How the Press Talks About Science

In an unplanned part two to our previous post, How Scientists Talk About Science, we're now covering how the press talks about science because the fricking Seattle Times has an article titled Heated Debate About Global Warming.

Apparently, two local researchers are engaged in statistical fisticuffs about the degree to which the snowpack in our Cascades has melted over the past 50 years. The possibility that the often-touted decrease of 50% -- a figure thrown around liberally by numerous people, including Mayor Nickels -- could be dramatically wrong bears investigation. Thankfully, that's what scientist do, they investigate. (And discuss, and re-investigate, and discuss, and argue, and discuss...)

But remember the title, because the scientists in question are not debating global warming. Halfway through the article Dr. Phillip Mote goes out of his way to explicitly make sure he isn't quoted as such. The debate is over the degree to which it is impacting our local environment. Yes, they're getting all bitchy with each other about it (and Mote appears by all counts to be a publicity-fearing control freak), but the article should have stopped at this comment: "The affair might be dismissed as a tempest in an ivory-tower teapot."

So why is this article headlined as though they are battling over global warming?

We strongly suspect that this squabble wouldn't have made the local paper were it not for that frustrating New York Times piece: a singular, erroneous article that the Seattle Times obliquely draws a conclusion from, namely that scientists are "criticizing" global warming. Despite what the NYT would have you believe, one article does not a trend make. But with the Seattle Times's help, headline skimmers everywhere can look forward to being misled about that.

Which is too bad. The actual article covers some interesting ground. Collectively, our understanding of the scientific process is appalling -- what has happened is the lid of the teapot has been lifted for all to look inside, and the public is being exposed to a centuries-old tradition of discourse founded on disagreeing until nearly everyone finally agrees. Imagine that.