Climate report too quickly embraced by journalists:
So says my latest media analysis column in the Rocky Mountain News, which criticizes the press for its overly credulous reporting of the latest output from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The column also looks at media coverage of a bill to mandate HPV vaccines for 6th grade girls; the factoid that only 2% of rape accusations are false; and the lingering influence of Michael Bellesiles on "The Mini Page."
It isn't the journalist's job to critique press releases, only to repackage them as 'news'. You're expecting a pig to whistle.
And, for what matter, what's a "rape"? Are we using the legal definition of "rape," a feminist definition of "rape" (which would consider virtually no mistakes as to consent reasonable) or an antifeminist definition of "rape" (which would consider spousal rape impossible or virtually impossible)? Do we count non-rape sexual assault crimes? If someone is accused of legal rape but turns out to be innocent of legal rape and guilty of legal "sexual assault," does that make the accusation false or true?
Without knowing the answers to these questions any statistic presented is meaningless. It would also be interesting to know how the statistics for rape compare for the statistics for other crimes. I bet there are few cases of breaking and entering where no breaking and entering occurred by anyone, but scads and scads of cases where the wrong person is accused.
True enough for Greenpeace and PETA news releases. Those by industry, however, that's a different matter. They have an AGENDA, don't you know.
The false accusations of concern are ones made to police officers and courts, so the only definition that should matter is the legal one. If you make such a serious accusation, you should be clear about that. If the accusation is based on "I felt psychologically pressured" or morning-after regrets, it's a false accusation. If you had sex (consensual or not) with five men, but none of them were present at the time or place you say you were "raped", it's a false accusation.
I notice you never responded to those who pointed out these deficiencies. Or - if you did - it was several days later.
So is your mode to just drop b.s. statements and never bother to clean up after yourself?
You would think this important subject would get a little more critical coverage. Can we really trust the UN on Global Warming?
33. When I contacted IPCC personnel (at the Meteorological Office in Exeter) to see whether my nomination had been accepted, I initially received the message: "The IPCC received over 2000 government nominations during this process and most, such as yours, were of a very high standard. Unfortunately the IPCC Working Group Two Bureau did not pick you to be an author, although all nominations were scrutinised and assessed".
34. I replied with a question about the two Lead Authors that had been selected: "It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only authored five articles. Can these two really be considered "Lead authors" with experience, representative of the world's top scientists and specialists in human health?"
35. I also pointed out that one Lead Author is a "hygienist", the other is a specialist in fossil faeces, and both have been co-authors on publications by environmental activists. I received the reply: "The selection criteria for IPCC Authors are defined in the "Principles and Procedures Governing IPCC Work" available on the IPCC website at: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/procd.htm (These `Principles and Procedures' have been discussed, amended and agreed by Governments at several IPCC Plenaries)".
36. I pursued the question further, asking: (1) Who selects the Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs? (2) Who are the Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs for Group II, Health Impacts? Where is the Working Group/Task Force Bureau? (3) What are the criteria they use for identifying appropriate experts?
37. I received two replies, the simplest of which read: "Thank you for your continued interest in the IPCC. The brief answer to your question below is `governments'. It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit, and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments. Please refer to my emails of 2 and 3 September for details on how to access that information".
38. In all the rules that were quoted, there was no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of "the worlds top scientists".
I was referring to our good friend Dave Kopel, not you.