Bad Science Journalism Gets Schooled

TaeKwonDood writes "Biology post-doc Dr. Michael White takes a look at the '2007 Best American Science and Nature Writing' and doesn't like what he finds in an article called Bad Science Journalism and the Myth of the Oppressed Underdog. Turns out it's not just political writers who pick a position they want to advocate and then write stories to confirm it. Science journalism gets a scolding and it's been a long time coming."

Comments

Re:Can you cite these?

[TFGeditor]

As a journalist myself, I, too, am most interested in seeing those thousands of studies, especially those dated more than 30 years in the past. I have done a lot of research (into extant literature) on climate change and never ran across any references to global warming that predated the 1990s. If global warming theory indeed surfaced 100 years ago, that's huge news. Please, poster of the grandparent, pony up with the citations. Enquiring minds and a "world in peril" want to know more about this inconvenient untruth. Oh, wait...did I say that out loud? Crap.

Re:"experiment" with Global Warming?

[monxrtr]

But, there are many things (mainly, philosophical questional) that some would try to group under science because they believe they can conjecture out an answer. Talk about hubris. I find it very funny that scientists too often forget their methodologies spring directly from black and white epistemological either/or full set/empty set principles. Statistics doesn't establish the validity of statistics, and neither does the scientific method establish the validity of the scientific method.

Seriously, though, people who tend to quickly polarize over Global Warming tend to do so because of the seemingly obvious ramifications of admitting whether Global Warming exists. In short, the issue has more to do with people unwilling, on both sides, to go over the evidence and accept the proof that's available and leave it at that. No, it has more to do with politicized scientific fraud. Global Warming "scientists", now going by the more PR friendly label "Climate Change" scientists, claim an average Earth Temperature T and present no model, no formula of variables. They pretend all non human variables are constant, and reduce their "hidden" formula to Human Activity = Average Earth Temperature. Then they go on to talk about 25% percent changes in Average Earth Temperature being caused by Human Activity (3 degrees divided by 13 degrees equals 23%). It's the biggest bullshit fraud of the last millennium masquerading as "science". And that's the simple reason nobody has seen a climate model, a temperature formula along the lines of Sun + Core + Volcanoes + Ocean Currents + Human Activity = Average Earth Temperature, where Human Activity would be weighted around 0.0001 in the model. Because that would too easily expose what total bullshit fraud the global "climate change" scientists are pushing. Cosmetologists have more credibility than climatologists. Where's the fucking E=mc^2 formula for average earth temperature?! Exactly, "global warming theory", "climate change theory", is pure fraudulent bullshit.

Why are you surprised?

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Scientists are just as biased and emotion driven as anyone else. Just look at the Slashdot community who claim to be scientists. They are one of the most hateful groups on the internet.