General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsClimate models ignored by media
To see how climate models were discussed in the media, a group of researchers from George Mason University analyzed stories in four of the largest US newspapers, as well as some other outlets frequented by the politically attuned. What they found fits in with the all-too-familiar state of science communication in the mediaits not great.
The researchers first looked at articles published between 1998 and 2010 that mentioned climate change in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today. The quantity of coverage peaked in 2007, when the fourth IPCC report was released and public acceptance of climate science hit the high water mark. Yet even in 2007, climate models rarely got a mention. Over 4,000 articles (including opinion pieces) about climate change were published that year, but only 100 made reference to climate models. And that fraction continually declined through the period studied.
Its not necessarily surprising that so few articles dig into the nuts and bolts of the science, but a couple interesting nuggets jump out. The New York Times accounted for nearly half of all stories that brought up modelslikely a testament to its still-thriving science section. (About a quarter of those stories were written by journalist-slash-blogger Andrew Revkin.) And The Wall Street Journalwhere many prominent climate contrarians have published opinion letters over the yearswas the only paper in which the majority of climate model mentions occurred in the opinion section.
The researchers argue that this paucity of detailed coverage signifies a real problem with the reporting on climate changeit lacks sufficient explanation. Readers are too often left with a superficial understanding of the science, making it seem less authoritative.
rest of article
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/climate-models-ignored-by-media-except-for-their-critics/
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Seems the same people who stand to make billions dumping CO2 into the air are also the money behind the climate deniers.
And the same owners of the coal burners are pretty much the same owners of the nuke power plants.
Why would anyone have any trust in the people who dump CO2 and lie about the effects?
See this link for more: (yeah, my OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112716354
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)when it comes to science?
even those who are interested have a hard time finding discussion of scientific topics in the popular discourse.
longship
(40,416 posts)It's not surprising that the MSM doesn't cover them in detail. However, the climate models do make predictions and those are not covered either. The RW and their followers on want to deny the results so they cast doubts on the models and have been doing so for some time now.
That's why there is no substantive coverage on the subject. Plus, it's complex and is not suitable for 30 second sound bites. Better to cover Lindsay Lohan and the latest Kardashian hubbubs. It sells more shampoo or whatever.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)That their entire existence might be a net negative on the future welfare of the planets inhabitants. Or that even if they are more the most environmentally minded person on the planet it can all be quickly erased by simply investing in the stock market.