In February 2017, Dr. John Bates made headlines by claiming that his former boss, Thomas Karl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, had knowingly misrepresented data to influence government policy on global warming.
Predictably, climate change skeptics railed against the corruption of the scientific community, while climate change advocates charged Dr. Bates with exaggerating his claims.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the charges are true. If so, it’s likely that Dr. Karl was motivated by the purest intentions, that he wanted to spur action to prevent what he genuinely believed to be the devastating effects of global warming, and that he viewed the data as representing an anomaly rather than a larger global trend.
If all of that were actually true, would he have then been justified in doctoring the facts for the greater good?
Grapple with the Gray
List two or three reasons in defense of Dr. Karl.
List two or three reasons why Dr. Karl would have been wrong to misrepresent the data.
Was there another alternative?
Having weighed the options, as a scientist, what would you do?
Gray Matters
Writing in Forbes Magazine, Michael Shellenberger, founder and president of Environmental Progress, argued that misreporting on climate science carries unintended consequences. He cited a British study that found anxiety levels among children rising considerably faster than sea levels and blamed overzealous environmental activists for provoking violence in the streets.
What’s more, inaccurate reporting undermines support for the cause itself. “There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating,” Mr. Shellenberger writes, “because it alienates and polarizes many people.”
More than that, the doomsayers discredit their own science and their own position. Way back when Al Gore began sounding the drum for climate change, he foretold that if the advance of global warming was not halted by 2010, it would be too late to save the planet. Was he wrong then, or is he wrong a decade after the deadline as he continues to advocate for climate reform?
True, sensationalist claims make for great headlines and attention-grabbing sound bites. Once exposed, however, they provide ammunition to the other side, enabling opponents to legitimately discount all reported data based on the demonstrable indictment that environmental activists are untrustworthy.
The same principle applies in any debate. Whether it’s climate, the economy, abortion, supreme court nominations, impeachment investigations, universal health care, or tax policy, the flow of misinformation and exaggerated rhetoric from both sides makes it nearly impossible for even the most clear-thinking voters to resolve contradictions by filtering out hyperbole and genuinely fake news.
In the end, everyone suffers. Either we lose hope of achieving clarity or we take refuge in the opinions of whichever “experts” tell us what we want to hear.
As a consumer of news, it’s critical to choose carefully the outlets where you get your information, and to expose yourself to responsible sources and commentators representing both sides of the debate. If you listen to only one side on any issue, you set yourself up to make unethical decisions—particularly if that side disseminates skewed facts and slanted commentary.
Even well-intentioned reporters face the challenge of striking the right balance when presenting complex topics for popular consumption. Unfiltered data can increase confusion and create false impressions. On the other hand, it’s easy to rationalize selectively presenting information that supports one’s own agenda.
With one step in that direction, down the slippery slope we go, ending up in an ethical quagmire without noticing how we got there. We might be right in principle. But once the truth comes out, the damage done to our reputation and our cause may be irreparable.