errors and distortions in his reporting. (Realclimate, ’IPCC errors: facts and spin,’ February 14, 2010;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/) In particular:
* On January 24, the Sunday Times published an article by Leake in which he accused the IPCC of wrongly linking global warming to natural disasters. (Leake, ‘UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters,’ Sunday Times, January 24, 2010;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece). The IPCC called it "a misleading and baseless story." (IPCC, ‘IPCC statement on trends in disaster losses,’ January 25, 2010; http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/statement_25_01_2010.pdf) * On January 31, Leake asserted that an IPCC finding that up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest is vulnerable to even small reductions in rainfall was “based on an unsubstantiated claim”. (Leake, ‘The UN climate panel and the rainforest claim,’ Sunday Times, January 31, 2010;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece). Leake's article was based on "research" by Richard North. North is a well-known climate sceptic and contributor to the Bruges Group, a right-wing think tank. ( http://www.brugesgroup.com/about/columnists.live?person=3) Leake drew heavily from North's blog in which the sceptic was keen to promote what he dubbed "Amazongate", suggesting a major scandal. But scientists allege that Leake "ignored or misrepresented explanatory information" given to him by two climate experts and that he “published [an] incorrect story anyway”. Realclimate noted that the issue Leake raised is “completely without merit”. (Realclimate, 'IPCC errors: facts and spin,’ February 14, 2010;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/) Journalist Andrew Rowell, who co-authored the WWF Amazon report that was criticised by Leake, wrote to the Sunday Times:
“Not only did you fail to contact me, but you ignored credible evidence that the [40 per cent] figure was correct. You also ignored evidence that the figure had been backed up by peer-reviewed research both before and after our publication.
“You spoke to Dr Dan Nepstad, one of the world’s leading authorities on fire in the Amazon. You ignored the fact he told you he had published an even higher figure in Nature in 1994 and that subsequent research validated our figure. What you published was demonstrably false and has seriously misled the debate on climate change.” (Rowell, letter, ‘Real threat to Amazon,’ Sunday Times, February 7, 2010;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7017878.ece) Although the Sunday Times did publish Rowell's short letter, and one from David Nussbaum of WWF, this certainly does not compensate for journalism which is wrong and misleading.
* Leake has also attacked work done on sea level rise by the respected climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf (Leake, 'Climate change experts clash over sea-rise “apocalypse”,’ Sunday Times, January 10, 2010;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece). Rahmstorf stated that Leake’s "biased" article contained factual errors and asked for these to be corrected. The researcher received no response and the Sunday Times made no corrections. Two British scientists cited by Leake said that "they had been badly misquoted." One of them even said that his experience with Leake had made him “reluctant to speak to any journalist about any subject at all”. (Realclimate, ‘IPCC errors: facts and spin,’ February 14, 2010; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/) * Climate scientists writing for the Realclimate website have cautioned that "there are well-organized lobby forces with proper PR skills that make sure these journalists are being told the 'right' story. That explains why some media stories about what is supposedly said in the IPCC reports can easily be falsified simply by opening the [relevant] report and reading [it]. Unfortunately, as a broad-based volunteer effort with only minimal organizational structure the IPCC is not in a good position to rapidly counter misinformation." (Realclimate, ‘IPCC errors: facts and spin,’ op. cit.)
* As Realclimate observes: “the IPCC assessment reports reflect the state of scientific knowledge very well”. The researchers then continue:
"What is seriously amiss is something else: the public perception of the IPCC, and of climate science in general, has been massively distorted by the recent media storm. All of these various 'gates' – Climategate, Amazongate, Seagate, Africagate, etc., do not represent scandals of the IPCC or of climate science. Rather, they are the embarrassing battle-cries of a media scandal, in which a few journalists have misled the public with grossly overblown or entirely fabricated pseudogates, and many others have naively and willingly followed along without seeing through the scam."
Realclimate calls for the media to issue formal corrections of mistaken reporting, but questions "whether the media world has the professional and moral integrity to correct its own errors." (Realclimate, ‘IPCC errors: facts and spin,’ op. cit.)
We wrote to Leake on February 16, asking for his response to the above points. He emailed back the following day to defend his reporting, but he was unwilling for his reply to be made public.
Concluding Remarks
Journalistic scrutiny of genuine errors in climate science, and of the reluctance of besieged climate scientists to release data to notorious climate sceptics, is reasonable enough. But the media’s misinformation and distortion, and its failure to respond to criticism, suggests there is something seriously awry with journalism.
