The "Teach Both Sides" Paradox on Climate Change, Darwinism Et Al, In a Nutshell

Professor Brian Cox off D-Ream highlighted the dual paradox that faces hot scientific potatoes such as climate change or evolution, where the mainstream scientific consensus of experts points extremely heavily in favour of both, but popular layman consensus can be divided and highly contentious, often flying in the face of the experts view. The problem is twofold, firstly in the interests of "balance", media orientated directors or journalists / editors will "promote" the other side either they think that showing both sides of the story is the fair and just thing to do, or plainly out of a spirit of contrarian irreverence to piss off the "establishment". This route is not a solid way to take into account that one of the sides could plainly have got the facts wrong. The second is more controversial. If say climate change proponents point out that the "deniers" don't have a leg to stand on, and have dodgy evidence, and thus have no scientific or factual basis to claim equivalence and equal air time, well they end up looking like they do have something to hide, at least to those laypersons looking at the issues. What are they so afraid about in debating the issues? Unfortunately not seeing the vigorous academic scrutiny and peer review that became the scientific consensus that gets put out. That is why we end up with public scepticism being much higher than those of qualified climate scientists. (75 percent in the UK think AGW is happening. 97% of scientists think the same, and every scientific body of international and national stature.)


This paradox is summed up superbly (but unintentionally) in a blog article by Alex Singleton, a journo from the Telegraph, not a paper to deny airspace to a AGW denier - about an e-mail circulated at Fox News about putting out "both" sides of the AGW debate

"From: Sammon, Bill Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009Subject:

Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data……we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."

Ostensibly this e-mail sounds pretty reasonable, and I can see why Alex Singleton may think that this is a good approach to take in regards to climate change. However, and this was Proffessor Cox's point. Although Bills attitude towards the role of journalism may be admirable and well intentioned in regards to something like the scientific consensus of climate change, it doesn't really fit the approach to take on scientific issues that have been researched. I have no problem with them saying that some do criticise and disagree with the consensus on AGW, but they are not saying how much criticism there is, and how is a very small minority, mostly composed of laypeople and has no real standing at all in the harsh world of scientific peer review and evidence based research. That is the point Cox said, this outlook to scientific reporting may seem fair, but it is giving pseudoscience airtime that is totally unwarranted from a research sense.

Singleton then brings up a point that highlights an important gap in the often humanities based background of journalists, and the research work of science:

"wonder if the journalists writing attacks on Fox realise that these sort of advisory emails are frequently sent around the staff of Left-wing establishments, declaring that “ethnic minorities” must henceforth be called “minority ethnics” and that no one may be labeled a “gypsy”. Anyway, do take a look at the email, and you will see the absurdity of the criticism:"

There is an important distinction between this example and the climate change e-mail. The former is about appealing to sensibilities and not hurting peoples feelings. It is a subjective thing, you can't really quantify it or measure it. It is essentially a matter of opinion. The latter is about a subject that is researchable and researched, a tangible scientific phenomena, and is subject to evidence based research, almost all confirming AGW is real. I think some journalists like Singleton are so used to the opinion piece and the polemic, they seem to think that science works like their world. That they all meet up in the "Science Establishment" once a year and create a "bible of science" in their little society. He backs my suspicion up with:

"It sounds to me as if Fox News is making a conscious effort, if I may use their catchphrase, to be fair and balanced. What a pity that the Left, like fanatical fundamentalists, regard global warming as such a sacred doctrine that they cannot permit anyone anywhere to criticise it."

See he sees it as "doctrine" and "left wing". That AGW research consists of nothing much more than a bunch of Guardian readers in the North Pole or whatever. And thus why popular reporting of science is in such a dismal state. I don't want to shut AGW deniers up, or send them to prison. But I don't think they should get away without the public being told that there is almost nothing to their claims. That not all counter claims are as valid when you research them. In practice we all do this anyway, when David Icke said he was the son of God he got laughed at. Why? Because even without the benefit of objecive analysis (though you are welcome to try) we knew that the ratio of he is Jesus, to he's nuts was 0.00001 : 99.9999. Likewise for all Singleton may talk about fairness, does the Torygraph give ample credence to the claims 9/11 was an inside job. Ditto, it's barmy.

No-one is saying AGW deniers should be silenced, but they should be judged by the veracity and accuracy of their claims, which don't stand up too well. That isn't an attack on free speech.