Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

Alarmism Run Amok

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

There's an interesting story making its way around the science blogosphere, involving the fallout from a whopping error in a recent NGO report that was (before the error became publicly known) widely picked up by the press. Charlie Petit at Science Journalism Tracker gets to the nub of it here:

The news is that this week an NGO based in Argentina, the Universal Ecological Fund, released a report on the peril for world food production as global temperatures rise. Serious topic. The authoring org. appears to be earnest (if not diligent). It got wide pickup. However, the grave report, aside from its crop and food price worries, also declared that at current rates of emissions, CO2 in the atmosphere will reach about 490 parts per million by the year 2020 (it's now just shy of 400). That's pretty much wrong. What's totally wrong is its deduction that this translates to a temperature rise of 2.4 C by 2020.

Suzanne Goldenberg at the Guardian seems to be one of the few reporters who took a more critical look at the NGO's false assertions. Another environmental journalist--Stephen Leahy--had an advance peek at the report and tried warning the NGO of its errors, but it refused to listen. Gavin Schmidt over at Real Climate says the whole debacle

has lessons for NGOs, the press, and the public.

But he never really elaborates on what these lessons are. He does, however, absolve the NGO from acting in bad faith:

It has to be acknowledged that people sometimes make genuine mistakes without having any desire to mislead or confuse, and that this is most likely the case here.

Hmm. Here's another way to look at it, as reported by Charlie Petit at Science Journalism tracker:

Leahy even tried to save the report's authors before they derailed themselves in public. Having seen the report's advance material, he warned its author and the public relations company promoting it of the error. He tells us, "I used up (the) better part of 2 or 3 days of my time and still they went ahead with the release"¦ they think it is better to have a conversation on this than to be right."

So what's the lesson here?

    2 Free Articles Left

    Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

    Want unlimited access?

    Subscribe today and save 70%

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In