Well, that certainly beats the rubbish they get from the Mann/AlGore/Flimflam/EtAl school of climate propaganda.
The Rush Limbaugh Show provided the most explanation of climate models to Americans in 2007. Limbaugh devoted more time to talking about climate models than The New Yorker, The Nation or Time magazine, more than NPR’s Science Friday show, and more than any of the US outlets generally considered to be on-board with mainstream climate science.
That’s according to new research in Nature Climate Change which highlights the generally shoddy job the US media has done of explaining climate models, and the effects the media’s tendency to emphasise the inaccuracy of climate models has had on public opinion.
“the effects the media’s tendency to emphasise the inaccuracy of climate models has had on public opinion.”
????? I never heard the legacy press mention ANY inaccuracy of models. Only fawning approval of the “science.”
The only media coverage of models are
1: Weather reports – people know not to trust these too far out. Stating that we don’t know the weather but know the climate to insane precision is the downfall of climate modelers.
2: Skeptical sites – They know the problems
3: “Hey, here’s what this model says”/”Look at our giant new computer”. These stories are inherently fluff. As these reports are often contradictory (as epitomized in the Warmlist from Numberwatch), they actually hurt the alarmist side
How has the US media done a generally shoddy job of explaining climate models when they mostly just reprinted the press releases of climatologists?
Oops, that’s not the problem they want to think about.
I think that it’s actually sad. The “denier” sources provide a much stronger and more detailed explanation of the science as a whole because the consensus sources assume it is correct and spend their time talking about how to convince others or on this sort of hand-wringing study.
Back in school, one professor told me that the best way to evaluate a study was to describe it in the most insulting and dismissive (yet accurate) way possible. Threee chances out of four, this description will be completely correct, and in most of the remaining cases, it will be only a little better.