Worse still is media silence on the powerful forces that are obstructing real action on climate. Truly responsible and accountable media would be:
* Exposing the numerous corporate-funded think tanks, mainstream media and websites cynically pushing climate scepticism in an attempt to prevent action on climate change that would hurt short-term corporate profits.
* Exposing the long, wretched history of big business campaigns to manipulate and control the public mind to protect short-term profits. The record is fully documented, almost beyond belief, and virtually ignored. Media bias on this issue is so extreme that many members of the public perceive climate science, rather than climate scepticism, as the cynical product of greed for funding. Thanks to corporate media silence on these corporate machinations, the truth has been exactly reversed!
* Challenging corporate media for taking huge sums in advertising revenue to promote climate-wrecking products and services.
* Exposing the oil giants who use propaganda to falsely promote themselves as ‘green’.
* Highlighting the inherently biocidal logic of corporate capitalism, structurally locked into generating maximised revenues in minimum time at minimum cost to powerful private interests.
James Hansen puts it all in perspective in his recent book:
“The gap between public perception and scientific reality is now enormous. While some of the public is just becoming aware of the existence of global warming, the relevant scientists - those who know what they are talking about - realize that the climate system is on the verge of tipping points. If the world does not make a dramatic shift in energy policies over the next few years, we may well pass the point of no return.” (Hansen, ‘The Storms of my Grandchildren,' Bloomsbury, London, 2009, p.171)
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
An excellent resource for countering the arguments of climate sceptics is provided here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php For detailed analysis of Jonathan Leake’s climate reporting in the Sunday Times, see Tim Lambert’s compendium at:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/leakegate/ Write to Jonathan Leake
Email:
jleake@sunday-times.co.uk Please copy your emails to us:
Email:
editor@medialens.org Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us
Email:
editor@medialens.org A new Media Lens book, 'NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century,' by David Edwards and David Cromwell has just been published by Pluto Press. John Pilger writes of the book:
"Not since Orwell and Chomsky has perceived reality been so skilfully revealed in the cause of truth."
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/newspeak.php We are grateful for donations received to date. The best way to support us is to send a monthly donation via PayPal or a standing order with a UK bank. If you currently support the corporate media by paying for their newspapers, why not support Media Lens instead?
http://www.medialens.org/donate Please visit the Media Lens website:
http://www.medialens.org We have a lively and informative message board:
http://www.medialens.org/board
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Why no action? Why elite support?
23.02.2010 09:32
Why is one of the biggest movers on global warming, Maurice Strong, an oil billionaire?
Why do big oil companies support action on global warming?
Why do elite groups such as Davos, the Trilateral Commission, CFR, all supporters of the global warming consensus?
Why was the elite groups, Club of Rome and Sierra Club, one of the prime movers in the global warming movement?
Simon
Why Simon, why?
23.02.2010 14:37
Depends what you mean by action
>Why is one of the biggest movers on global warming, Maurice Strong, an oil billionaire?
I dunno, why is anyone a billionaire?
>Why do big oil companies support action on global warming?
What support, what action? Maybe they have an idea they can make money out of it? Does that make it a myth?
>Why do elite groups such as Davos, the Trilateral Commission, CFR, all supporters of the global warming consensus?
Why do they what? You didn't finish the sentence.
>Why was the elite groups, Club of Rome and Sierra Club, one of the prime movers in the global warming movement?
Why don't you tell us? Perhaps they went back in time and got into a big conspiracy to fake the ice cores and hypnotise the world's scientists?
Pieman
Why ask me?
24.02.2010 09:12
I'm a human-made climate change sceptic or denier, as you would say.
Why are you asking me the answers to those questions?
Why can't climate change campaigners come up with credible answers that contradict conspiracy theories/
Why aren't they interested in asking these questions?
The action the 'solid science' requires is action that drastically reduces human-driven temperature increases. We are supposed to believe that serious people accept the science that predicts global catastrophy but do little to avert it.
The charlatan nature of the climate change campaign is show when big business is attacked for supporting deniers and nothing is said when big business supports the climate change campaign.
As for silly conspiracy theories, Maurice Strong was the conference secretary of the 1992 Earth Summit where many politicians signed the UN Convention on Climate Change. Strong wrote the convention. Strong calls himself a capitalist by methodology and a socialist by ideology and wants a one world government. Sounds like conspiracy to me.
Simon