Science journalism is not about taking sides, or about being a cheerleader. It's about shaking the tree, about asking award questions, about standing in the place of those who can't ask such questions, and being persistent, unpopular and dogged. It's about moral authority, something science in BBC News has lost. Science and science journalism are needed. Journalists should portray where the weight of evidence lies, but that is the least they should do, and they should not look to scientists for guidance anymore than an artist asks a bowl of cherries for advice about how to draw them! They should criticise, highlight errors, make a counterbalancing case if it will stand up, but don't censor, even by elimination, don't be complacent and say the science is settled in areas that are still contentious. The history of science and of journalism is full of those reduced to footnotes because they followed that doctrine. --David Whitehouse,
Huffington Post, 6 December 2011
Two of the most vigorous advocates of the manmade global warming theory claim that the Earth's temperature has definitely risen even once Pacific ocean fluctuations and volcanoes are discounted, in a paper published by the Institute of Physics journal Environmental Research Letters. It just hasn't risen by very much. "It's a case of making statistics show what you want it to prove in the first place," astrophysicist and science author Dr David Whitehouse told us. "I don't believe you can take away three big effects, and be sure the little effects you've got left are due to man." "Statistics can be useful as a tool to discover things you couldn't otherwise find. Or they can be used to prove things you want to prove. This looks like the latter." --Andrew Orlowski,
The Register, 6 December 2011
