Former Irish Times journalist John Gibbons on media coverage of climate change

[David Cochrane]

MediaBite's David Manning has interviewed former Irish Times journalist John Gibbsons of ClimateChange.ie on media coverage of climate change.

Worth a read folks....

MediaBite - 'Balancing' the Climate Consensus - Part 1

[Gimpanzee]

Gibbon's is a godsend to sceptics when on radio. He might be able to write (have read very few of his columns, so I can't judge), but he hasn't the temperament to handle sceptics in live discussion.

But he's right about the sceptics and the media (not just in Ireland). It takes little or no knowledge or even interest to be able to throw out a few dodgy accusations that need far more time and resources than a radio or tv show can facilitate.

[blacbloc]

I'dda posted this on the Media forum meself, if twere down to me but these things are always subjective...

[Cut Once]

A brilliant analysis by John Gibbons of one of the problems facing scientists on critical issues, not just climate change.

It’s like the difference between making something and destroying something. The effort required to make something is extraordinary, the effort required to drop it on the ground is minimal. Clearly what we have with climate sceptics is that they are taking years of scientific work and just dropping it on the ground, saying "Look, it's broken."

Is it a problem without a solution? I just bought Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Science' for my holiday reading next week - I hope it can lead me to some answers!

[fiannafailure]

Gibbon's is a godsend to sceptics when on radio. He might be able to write (have read very few of his columns, so I can't judge), but he hasn't the temperament to handle sceptics in live discussion.

But he's right about the sceptics and the media (not just in Ireland). It takes little or no knowledge or even interest to be able to throw out a few dodgy accusations that need far more time and resources than a radio or tv show can facilitate.

But he's right about the sceptics and the media (not just in Ireland). It takes little or no knowledge or even interest to be able to throw out a few dodgy accusations that need far more time and resources than a radio or tv show can facilitate.

Thats the way the world works most of the time

[Tombo]

A brilliant analysis by John Gibbons of one of the problems facing scientists on critical issues, not just climate change.

Is it a problem without a solution? I just bought Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Science' for my holiday reading next week - I hope it can lead me to some answers!

And that quote perfectly describes Gibbons complete disdain for, or more likely ignorance of, science. The entire premise of science is to throw stuff around and try and break it.

It is the perfect description of what is wrong with this climate change industry.

[SAT]

Two paranoid people (or one paranoid schizophrenic ) stroking one another. Pretty sickening really.

The whole article positively drips of irony. Accusing the people on the other side of the aisle of being conspiracy theorists whilst claiming to be the victims of conspiracies themselves

I particularly note the way they make personal attacks on all those who have disagreed with them, ascribing nefarious motives to all and sundry without ever once considering the possibility that these people simply think they are wrong. Behaviour very reminiscent of many of the AGW proponents on this forum.

This line sums up JG erroneous approach to the subject;

clearly what we have with climate sceptics is that they are taking years of scientific work and just dropping it on the ground, saying "Look, it's broken."

Like Phil Jones he obviously doesn't realise that is precisely how science is supposed to work.

It is completely irrelevant how much time and effort has gone into formulating a theory or how pretty it looks when completed. If it fails when stress tested it is a poor theory.

Another gem

Pat Kenny for instance, starts with a conclusion and then marshals information supportive of that conclusion, before arguing it. Science argues in exactly the opposite direction. The purpose of science is to dismantle favourite pet theories and not to work towards conclusion, but to see where facts take us.

This from a guy who says he made his mind up years ago and will never change it.

On this point I'd agree

I think there is strong feeling in the media that they've been had about climate change.

[Heorditas]

He really has it in for Pat Kenny, doesn't he?

He even managed to mention the Holocaust.

This is the main problem:

About 5 or 6 years ago I became aware of environmental issues, specifically climate change and began reading obsessively into the subject.

5 or 6 years of "obsessive reading" and he feels fit to dismiss people who are a lot more qualified than him and who have devoted years to the subject.

[borntorum]

Obsessive is right. I can't stand the smug arrogance of people like Gibbons who are unwilling to do anything but try and shout down those who disagree with them. And I believe that human-influenced climate change is occuring.

[Cassandra Syndrome]

Occam's Razor - The simplest explanation is always the truth.

The Truth is undeniable.

The Sun is the primary driver behind climate change.

And yes if someone spends years creating something only for it to be either

A. Proved wrong instantly
B. Pressurised into revealing flaws

They would understandable react very defensively and try to manipulate to keep the show on the road. A lifetime's work to go up in smoke is traumatic and a person would sell their soul to protect it.