Why a climate scientist’s moment of truth became a complicated story to report
That our planet is warming may be a given, but there’s also a lot we don’t know about climate science. One scientist’s public reflection about his work as an intentional shaper of one narrative had our climate writer feeling for balance.
Scientific facts are unimpeachable. They show, for example, that our planet is warming. Data handpicked to support one specific narrative over another, however, introduces doubt.
That’s essentially what led climate scientist Patrick Brown to reflect publicly on a scholarly paper he had written about the intersection of climate change and wildfires. He had dealt in truth. But by his own admission he had framed the paper around an alarmist storyline.
“It was a really hard story to write,” says the Monitor’s Stephanie Hanes of her own coverage of Dr. Brown’s story. “Because anybody who did what Dr. Brown did by creating some doubt about the climate science published in the country’s most prestigious journals, that’s seen as climate skepticism.”
Validating that skepticism felt akin to distributing disinformation, Stephanie says on our “Why We Wrote This” podcast. But what her reporting ultimately reinforced for her was that genuine openness can’t undermine truth. That there’s room for evolving perspectives.
“There’s a lot of hope, there’s a lot of worry,” Stephanie says, “but in some ways those two things actually go together.”
Episode transcript
Stephanie Hanes: [T]he realm of possible climate solutions is really big. [...] And one of the tricks now is to both hold the importance of it and to be passionate about what’s happening, but also keep a big enough tent and an expansive enough view to let all of these different possible solutions come through.
Clay Collins: That’s the Monitor’s climate writer, Stephanie Hanes.
Facts are facts, science is science, all very neat and demonstrable. But, as we’ve talked about before on this podcast, the way in which a presenter of data chooses to array that data matters. Is it work done in the interest of supporting a particular narrative?
If so, is that an honest presentation? Stephanie explored that question, along with questions around expertise versus opinion and about ethics, for a recent story on the case of one climate scientist. This is “Why We Wrote This.” I’m Clay Collins, Stephanie’s here to talk about her reporting.
Hey! Welcome back to the show.
Hanes: Hey, thanks for having me.
Collins: First, just a quick recap of your really interesting piece. Patrick Brown coauthors a study about climate and wildfires. It runs in a highly respected journal. A month later, he tells a media outlet that, well, he’d framed his research, as you write, not just to reflect the truth, but to fit with what he described as a climate alarmist storyline.
That’s quite a big reveal. And of course, Dr. Brown gets it from all directions. Climate change deniers begin to spin it as a kind of “aha” moment, right? And one blogger calls it an impulsively emotional blurt, charging Dr. Brown with doing damage to a cause. First, can you just say a little about Dr. Brown’s motivations for this disclosure as you came to understand them?
Hanes: Sure. And as you say, this really sent shockwaves throughout the climate science world. But when I talked to Dr. Brown, he seemed in some ways not surprised that there was some controversy, but perhaps surprised that there was so much. You know, this is a scientist who has been working on climate issues for a long time.
This particular piece was about climate change and wildfires, and then some of the connections there. And so he wrote this piece; he didn’t make up any data, he didn’t do anything wrong research wise. But what he says he did is that he picked one particular part of wildfires to focus on because he thought it would get published, and that was looking at the climate impact.
So one of the things to understand about sciences and the way that professional scientists work is that you can do a lot of research and you can submit that research for publication, and it takes a while. So what happened with Dr. Brown is that as that particular piece of research was churning its way through the publication process, he started – as many academics do – getting interested in other topics.
For him, one of these topics that was interesting was how different knowledge filtered into society. And he started worrying that in the sciences, a lot of climate change research was becoming alarmist. And he started looking around and offering some critiques about how scientists were presenting research to kind of give worst case scenarios.
He thought that the journals were preferencing storylines that talked about how bad climate change was going to be. And what he told me, at least, was he felt it was only fair for him to turn the lens on his own work as well.
Collins: So, Stephanie, what were some of the specific reactions you got to the Dr. Brown story, both from inside the community of climate scientists and others, and from readership?
