The Guardian takes science journalism seriously. Maybe it’s because it is so close to the Royal Society of Science, one of two places that shaped how Western Europeans do and talk about science, and the one responsible for elevating Issac Newton to science God and leaving Gottfried Leibniz a broken man who died homeless and intestate. Or maybe the Guardian wants to make sure scientists are heard and understood so others do not suffer because someone is petty, self-interested, or self-righteous. Regardless of its motivation, the Guardian is a dedicated science journalism watchdog. Perhaps this is why the paper’s recent take down of the Wall Street Journal 's attempts to deny and reclassify climate change is a joyous read.
In the article “The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming”, Dana Nuccitelli writes about …show more content…
Nuccitelli shows how the authors separate a bushel of apples by drawing meaningless distinctions between by comparing:
…only papers that explicitly quantified the human contribution to global warming to the full sample of all peer-reviewed papers that mention the phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” By that standard, there’s less than a 1% expert consensus on evolution, germ theory, and heliocentric theory, because there are hardly any papers in those scientific fields that bother to say something so obvious as, for example, “the Earth revolves around the sun.”
Bast and Spencer, according to Nuccitelli, make arguments that ignore the distinctions and inclusions of expertise for scientific fields. This tactic allows them to make claims that lay readers will accept as fact simple because they are not as engaged in the knowledge economy to that
In the article “The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming”, Dana Nuccitelli writes about …show more content…
Nuccitelli shows how the authors separate a bushel of apples by drawing meaningless distinctions between by comparing:
…only papers that explicitly quantified the human contribution to global warming to the full sample of all peer-reviewed papers that mention the phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” By that standard, there’s less than a 1% expert consensus on evolution, germ theory, and heliocentric theory, because there are hardly any papers in those scientific fields that bother to say something so obvious as, for example, “the Earth revolves around the sun.”
Bast and Spencer, according to Nuccitelli, make arguments that ignore the distinctions and inclusions of expertise for scientific fields. This tactic allows them to make claims that lay readers will accept as fact simple because they are not as engaged in the knowledge economy to that