Desmogblog mark yet another day in the Diary of How the Skeptics Won. They thought they had Brazil sewn up, but now realize with dismay that skeptics are getting heard (funny how the truth spreads). Brazil with the 6th biggest economy in the world and 200 million people is “influential”.
Chris Mooney, of DeSmog, shows us his prowess in predictions. Did he see this wave of skepticism coming? Shock me, No!
Last year, I wrote about how journalists in developing nations were doing a better job of covering climate change, largely because denial hadn’t really taken root in many of these countries. In particular, I singled out Brazil for praise: According to a study by James Painter of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University and his colleagues, Brazil’s major papers contained the least climate skepticism in all of the 6 major nations surveyed (U.S., UK, China, France, India, Brazil).
So it is with much dismay that I report to you that, in conjunction with the Rio+20 conference, climate denial is making a strong showing in Brazil.
Memo to Chris: See what happens when you rely on the mainstream media? (They are not the ones leading the trends.)
Chris has only just now noticed a geographer called Ricardo Augusto Felicio (who has been a smash hit on the big Brazilian talk show in May. Mooney describes it as the ”nearly half-hour denial fest that has gone pretty viral”.) Ricardo, I’m happy to say, appeared on this blog more than two years ago. He helped to translate the Skeptics Handbook into Portuguese: Manual dos Céticos. (Thank you Ricardo!)
Who or what is Chris talking about? I haven’t heard anyone deny that the earth has a climate or who denies that the climate changes all the time. I just have a problem with the C at the beginning of CAGW.
My issue is with both the “C” and the “A”. While climate changes, and periodically warms and cools, there is neither an impending catastrophe, nor is there any scientific evidence that mankind has any significant influence. Once you add the C and the A, any study of the climate becomes reading the future in crack-pipe smoke and chicken entrails.
Your citation of the smoggy blog posting by Chris “the Science Journalist but not a Scientist” Mooney missed the best part:
But first, there is a clear issue of journalistic ethics that needs to be raised. Here in the U.S., I and many others have explained not only why one shouldn’t give science denialist claims such dramatic airings in the media, but moreover, why they don’t necessarily even belong in so-called “balanced” reports. Is this argument being made in Brazil as well? I don’t know. I hope so.
Second, there is an issue of science communication. Why is it that Ricardo August Felico is on the Jo Show, rather than scientists representing the mainstream position in Brazil? And what are they doing to rebut this attack on their knowledge? Once again, I don’t know—but I hope that efforts are afoot to improve scientists’ communication skills in Brazil, as they are here in the U.S.
Was the TV show guilty of ethics violations? The geology professor? Oh, the newspaper that reported on the TV show….I see.
I appreciate the time you put in, but I wanted to share the humor with your readers.