It is a famiiar scene in a climate change related news article. A scientist comes on and explains the science. A second guest comes on and disputes the science.
A picture of uncertainty is painted.
Increasingly Climate scientists are refusing to engage in this process. as a result climate science is being kept off the air. Is this the right approach?
From the perspective of the likes of the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute this is absolutely the right approach. ne can imagine the news that a leading climate scientist has refused to engage in debate leads to clinking of glasses and a bonus added to the Christmas Party fund.
The fact that a climate scientist does not want to debate is easily used to the advantage of the skeptic. It confirms all the things they are saying:
The science is not sound enough to defend in debate
Scientists do not like to be challenged
The climate scientist’s name is pencilled in the diary. The next time they appear they may be reminded of their previous cowardice.
So why do scientists refuse to turn up, if not for the above reasons? Without speaking on their behalf for all their motives, two reasons are mainly given.
1. Arguing with someone who will not discuss or recognise the science is pointless and only confuses the issue.
2. They do not want to give the skeptic a platform.
Both of these points are valid. The media generally engage in “he said, she said” debates, where the media organisation presents both sides and concludes with vacuous neutral comments like “we must leave it there, no doubt the debate will rage on…”
Giving a sketic “equal billing” promotes their point of view.
Is ducking out the answer. While this is a principled position, the reality of news coverage is that if the news organisation cannot engage the scientist they will move on a cover something esle. After all, climate change is a ratings killer. Climate change will lose coverage at a time when it needs it the most.
Alternative strategy
If debating the science is only going to further the opposite point of view and not turning up is depriving the audience of the real story there seems no good option.
An alternative is to do the following – Turn up and not debate the science.
How would this work?
The media will always claim that they only report the news and that they are neutral. This is a flimsy cover for the bias they routinely show, by picking and choosing what to cover and the manner in which the cover news.
So why are they not ut under the spotlight.
Imagine the following:
A climate scientist is invited on alongside a representative of the Global Warming Policy Foundation to discuss the latest climate findings most likely prompted by some natural disaster. The host opens and asks a question like “is this caused by climate change?”
The scientist thanks the host for inviting them on to discuss the issue and proceeds to list their credentials to “explain to the viewers why they are qualified to answer the question.” Then they ask the host why they have invited Mr/Mrs X on.
The host being put in the unfamiliar position of being questioned may attempt to get the scientist to answer the original question at which point they can take a stand on the following position
“If you wanted to discuss the science, then why have you invited them on?”
And instead of engaging in the science the debate is turned into one about how the media organisation covers science.
It is entirely likely this approach would lead to a car crash interview that would be uncomfortable for all involved.
The point is whether this approach might break the cycle of 50/50 debates on matters of fact in a way that not turning up will not.