Over the past few weeks, I have
engaged in a number of debates on Twitter relating to the views of Ivo Vegter,
an author and columnist for the Daily Maverick online newspaper. Mr Vegter,
author of Extreme Environment, is a self-proclaimed sceptic of the environmental
movement and a denier of anthropogenic climate change in particular.
I must disclose at this point
that I have not yet read Extreme Environment, and I am increasingly
ill-disposed to contribute financially to Mr Vegter's pockets, but I will
endeavour to get my hands on a copy at some stage. I am, however, familiar with
a host of the enviro-sceptic arguments, and from his interactions it would
appear Mr Vegter shares the majority of his opinions with this community.
My engagement on Twitter, which
has included a range of writers, editors and opinionistas (including Leonie Joubert
and Jacque Rousseau among others), has focused on two things:
- Firstly, the basis for the
challenge on climate science; and
- Secondly, on the
journalistic/editorial ethics of not balancing these opinion pieces with a
description of the scientific consensus.
While I am neither a journalist
nor a climate scientist, I am technically trained and have read widely on the
topic. My wife completed her peace studies masters thesis on climate change as
portrayed by the media, and for her insight into these matters I thank her (a
summary of her dissertation, based on Australian media but relevant to
SA, can be found here).
In my professional life as an engineering consultant considering climate
mitigation and adaptation, I also have a broad understanding of many of the
issues.
I take it as fact that climate
change is happening, that it is caused by human activity and that by
substantially reducing our greenhouse gas emissions we can avoid some of the
direst consequences of a rapidly changing climate. This position is supported
by the global scientific community, where there is now broad consensus of these
core issues.
This post is not a detailed
defence of the climate science. Wikipedia notes that thirty four leading
science academies globally have publicly endorsed the findings of the UN Inter
Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their endorsement counts far more
than my opinion (or that of Mr Vegter for that matter). The G8+5 Academies’
joint statement can be viewed here.
For more analysis and research I can recommend NASA, NOAA and Nature Geoscience.
And so for better or worse, we
must accept that the scientific community are unequivocal in their assessment
of anthropogenic climate change.
This means that any opinion
piece taking a sceptical/denialist approach must tackle the science to be
legitimate. And yet none appear to.
To seriously contest this
space, a climate denialist must provide peer reviewed research which is
accepted on a scale to sway global scientific consensus. The appropriate places
to contend the science are journals like Nature, not the opinion sections of
the mainstream media (online or print).
Which brings me to the second
issue - the representation of these views in the mainstream media.
Let's start by acknowledging
the role of columnists and opinion pieces in media. As pointed out to me by
Jacques Rousseau, opinion pieces are not journalism, but opinion (clearly). As
such, they are not subject to editorial control, nor are they bound by
consensus. I do not contest this, nor do I advocate editorial censorship of
opinion pieces.
However, I do advocate
contextual framing of opinion pieces by editors where the external balance of
scientific consensus is clearly in conflict with the expressed opinion. And
this is especially so where the topic content is of a sufficiently specialist nature
that the majority of readers would be ill-equipped to contextualise the opinion
themselves.
Mr Rousseau noted the role of
rebuttals and comments in challenging opinion pieces in the absence of
editorial control. I take note of that, but it is flawed. An
opinion-rebuttal frame puts the two arguments on the same footing, implying the
differences are just a matter of opinion rather than one being grounded in
scientific consensus and the other backed primarily by vested interests and
largely discredited in the scientific community (thanks Leonie Joubert). By
virtue of the original being an opinion piece, it draws all further discussion
on the topic down to that level. It also opens the door for substantial
trolling, which makes reasoned discussion difficult to fathom for readers (a
topic discussed at some length my Mr Rousseau in other posts of his).
Mail and Guardian editor, Nic
Dawes, brought up the role of reputational damage in providing this motivation
to editors. I'm afraid I do not buy the line that the reputation of
publications will be called into question due to a discerning public. On issues
as technical as climate science, few members of the public are equipped to make
a call. I believe it is very unlikely for the public to provide these checks
and balances on topics requiring relatively detailed scientific understanding.
Mr Dawes also brought up the topic of AIDS denialism as a point of comparison,
and I think it is a good example (except perhaps that the impacts of climate
change have the potential to far outstrip the human cost of AIDS denialism).
Equally, I do not buy the
implied assertion that editors do not have control over opinion contributors.
It may be a journalistic norm not to, but ultimately editors have the authority
to provide comment on opinion expressed on their platforms. A number of the
M&G editors (including Mr Dawes) did this with recently over the 'Spear'
cartoons by cartoonist Zapiro (a commentator of a different sort). There was
extensive comment over whether or not to publish, and the degree to which the
views of the cartoonist were consistent with the views of the publication. As
editor, you have control, therefore you have responsibility.
Finally, I was questioned by Mr
Rousseau on whether I would react like this to other opinions I felt were not
founded on scientific consensus. Well, my track record would show not...
However, climate change is the first where I feel sufficiently angry over the
mis-representation and sufficiently informed to make my case. That being said,
there is a trend by opinionistas of Mr Vegter's ilk to dismiss the science on
many issues perceived to be environmental: nutrition and hydraulic fracturing
among others. This is a worrying trend as it breeds a culture of picking and
choosing the bits of science that support your view - confirmation bias if ever
I encountered it.
In essence, climate change (and
in particular climate denialism) is an issue of sufficient import to the public
good that editors have a responsibility to balance sceptical content on their
platforms with some reference to the scientific consensus. And in this case,
there is no serious debate within the scientific community on whether
anthropogenic climate change is happening, consensus has been reached. The only
debate is how to mitigate it as far as possible and then how to adapt.
Denialist views are
deliberately contrarian, in the face of evidence and scientific consensus, and
if not framed as such, can have damaging consequences. I am disappointed that
our editors appear not to agree.
I have represented the
arguments here as I understood them, which is not to say how they were
intended. I would welcome debate and engagement on these issues; or correction
if I have misrepresented any of the people mentioned above.
* At the time of the
discussion, I did not know who the editor of the Daily Maverick was and could
not find their details on the website, hence my engagement of other local
editors. I have subsequently been informed that Branko Brkic is the man in
question. Apologies to Mr Brkic for subtweeting him (I had to look that up, so
thanks Mr Dawes for the lesson on Twitter etiquette). I hope the Daily Maverick
editorial team feel free to engage...
No comments:
Post a Comment