November 9, 2010 | 3:39 PM | By Heather Goldstone
Coming clean – all about Climatide
- 11 Comments
- Tweet
I asked “Is journalistic objectivity outdated?” Journalist and sometimes-Climatide-commenter Christopher Mims replied:
I generally agree with Rosen (even in this), but there is something to be said for at least attempting to be objective. Getting both sides of a story is very important and if we’re not reaching past our own biases, we are doing the reader a disservice. Pretending that we don’t have those biases, though? That’s completely disingenuous.
Maybe we simply need to redefine objectivity: It’s not “my biases are opaque and my work bears no trace of them,” rather it’s “here are my biases, but you should trust me because I’m trying to get at the whole story, regardless – I’m trying to get at the truth even if it can’t exist outside of whatever framework each of us is operating in.”
This really struck a chord with me. It’s something that’s been bouncing around in my head since I launched Climatide. So I’m coming clean. Here are my biases, my motivations, my goals and aspirations for this blog. It’s a first stab at what will likely become a permanent part of the site in the form of an About page:
Climatide is based on the premise that climate change IS happening, that the impacts of climate (and ocean) change can be seen and felt in our daily lives. That idea is based on a mountain of facts and solid science. Here on Cape Cod, sea level has risen nearly 11 inches in the past century, exacerbating coastal erosion. The Gulf of Maine and the waters surrounding Cape Cod are 2-4ºF warmer than they were 50 years ago; economically and ecologically important fish species are moving north to stay within their comfort zones. Globally, the ocean is 30% more acidic than it was 150 years ago, with potentially dire ramifications for corals and shellfish. Scientific consensus is firm on this – climate change is happening, and greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are a major factor.
And yet, there are many things we don’t know about climate change and there is a great deal of uncertainty about the future. A highly polarized and vitriolic debate (war?) has arisen out of that uncertainty, leaving many people confused and disenfranchised. The goal of Climatide – my goal – is not to further that debate, not to convert or indoctrinate or preach, but rather to present sound science and thoughtful commentary (including viewpoints I would personally disagree with), and to foster reasoned, intelligent, and respectful dialogue about what we do and do not know, how we know it, and what it means for our collective future.
I’m now completely intimidated by my own idea. Is such a conversation possible? I certainly hope so. But I certainly can’t do it alone. So keep reading, start commenting – let me know what you want to know, what you want to talk about. Let’s get to it!
I think it’s important to distinguish between political and scientific stories. Getting both sides of a political story isn’t very difficult, but getting both sides of a scientific story can become increasingly Sisyphean when only one side actually esteems science method. Not every participant falls into this category, obviously, and it’s nice to find places such as this that are willing to give both sides a forum and at the same time remain committed to scientific endeavor.
Well, I certainly applaud this! My own biases are that I am with Joe Romm and James Hansen on the scale and immediacy of the problem, but I have no idea what the solutions are. I also happen to think that in the short term, limits to growth other than climate are going to be an even bigger issue. Climate change is the Great Exacerbater of all the other problems that face us.
So in that respect I’m Revkin all the way. Though I’ll never understand why he’s so fond of equivocating about the science. I suspect that it’s because, like many journalists who lack actual scientific training, he hasn’t the confidence to point to the leading edge of our understanding of climate science. But I guess that’s just another one of my biases!
I believe your goal is achievable if you manage to engage people who are curious about the many facets of climate change and aren’t just trolling to sow doubt.
The questions that arise around the big theme come up in a number of disciplines, often cross boundaries, and are often truly open questions.
Personally, I’m looking forward to learning more about science in progress.
Heartily agreed. Pitting science against pseudoscience, giving both sides equal time/ink for the sake of the perception of objectivity is not the kind of journalism I’ve ever been interested in. That said, climate change is both a science and a politics story, and the two aspects are not always easily teased apart. And ultimately, there is one issue at the heart of both debates – scientific uncertainty. There is a disconnect between the way uncertainty is understood and used by scientists and the way it is understood and used by the public.
I think you hit a very important spot here. Perhaps we should start talking about transparency rather than objectivity. As human beings, we all have agendas and preconceived notions that shape our view (and narration) of what is going on around us.
As students/journalists at UNC’s Powering a Nation (www.poweringanation.org), one of the first thing we did was to craft a mission statement and put it in a prominent spot in our “about” and “blog” pages. Like you said, the goal should be to foster reasonable dialogue, rather than shape public conscience.
Luca Semprini,
www.poweringanation.org
You might like to look at www.debategraph.org. It’s a free Cloud-based tool which “helps groups collaborate in thinking through complex issues by building and sharing interactive maps of domains of knowledge from multiple perspectives.” There are a number of maps (dynamic information maps, not geographic maps) about climate change out there now (here’s a link to the Macro view of the Copenhagen map produced in collaboration with The Independent in the UK: www.debategraph.org/copmacro. Full disclosure
I’m a Debategraph Associate. Please get in touch if you have any questions.
Oops. That didn’t do quite what I thought it was going to! Try this: debategraph.org/copmacro . Thanks.
Coming clean – all about Climatide.
Neat tool!
If you go to the central “Anthropogenic Climate Change?” map, it has three questions feeding into it – how serious is the problem? how much is caused by humans? and how should we respond? I’d argue a fourth might be appropriate – how quickly is it happening? That’s subtly different from seriousness or severity and very much influences how we respond … an inconvenience in 10 years might compel a different response than a catastrophe in 100 years.
There are some people who do not want to be objective simply because it impacts the botom financial operations of their own institutions. Along with these people are the denyers, deceivers, delayers who want to maintain the present status quo simply again for thier own financial objectives and they do not want give up the controls that they now posses over the economy.
Why did our society remove LEAD from the manufacturing process for gasoline?
Why did our society remove DDT from the lists of pesticides?
why did our society remove Sulfa from the coal exhaust of generators favilities?
Why did the world wide society agree to remove cloroinated floro carbons from air-conditioners and from exhause into the atmosphere?
Why did our society remove lead paint from cooking and/or eating utensils?
Why is our society removing PBA from babyies plastic formula drinking bottles?
Why do we not remove CO2 from the atmosphere and from the products that produce CO2 into the atmospher? Because the American Petrolium CARTEL AND THE COAL industry will be negatively impacted!!
What is the financial impact of all of the HAZARDOUS weather conditions of 2010 upon the USA ecenomy? how much is it costing the world economy and societies for the global warming weather conditions in Europe and CALIfornia?
Who is kidding who when somone suggests that somone else needs to be objective?
Just more delays, deny and deception