Climate Spin: 2 Articles Agree With IPCC … Sort Of

Here’s an interesting tale of two spins. Both of these articles are reporting on the same event, findings released by a Dutch environmental agency that agree with the IPCC conclusions. Strangely though, the two articles are clearly intended to present a very different image.

There are two main points from the findings of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

1) The IPCC is generally correct that global warming caused by humans already is happening and is threatening the lives and well-being of millions of people.

2) There are some minor errors, including typographical errors in specific predictions of the IPCC, that “do not affect the whole construction [of the IPCC report].”

So why am I writing a post about two articles that agree in the details and stating that the spin is totally different? Well, let’s start with the titles below (and please click through to the actual articles for yourself).

Dutch review backs UN climate panel report

Dutch Agency Admits Mistake in Climate Report

Let’s assume for the moment that most people, including not only readers of this blog, but readers of the NY Times and the BBC as well, will not click through to the article (as I will be able to tell from my wordpress dashboard) and that of those who do, most will read the first paragraph and skim the rest (please correct me if you believe this to be incorrect).

People who see the first headline will assume that the Dutch agency has confirmed the data in the IPCC report. People who see the second, will assume that the panel has found the IPCC in error and will believe that climate change is far from proven, despite the fact that the body of both articles make it quite clear that climate change is indeed real and will have serious consequences for millions of people.

I’m going to assume that the authors of both of these articles had exactly those agenda in mind when they wrote those articles. So, the AP writer here in the U.S., despite accurately printing the information, has made sure that what stands out are the minor inconsistencies in a few of the details rather than the overwhelming evidence that global warming is real and severe.

Since I have already been convinced of this for quite some time, I would have a very difficult case pointing to the spin in the case of the BBC article. It appears to me to accurately point out that the important point is that climate change is real and severe. The AP article, reprinted quite thoughtlessly in the NY Times as evidenced by the identical article in every detail down to punctuation can be found in no fewer than 100 publications via a quick google search for an entire paragraph of the text, leaves one with the impression that there are glaring errors in the IPCC report.

It says so right in the headline.

Or does it?

If one carefully reads the text, one will find that the IPCC report is largely upheld. One will also see that a single error from the IPCC actually came from the Dutch agency itself. So, what is really being said here is that the agency is admitting fault for one of the 35 insubstantial errors in the IPCC report.

Meanwhile, even the AP article states quite clearly, if one gets passed the headline and first paragraph:

But the review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency claimed that none of the errors effected the fundamental conclusion by U.N. panel of scientists: that global warming caused by humans already is happening and is threatening the lives and well-being of millions of people.

I would have considered that the most important point in the article. I probably would have made a headline out of that. But, AP would rather have us concentrate on the phrase “mistake in climate report”.

That is spin.

BBC on the other hand, in addition to a title that states the important point that the IPCC report has been upheld, put a first paragraph in bold, for people who only read the first paragraph before their mind wanders.

A Dutch inquiry into the UN’s climate science panel has found “no errors that would undermine the main conclusions” on probable impacts of climate change.

That’s nice and clear. Would that we could send such clear messages here in the U.S.

Advertisements

One Response to Climate Spin: 2 Articles Agree With IPCC … Sort Of

  1. opit says:

    I’m having a bit of a LOL moment here.
    AP might as well be American Press. That is a managed media rife with propaganda which seems reasonable next to ‘talk show hosts’ who are deliberately certifiable loons. Since they also appropriate content and claim copyright it’s an automatic warnoff to me of institutional bullshit.
    The BBC, however, has a much longer history. It openly competed with Lord Ha-Ha in World War II. A chap named Blair wrote as George Orwell building a fictional world around the context of his experiences projected into the future. I think it was published in 1946 or so the first time : ‘1984.’
    Today, of course, the Crusades are in full cry in the Middle East and the dictators placed in power for decades are all suddenly having ‘the rug pulled out from under them’ the better to ignite ‘Islamic Jihad’…or at least FaceBook/Twitter social media ignited aspirations to ‘Demockracy.’
    So the BBC is much more practiced and subtle compared to the U.S. which believes it is impossible to have too much of a good thing…spin. Yet there is a website called ‘Biased BBC’ routinely pointing out what they see as chronic misrepresentation.
    The English are much more relaxed in their centuries-old servitude established in 1066, lampooning with great enthusiasm. In fact, a chap named Arbuthnot, a friend of Alexander Pope, helped make things hot for the propaganda of the realm in the late 18th century when he manufactured a plan to control the British media in ‘selling’ war in India and published a partial description.
    It might be the only time in history when propaganda was used to stop a war. It also established the name for British b.s. : “John Bull.”

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: