The Society of Environmental Journalists has posted an interesting discussion on the difference in mainstream coverage of climate change in Europe and the United States (hat tip: RealClimate). The main difference: balanced journalism in Europe (and elsewhere) doesn’t mean giving space to crackpots. Quoting Fiona Harvey, environmental correspondent for the UK’s Financial Times:

… it’s quite rare to get pieces questioning the science of global warming. The science is so overwhelming. So these fringe voices who still manage to get themselves heard in the U.S. press are not quoted in the mainstream stories in Europe. You will see them occasionally, but usually they just write angry letters saying, “You’re all wrong.”

They are regarded here as what they are: fringe voices without a great deal of substantial scientific backing.

Read the full discussion here.

Last week we were one of the first blogs to pick up on the Senate’s “fatwa on Brokaw.” The Senators’ press release was striking in its paranoia, conjecture, and lack of science as it made a scientific attack on a then yet-unaired Discovery Channel special (yes, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is attacking the network that brings you Shark Week and American Chopper).

In attacking the integrity of former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, the Senate also sought to diminish the integrity of noted climate expert James Hansen. Throwing several mud pies to see if one might hit, they tossed this into the debate:

Hansen also conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science (http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html ) that the use of “extreme scenarios” to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public’s attention to the issue — a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.

Enter into the fray Scientific American. In yesterday’s blog entry “Half-Baked Smears against Climatologists,” John Rennie absolutely shreds this attack, showing both a lack of fact-checking and honesty. He then draws parallels to attacks on climatologist Stephen Schneider, who skeptics have smeared with an out-of-context quote for nearly two decades.

The Senate Committee is trying to suggest scientists play by the rules of politicians (God help us were that the case). These elected officials would like the public to believe that a $250,000 gift from an ethically-challenged lobbyist is the same as a $250,000 grant from a foundation headed by a politician’s wife. It’s simply not the case, but as Rennie points out, they’ll bend the truth over backwards to fit their world view.

We’ll close on a related quote from Hansen that Rennie highlighted in his post.

Science and politics don’t mix. I believe that active researchers should offer objective assessment of the science problem and leave it to others to extract policy implications. The complication is that the scenarios for climate forcings and climate change are a function of people’s actions. Unless we make clear the relation between those actions and climate change, policy makers will not have the information they need.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is sponsoring a scientific integrity editorial cartoon contest they are calling “Science Idol.”

On issues from air quality to global warming, government science is being censored, manipulated, and distorted on an unprecedented scale. Scientists and citizens alike have helped UCS put the issue of political interference in science squarely on the public agenda. Now here’s your chance to show off your artistic and comedic talents in support of independent science—it’s said that a picture is worth a thousand words, but what about an editorial cartoon?

The deadline is July 31, so get cracking. You can learn more about the “Science Idol” contest and UCS’s scientific integrity work here.

On another note, we’re moving. The Pacific Institute’s Integrity of Science Blog will soon be setting up residence at ScienceBlogs. More about that soon, but suffice to say we are excited to be joining the numerous excellent blogs that the Seed Magazine venture hosts.

Segueing from the last post (on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ attack on An Inconvenient Truth) the Committee has struck again. Today it attacked former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw on, of all things, a Discovery Channel program he’ll be hosting on Sunday. The Committee Majority’s release is thin on science but is alarmingly rich with reactionary paranoia.

The Senators embarrass themselves and their committee with this attack on Brokaw (and Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, and “Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio”). The 860-word assault haphazardly tosses assertion and conjecture at Brokaw and his sources, hoping something will stick:

For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democratic Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz.

There’s a lot more like that, as the Senators attempt to write off the findings of three well-respected scientists as being purely partisan motivated. Their main thesis is that the show fails to include a wide-enough range of opinions. Curiously, in the attack’s one scientific nugget, the Senators rely on only one scientist, and one factoid, in their attempt to discredit Brokaw and the broadcast.

To paraphrase New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, this attack is not science, it’s political science.

“Climate Change: What You Need to Know” airs on the Discovery Channel Sunday, July 16 and will be repeated Saturday, July 22.

In a guest column for the Toronto Star, a Canadian chemist makes some nice outside-the-border observations about the venom being spat at An Inconvenient Truth.

The U.S. right wing has reacted venomously to this movie made by the former Democratic contender for president. On June 27, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a statement that included quotes such as, Gore’s “arguments are so weak they are pathetic,” “a propaganda crusade … mostly based on junk science” and “this man is an embarrassment to U.S. science … ”

Step back a moment. First of all, in Canada, can you imagine Environment Canada issuing an official denunciation of a movie? Since when do government members review films? Second, bear in mind the substance of the film. If Gore had declared the end of gravity, or claimed DNA to be optional, he couldn’t have been condemned any more baldly — his critics have exhausted the dictionary of abuse.

This last observation is especially well-noticed. Rather than discuss the substance of what scientists and their champions are saying, skeptics like the Senate Committee continue to prefer smoke and handwaving. In their effort to make their argument sound strong, they are painting themselves into a reactionary rhetorical corner. And it’s getting more bizarre and paranoid each day.

To provide you with an update on our last post E Magazine has coverage from the second-round of the Inhofe-led Senate assault on the Associated Press.

The AP fired back with its own release, claiming that its methodology “was simple, straightforward and clean: We contacted more than 100 of the nation’s top climate researchers, including those who have been vocal skeptics of climate change theory. But we quoted only climate scientists who had actually viewed the documentary or read the book upon which it was based. As we learned in the course of our reporting—and as our story noted—most scientists have not seen the movie or read the book. And those who had seen it or read it were generally positive toward Gore’s scientific presentation.

“The Senate Committee Majority’s press release was headlined ‘AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE.’ That headline is wrong: The story was completely accurate and met AP’s high standards in every way.”

Marc Morano, a spokesperson for the Senate majority on the Environment and Public Works committee, responded that “our headline dealt with their misleading headline.” He added, “Seth Borenstein cannot be proud of that article; it won’t be included in his clip file when he goes for a promotion. He didn’t get the goods, and he could have done much, much better.” Morano also denied, however, that the press release was “an official government action,” implying subpoenas or hearings. “This was not from a senator, but from the Republican majority,” Morano said. “It’s up to others to decide if it was unusual or not. I’d be surprised if there was no precedent, because many congressional committees are highly partisan and political.”

Be sure to check out the rest of the story here. As far as we know, a third-round has yet to commence, and where this fight will go next is anyone’s guess. The long holiday weekend will hopefully offer the Environment Committee a cooling-off period. We hear the Senator will be enjoying the annual Inhofe Family 4th of July snipe hunt. Don’t come back without bagging a snipe, Senator!

Kidding aside, the Senate Majority’s odd step of issuing such a critical and factually-challenged press release had its desired effect in the skeptic blogosphere, and in the general media. For whatever disservice it does to the progress of enacting global warming policy, it unnecessarily does more damage to citizens’ trust of the press.

An Associated Press story finding that scientists who saw the movie say that Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” gets it mostly right has raised the ire of Senator Inhofe.

You can follow the debate by first reading “Scientists OK Gore’s Movie for Accuracy” at ENN.com.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Then, to watch things heat up, check out this press release from the Inhofe-chaired Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works “AP Incorrectly Claims Scientists Praise Gore’s Movie.” The letter is pitch-perfect Inhofe:

In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted.

The Senator has a history of demanding reams of data when he’s cornered. From Environment Committee Staff Director Andrew Wheeler: “And all we’re asking for the IPCC to do is to take a look at the comments they received from their peer review process. And then just comment publicly on whether or not they took the comments and if they did not, why they didn’t.” Call it bullying, a delay-tactic, or hand-waving. Just don’t call it science.

But back to this press release. When it does attack the science …

Gore’s claim that global warming is causing the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro to disappear has also been debunked by scientific reports. For example, a 2004 study in the journal Nature makes clear that Kilimanjaro is experiencing less snowfall because there’s less moisture in the air due to deforestation around Kilimanjaro.

… it quotes non-existant studies (hat-tip to Deltoid)

The “study” is in reality no scientific study at all, but a news piece devoted almost entirely to Euan Nesbit’s proposal to save the Kilimanjaro glacier by wrapping it in a giant tarp. The article never says who the “experts” are, nor does it quote any scientific studies supporting the claim. Source

More than anything else, this press release does more to raise questions of the Environment Committee’s own “bias and methodology.”

While climate change threatens the extinction of thousands of plant and animal species, it seems to have brought beer-swilling-everyman-robots out of extinction.

In a creative ad for “An Inconvenient Truth,” Bender (of “Futurama” fame) shares the stage with, and provides belligerant response to, Vice President Gore.

It’s nice to know that despite the gloomy message of “An Inconvenient Truth,” and the science snuffing that continues to stall action, that VP Gore’s sense of humor is not extinct.

In other news, scientists had something more to say about global warming this week.

When it comes to sea level rise and its potential impacts, expert and EPA project manager James Titus has nothing to say. Not that he isn’t knowledgeable – he’s the author of the 2000 essay “Does the U.S. Government Realize That the Sea Is Rising?” for the Golden Gate Law Review. However…

Reached by telephone, Mr. Titus said he was no longer allowed to discuss such issues publicly and referred questions to the agency’s press office, which would not allow him to speak about it on the record. Instead, requests for on-the-record information were referred to Bill Wehrum, the agency’s acting assistant administrator for air and radiation.

This exchange is an aside in Monday’s New York Times story “Next Victim of Warming: The Beaches.” Unfortunately, as the victims pile up, the policy continues to be one favoring research, followed by the official/unofficial suppression of that research. Unfortunately for future victims, action is nowhere in the playbook.

If this was a murder mystery, we’d have serious suspicions that the chief of police was somehow tied to the killer …

Between games of Frisbee golf with Dick and Condi at his Crawford Ranch, President Bush took time off to issue a “very serious” statement on global warming.

“For centuries the rays of the sun have warmed the surface of our earth’s crust. And a apparently those rays are intensifying in such a way that … uh … it’s increasing lava flows. And a …

“I’m not gonna lie to you. I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.” You can view the Quicktime video at OneGoodMove

OK, so it’s Saturday Night Live alum Will Ferrell portraying President Bush. The message is pretty much the same, though.

“I’m sure by now you’ve all heard what liberal scientists are trying to say. It seems that, uh, liberals and godless tax-raisers are trying to make me look bad by using such things as facts … and scientific data.”