The 20 links game

The Washington Post's standards of truth are, apparently, that if you can provide 20 links to support your article, that's good enough for them. (see quotes from their Ombudsman and some responses at, say, http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/02/28/washpost-ombudsman-steps-up-and-steps-in-it-plus-another-will-fabrication/).

I boggle. Granted that this isn't that rare (part of why I'm good at the game of that name).

So the game is to find 20 links (bonus for 20 links from 20 different sites) to support:

• The earth is flat
• The earth is the center of the solar system
• There is no greenhouse effect
• Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas
• The moon landings were faked
• The earth is less than 100,000 years old
• The earth is more than 1 trillion years old
• Humans have been on the earth fewer than 10,000 years
• Humans have been on the earth more than 50,000,000 years
• Elvis is alive
• Space aliens kidnap children
• ... and any another statement of this caliber

I'm making it harder for you than the Post did for Will. You have to get your 20 links to support a single, clear statement. They approved the article with a number of (erroneous) statements which totalled support of 20 links. Still, I think 20 links is 20 minutes for any outrageous statement of your choosing will not be difficult.

If you post your 20, please use rel="nofollow" in the links. If you're not sure how, note that and I'll do it. Or just post the statement that you found your 20 links to support -- but only after you find the actual links (but save them, there might be later use).

Science and media

I've been spending more time commenting on other blogs, including The Intersection lately than constructing my own posts here. Latest bit being about science, scientists, journalists, and science journalists. I'll leave my comments over there to stand in their context.

But here, I'll tell the story of my one encounter with major media. Unlike standard stereotypes, for both of the scientist and the journalist, I think, it was a very successful and positive encounter. Jack Williams (then and still at USA Today) called me up at work with a couple simple questions about my area, and hoping that I could provide some graphics. I answered (life was simpler back then) and could indeed provide the data (my graphics then as now not being a strength). Towards the end of the call, though, he also asked the good journalistic question of what the topic we were talking about might affect that readers would care about.

I'll take credit for not doing the annoying scientist thing of diving in to obscurities of what I liked personally on the belief that of course anything I was interested in would be interesting to everybody (that's what a blog is for :-). But, in truth, there were plenty of reasons for readers to be interested. So we talked some more, he followed up, and so forth -- to the point that he took the story, as it had developed, to the science page editor for consideration as a feature story. The original idea was a little weather box, not a big science page spread.

More good news followed, as the science editor approved the story as a feature. So more telephone calls as he pursued understanding of the science, and asked for more people he could talk to about various parts of the subject. (I recently ran across my old notes, including a fax I'd sent him to ensure that he had exactly the right figure in mind.) He also did a fair amount of checking with me that he was representing the science correctly -- "If I said it this way, would it still be correct?" He pretty much always did have a good rephrase, but we iterated some on a couple bits.

It's a long time since that happened, but I still remember it fondly.

On the journalist side, what I think helped it work was he:

• was willing to follow where the science led (no preset 'story' to force fit things into)
• was obviously working to make sure he communicated the science correctly
• did homework to develop his own understanding of the science

On the scientist side:

• was willing to let things be rephrased to the audience
• was meeting the journalist's questions, not trying to drive a conclusion
  
• was trying to keep in mind what job the journalist was trying to accomplish (vs. trying to turn USA Today in to an AMS or AGU journal)

Not that I did a perfect job, nor him. But, then, perfect doesn't happen often. I do think that anyone reading that article came away understanding more about the science than they walked in knowing, me included.

While I'm sure that not all journalists take the care that Williams did, and that many scientists are harder to talk to than I was (and some much better), I do feel some confidence that science journalists and scientists don't have to be nearly as at cross purposes as often works out.

Climate confusion

Part 3 with Dave's comments

Thirdly you have global warming, and then you have "Man Made global warming" and people start getting defensive if all of a sudden you start blaming them for the impeding end of the world unless "we all change the way we live and our lives now and this is how you do it".
Fourthly you see it in mainstream media now all too much: Everything and anything that is out of the ordinary now has some relationship to global warming, no matter how ridiculous.
So here I sit with 27,000 scientists saying one thing and another 27,000 scoffing at the huliboo. Who do I believe? I have seen calm rational debate from both sides. We've had global warming before. It would seem hard to argue that man hasn't had some effect but to what degree?

Agreed about the media thing. It's one of the things which irritates the scientists who are trying to communicate accurate, careful, correct information. People hear wild claims in the media, and then when we discuss what we really know and how well, we don't get believed (since we're not as extreme as the media reports, it's no story). ('we' by the way doesn't exactly include me. I haven't talked to the media for a long time, and it wasn't about this. Still, I do know folks who get quoted.)

One thing for you to do, with the 27,000 on either side of you, is to start looking at what they're scientists of. It turns out that the 27k saying that climate is changing and part of the reason is human activity are climate scientists, while the 27k disagreeing are doctors, chemists, nuclear physicists, ... But do the checking yourself. There's a petition, for instance, with over 17,000 signers, but very few of them are in climate sciences (but check me on that). If your mechanic says your car needs a new belt, as do the several other mechanics you take the car to, while a bunch of doctors you know say that it doesn't, do you get the belt or not? I get the belt. Being knowledgeable (about something) isn't sufficient; you have to be knowledgeable about the thing at hand.

A different thing, if you encounter folks trying to stampede you into particular actions (whether to avert climate change, or to ignore it) is to put a focus on Where's the science? If they're going on about how if you don't do everything they say 'we're all gonna die', or if they go on about if we do do anything 'we'll all be unemployed', well, no science to either claim. Move on. This is amazingly (depressingly) effective at screening out the stampeders. The very few comments in the vein of 'this is what we understand, therefore the following action would be a good idea' you can study and decide whether you agree.

I do a number of things that are advised for climate change reduction/prevention/etc., not because of any stampeder, but because it saves me money to drive a more efficient car, have a better-insulated house, etc. If it happens that also this does good for the environment, great.