When journalism fails!

7 thoughts on “When journalism fails!”

  1. Some of my favourite comments from the very people that frequent Piers blog:

    “Do you have any qualifications in the field of climatology or science. Do you have any qualifications in any field ?”

    “I can accept your position as a political analyst ( albeit very one sided ) but your venture into the field of science shows you up to be embarrassingly ignorant !”

    “Poor Old Piers. So predictable and tired. There’s no more sting in the tail. One just can’t be critical of major issues just for the sake of being contraversial and expect to stir the emotions. The problem with this sad little man is that we all expect his lack of objectivity, there’s nothing hiding in the shadows anymore.”

    “One great thing is that we may have found a cure for insomnia. Sorry Piers but you appear desperate for attention, nothing else.”

    “How predictable Piers. Taking your naive readers on a journey of irrelevant anecdotes and non-arguments when it comes to climate change.”

    “you need to go back to school to study basic chemistry before you bother writing another column like this one….”

    Poor Piers. I’m sure I should endeavor to present a balanced view, but it’s just too entertaining.

    The really sad part is comments like “Chloe of Perth”:

    “This has show has factual problems, Mr Gores effort did as well. Doesnt change my mind that GW is unproven. But watching and hearing t.v presenters force one way or the other is annoying amatuerish at best”

    I wonder how much of the general public she speaks for (and on what evidence she has made up her mind that global warming is unproven?!@?!)


  2. Yes, Thomas, great question. What qualifications does Piers Ackerman actually have? Not that I am fixated on qualifications – but now that he has throw that stone, it seems fair to ask where he gets his superior ‘knowledge’.


  3. Piers responds:
    “I respond by referring to the original paper: “the extra heat-resistance at corals maintained by shuffling (1 – 1.5°C) may be insufficient to help these populations keep up with the predicted increases in average tropical sea temperatures over the next hundred years.” (Mieog et al. 2007, Coral Reefs). Note the qualification “may” in the above sentence. Further, the article was about the appalling manner in which the ABC conducted itself. It was not a complete examination of the issue.” Piers Akerman; Wed 18 Jul 07 (09:00pm).

    I guess that little “may” is a lot to build you arguments around! You made it sound like a certainty! I also take issue with your interpretation that Tony Jones was unfair. All he did was finally ask the pointed questions of the pseudo-skeptics and to point out the ‘creative’, false presentation of data (e.g. Medieval warming period and today’s temperatures, e.g. solar and temperature graph) to the film maker. If you really are worth your salt Piers, that should concern you more than a few tough questions from Tony.


  4. It’s sad, with so little reputable science refuting the causes and effects of climate change today, media outlets are going to even greater lengths than before to present some semblance of the “journalistic balance” often decried by experts on climate change in the past. A few years ago, it was easier to find someone who would refute, erroneously or not, evidence for climate change or impacts of climate change. Now, with so few dissenting voices, some reporters will instead pick up on any sentence in a paper that just might indicate contrary evidence. That seems to be the case with this poor coverage of the Mieog article.

    We dealt with this a bit after our PNAS paper on coral bleaching in the Caribbean came out earlier this year; people swarmed to the conclusion that 1.5C of adaptation could “buy us” 40-50 years, ignoring that our full conclusion that even in the unlikely even such adaptation happened and did not results in any serious decline in coral cover, unmitigated climate change would still eventually present an existential threat to coral reefs.


  5. i wouldn’t bother wasting energy criticising the comments of mr ackerman, particularly when he is at his foaming-at-the-mouth best. via his extreme bias, he discredits himself far better than anyone else could. besides, his usual response to criticism is name-calling. one only needs to peruse his blog for a few minutes to understand this. he is a (bad) political commentator at best, and anyone who listens to what he has to say on important, science-based issues probably deserves to be fooled.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s