LinkBack URL
About LinkBackstl:dr version = climate scientist argues that climate sceptic shouldn't express a contrary opinion, and that when IPSO reject his complaint that it was comment and opinion, they're wrong too.Originally Posted by SeriousSam
tl:dr version = climate scientist argues that climate sceptic shouldn't express a contrary opinion, and that when IPSO reject his complaint that it was comment and opinion, they're wrong too.
Is that your opinion or fact?
Apologies for being slightly facetious, but it will help illustrate my point. The manner in which you wrote suggests that this is what the article is about (fact), rather than how you perceived it's contents (opinion). Please don't take this as a personal attack, as it is in no way intended as that. More that it is never as simple as anything that states "opinion piece" at the top is actually opinion. If I was to summarise the article as I read it;
"Climate scientist argues that climate sceptic shouldn't be allowed to use erroneous information and hyperbole to push his opinion as a factual narrative. Furthermore that IPSO's rejection of his complaint demonstrates that they are incapable of upholding their standards, e.g. taking care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information."
Granted I have always had an issue with the way that the media report science, so that can potentially affect my perception of the situation. However, I still think that the author had a valid point to make. When using an article to counter argue against anything, if at any point you state a "fact" which is later demonstrable as obviously false, then there should be consequences.
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
No offence taken, Sam .... and my tl:dr was itself a bit facetious.
Opinion or fact? Both, IMHO.
That New Scientist article was, to me, very mixed. Badly written, even. It referred to "facts", but then also referred to the science as being gased on time-series data, mathematical models and, it appears, interpolation.
Now, I'm not a clinatologist or oceanographer, and am not qualified to evaluate that, euther in terms of the "science", I.e. chemistry, or the inferences they drew.
However, .I am an economist, with an emphasis on statistics and econometrics, and all tye time I see people, especially journalists, or lay people, or worse yet politicians with an agenda, present the results of such interpolations in economics as "fact". Goodness knows we saw enough of it during the referendum campaign.
So, I see that article as referring to some fact, some statistical inferences, and very definitely some subjective opinion, of what the articie writer thought of Delingpole's comments, which were in themselves largely comment an opinion.
An example is wyen the "science" refers to the output of those models as meaning a given result is "likely", and tgat being taken as fact. It isn't. It is a statistical projection from time series data, based on whole morass of both known science (like chemical reactions) and assumptions, like what cause results in what effect, with what certainty and with what magnitude.
Take economic forecasts.
If you assume, in a model, that Brexit will cause x% per annum reduction in trade with the EU, then any reasonable model is going to predict bad thinfs for the economy.
But if you then assume leaving the customs union, and immediately (in economuc timescales) agreeing free trade with the US, Australia and New Zealand, then that may compensate for, or even exceed the EU loss.
If you then assume, as some are now saying, that the EU lising preferential access to London capital markets will push up EU financing costs and adversely impact availabke capital, then a negative effect on major EU economies could result in a far less disadvantageous trade deal between UKvand EU than those originals models that assumed 10% reduction suggest.
Any of these scenarios are possible, along with many more, meaning the "facts" that Treasury forecasts were making for 20 YEARS ahead were nothing more than utter speculation dressed up in scientific clothes.
IMHO, the regulator was utterly correct in rejecting the complaint, because the claims made in the complaint were a mistaken interpretation if what Delingpoke's article was, not because the science was or was not misdescribed.
In many respects I can see why IPSO just washed their hands of this, saying that it is not their role to resolve conflicting evidence for contentious issues. However, if they keep with the "Pontius Pilate" attitude it will at some point come back to bite them in the arse. When one of their stated objectives covers "taking care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information", they do leave themselves open to serious criticism. Though admittedly media shenanigans in other areas are likely to force the issue first.
When it comes down to the articles in question, both are somewhat lacking in my view. Having read the original article it is very much a hatchet job, using any information it can to support it's view, irrespective of veracity. It took me 5 minutes on google to work out that the sources quoted were either highly biased or not subject to any form of peer review. So taking the two standard definitions for opinion (below) it is very much the former. Thus I suppose my issue with it is that in some ways, based on the language used, it tries to be the second definition. As noted in the NS article the bit that irked me the most was - “Ocean acidification – the evidence increasingly suggests – is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons.” Saying that "the evidence increasingly suggests" is a wilful misrepresentation of the truth as the reality is in fact much the opposite. The evidence for CO2 and acidification is solidifying, it is the ultimate impact which is still not clear. That's not to say that people aren't using for their own gains, but again saying "hyped up beyond measure" is taking the most extreme view and presenting it as consensus. (much like a lot of the tat written on both sides of the ongoing Brexit debate)
1. View or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
2. Statement of advice by an expert on a professional matter.
The NS article also has problems, starting with the headline "Press regulators need to act when scientific facts are denied". This makes it sound like he's trying to deny that the earth orbits round the sun, or some other equally as irrational view. My first thought was "here we go again, another rant about somebody questing their work, waa waa waa". Then as you rightly pointed out it really doesn't do a good enough job of elucidating why the choice of data by the journalist was misleading and how his was more accurate. So whilst he has valid points they aren't put across very well at all.
Personally I think IPSO should have given Delingpole a slap on the wrist and told him to be more careful with his sources etc. However, without knowing exactly what powers they have I can't say their application of judgement was wrong.
Overall this comes back to the underlying problem we face in terms of media, social media and so forth. In the land of the human, perception is king. Depending on the subject, narrative rather than facts has a much greater impact on a persons perception of reality. How we take this into account when dealing with the commensurate responsibilities of freedom of speech / press is an intellectual minefield. The mere fact that if a regulator censures someone it can be twisted into a suppression of truth narrative just adds to the problems.
To be honest the decidedly mischievous part of me can see some serious fun to be had with situation, especially considering the rise of narcissistic identity politics. Taking the "I no longer identify as human because you're all a bunch of delusional idiots etc." stance could provoke quite a response...
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
Add to that is when "fact" is mixed with opinion, and when the line is blurred between when criticism is of the facts, or evidence, or the interpretation/extrapolations of/from them, or the political points derived from them.
On economics, for instance, I might agree with someone's facts/data, but disagree with their interpretation, and vehemently disagree with their proposed policy solutions. I could, therefore, use the same timeseries data as, say, Gordon Brown, but wholly disagree with what he concludes they're telling us, let alone what to do about it.
Such an article would be comment, or opinion.
Surely the main responsibility for libel rests with whoever published it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote