Keith Kloor @ Collide-a-Scape:
A continuing concern of climate science is the subject of a new paper inNature:
Thawing of Arctic permafrost could release significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere in this century.
When this issue last gurgled up to the media’s attention in late 2011 in sensationalist fashion, science journalism watcher Charlie Petit wrote that Andy Revkin provided the most “diligent response.” Revkin’s string of posts remain an invaluable reference point today. It’s worth recalling that, at the time, Revkin tried to tamp down all the hype over “Arctic methane time bombs.”
In a similar vein, William Connolley takes issue with this press releaseaccompanying the recent Nature paper. Connolley, in his typically pointed and colorful manner, writes (my emphasis):
There are various nutters pushing the “methane emergency” line. And although that in itself doesn’t discredit more serious people, the serious people need to talk sense and not just grab headlines, if they want to be taken seriously.
This sensationalist impulse is not exclusive to climate science, of course. In a recent post discussing media hype of research findings, Orac says it’s time that scientists look in the mirror. He specifically zeroes in on hyped press releases of studies, which more often than not contain (vetted) eye-popping quotes from lead investigators. Referencing a (must-read) 2012 BMJstudy, Orac writes that, when it comes to exaggerated claims,
Don’t let the data get in the way of a good story.
Remember–Greenland melted in July. The actual story was that there was a one-day foehn wind thaw of the surface of the Greenland ice. It refroze that night.
The Northwest Passage is still not open, except to the most robust icebreakers.
It is all eek-eek-eek to these scaremongers.
The reality is that the sun is quiet; few sunspots; very small radio radiation. And our energy comes from the sun.
To thaw the permafrost would take a significant climate shift, which is simply not going to happen in reality.
Of course models (computer models) will say something else, but one can dial in whatever one wants to a model. That is why there is generally little agreement on hurricane tracks. All the models show different paths.