Chris Mooney has posted a transcript of a talk he gave at Rutgers on way that a misguided balance in science reporting between mainstream science and fringe beliefs misleads people.
Michael Duffy has presented a radio program on climate change that doesn't have that problem. He has a range of panellists whose opinions on anthropogenic global warming range all the way from "it isn't happening" to "it doesn't matter". Where can you get panellists like that? The Lavoisier group, of course.
Duffy opened the program with this howler:
"Few people, for instance, are aware that 99% of greenhouse gases comprise water vapour. In other words, even if humans increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 10 or even 50 or more percent, in the context of all greenhouse its actually pretty small."
Not only does he greatly overstate the fraction of the greenhouse effect attributable to water vapour, he misunderstands what this means. Gavin Schmidt explains. Duffy's 99% figure has no scientific support. More importantly, Duffy makes the mistake of assuming that the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere is fixed. But warming the earth by increasing carbon dioxide will result in more water vapour in the atmosphere. So, even if water vapour was 99% of the greenhouse effect, it would not follow that increasing carbon dioxide would necessarily have a small effect. Duffy also seems unaware that the natural greenhouse effect is very large, keeping the earth 33°ree;C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. Even a 10% increase in the greenhouse effect would result in substantial warming.
Tellingly, none of Duffy's expert guests corrected his gross error about water vapour. First, William Kininmonth claimed that the climate models were no good. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand the nature of the models. Next, Garth Paltridge argued that we can't trust the models because only the experts in modeling really understand them. (No, really---that was his argument.) Then, Aynsley Kellow claimed that it was all politics and that Helmut Kohl had dreamed up the whole issue to undercut Green opposition to nuclear power back in the 80s. Finally, Harlan Watson gave the official Bush administration spin on why the US didn't ratify Kyoto. (Apparently it would have totally ruined the US economy.)
Radio National invites comments on Duffy's show here.
Duffy also has a column in the Sydney Morning Herald saying basically the same thing, with an added dose of Ross McKitrick attacking the hockey stick. He gets taken apart by John Quiggin and Immanuel Rant.
It's not just political bias. If theory X is the scientific consensus, and theory Y is a new idea that's just starting to challenge it, then the presentation is most exciting if we root for Y, the underdog, challenging those fuddy-duddy X believers with exciting new ideas. The fact that usually, X is right and Y is wrong spoils this dramatic presentation.
Indeed Paul, a couple of the clearest examples being evolution and AIDS (check out AIDS deniers like Mugabe at http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm). Yet climate skeptics like to label environmentalists as being 'religious' - pot calling the kettle black, I'd say.
Sorry, bad http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/
Oops, I meant Mbeki, not Mugabi. Easy to confuse those two...
!. It is pointless being involved in the little game that is CounterLunch on Radio National. A more fruitful strategy is to complain to the ABC. This disgrace of a program needs to be removed.
2. The only explanation for Duffy's "journalism" is that he is either on the drip feed from the hydrocarbon energy industry or hopes that he will be.