Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
When I subsequently alerted Guterl that there were a number of serious and potentially
defamatory errors in his
Newsweek
piece, to his credit, he made the corrections he was able to
47
and
helped see to it that
Newsweek
published a short letter from me correcting the record.
48
I suspect that
the problem at least partly lay with
Newsweek
's editors, who had been taking a contrarian stance in
their coverage of climate change.
49
Guterl's
Discover
piece, which appeared in March,
50
was little
better, however; it was long on manufactured conflict and short on insight, with this lead: “Two
eminent climatologists share much different views: Michael Mann—whose private emails were
hacked—points a finger at skeptics. Judith Curry believes humans are warming the planet but
criticizes her colleagues for taking shortcuts.” In the interview, Curry made an interesting admission:
“I live in Georgia, which is a hotbed of skeptics. The things I'm saying play well in Georgia.”
A similar scenario of poor or biased coverage would replay itself repeatedly in the months
ahead with a range of media, from the
Guardian
to the
Wall Street Journal.
Sometimes corrections
and retractions were made, but they can never undo the damage done by the far more prominently
placed original articles.
There were shining exceptions, of course. Among them were reporters for regional papers such
as the
Philadelphia Inquirer
and
Allentown Morning Call
and local TV reporters, who for the most
part strived for accuracy and context, rather than innuendo and false balance.
51
I participated in two
hour-long NPR radio shows that brought a insightful and informative approach to the coverage of the
“climategate” affair. On the
Diane Rehm Show
(November 30, 2009), I participated in a wide-
ranging discussion about the understanding of climate change going into the Copenhagen conference,
with a panel including three other participants: a professional climate change denier (Kenneth Green
of AEI), a reporter (Stephen Porter of the
Wall Street Journal
), and the former chief of staff for
President Bill Clinton, John Podesta. While Green did his best to play up the manufactured
controversy of climategate, Rehm gave me more than a fair opportunity to refute his various
falsehoods and half-truths. Porter and Podesta provided thoughtful, contrasting perspectives on the
politics of the negotiations. In “On Point with Tom Ashbrook” (December 8, 2009), I participated
along with
Washington Post
science journalist Juliet Eilperin in a discussion of the climategate affair
and its aftermath. Both shows featured questions from callers, many of which were nuanced and
thoughtful.
ABC News later provided more responsible coverage. In April I did an interview for
Nightline
with the same reporter, David Wright, who had done their awful December climategate piece. Airing
on Earth Day in late April, the segment played up the conflict in viewpoints of contrarian-leaning on-
air TV meteorologists and actual climate scientists.
52
However, it provided the critical context so
often missing—that broadcast meteorologists are seldom trained as experts in climate science. The
piece ended with my response to Wright's conflation of efforts to inform policy with policy advocacy.
In response to his assertion that “it's your job to convince the public!”
53
I replied that “my job as a
scientist is making sure that the public discourse is informed by an accurate understanding of the
some small part, to shift the prevailing narrative away from the content of stolen e-mails toward the
abuses being suffered by climate scientists.
55
The Smear Campaign