Hanes: It was a really hard story to write because anybody who did what Dr. Brown did by creating some doubt about the climate science published in the country’s most prestigious journals, that’s seen as climate skepticism. And it was really hard to talk about climate skepticism and these alternate opinions, which even if they were valid, by saying they were valid, I was worried that a lot of scientists would think that I was distributing disinformation as well.
And so I was very, very careful with this story to fact check a bazillion different times to really try to find the original research of what I was writing to make sure that I was solid in every sentence that I wrote in that piece because I knew that it was such a charged subject. I think in the end, It seemed fair, and a lot of the [responses] that we got at the Monitor were from people who appreciated that fairness, even if they didn’t love where it fell down. And even if there were people who worried about giving fodder to climate skeptics, I think people realize on some fundamental level that trust and openness and making a tent big enough for different opinions that are based in fact and in good intentions, that that’s important.
And that’s even true in this realm of climate science, where there really has been a concerted effort to undermine truth here. So it’s not that the climate scientists who are upset with Dr. Brown were being histrionic for no reason. There really has been a long [running] effort to undermine the science for a bunch of different reasons.
And so it was rewarding for me at the end of the day to see that this type of thoughtful reporting and writing is well received, and hopefully opens this conversation rather than closes it.
Collins: You made this a story about trust, and I assume that’s because trust is something that can really only come with maximum transparency, including what you just described, turning the lens on yourself and admitting that there are unknowns. Science evolves, as you say, and as you also write, “the future is by definition unknown.”
So what does the debate that Dr. Brown’s revelation triggered say about the place that uncertainty has in climate science now?
Hanes: Yeah. Well, I mean, one of the things to really understand about climate science is that this is a field that has been legitimately under attack. Climate change is a weird one when it comes to the scientific realm. And so, one of the ways that climate disinformation and climate skeptics have shifted their strategies is that rather than denying that climate change exists, and at this point it’s really important to say that the fact that the world is getting warmer and humans have a role in it is about as close to fact as you can get in science.
Collins: Right! Settled science.
Hanes: It is settled science. A lot of the skeptics are saying, OK, well now we’re going to turn our lens on scientists. We’re going to say that the science isn’t reliable. We’re going to say that the scientists aren’t trustworthy. And so within the field, there’s a real fear that if somebody opens that door, like they see Dr. Brown having done, that gives these skeptics a place to go in and to create even more doubt in the minds of the public about what’s happening with our environment.
Collins: So you write about this new kind of denialism rooted in the prevalence of disinformation. I mean, my goodness, we have AI now, which is complicating everything by magnitudes. As a climate reporter, how do you come at that, at this idea that an abundance of bad information starts casting doubt on all information?
Hanes: I gotta say, it’s really hard. It’s hard as a climate reporter. It’s hard as a climate scientist or as a policymaker. It’s really hard for people who aren’t focusing on this for a job. There is a lot of disinformation out there, and you mentioned AI. I mean, there are cases of fake studies and fake scientific journals out there. When it comes to climate science, I think a lot of it is really going back to the studies and seeing what we know and what we don’t know.
There’s a lot that we don’t know about climate science. There’s a lot that we don’t know about what’s gonna happen, as I think I say in the story and you mentioned before, we don’t know what the future is going to bring. We have some ideas of possibilities, and we have some ideas of risk. But it’s important to not get too caught up in the worst case scenario, while also keeping the mind open to the fact that there could be a worst case scenario and how do we make sure that we’re acting in a way to mitigate that risk as much as possible.
Collins: As you said, this is kind of the ultimate side-taking issue. Maybe less so now – there’s starting to be agreement. When I was first reading this story, I was reminded of the piece that you wrote a while back with Christa Case Bryant, a politics writer for the Monitor, and that you subsequently talked about on this show.
It was a look at this emerging kind of pragmatic political middle on climate that was really nurtured by people in power who generally care about the natural environment, partly because they’re outdoors people and who are trying to take a more holistic view, whatever their political affiliation. Is that a kind of openness to uncertainty, to overriding expected political leanings, something that you’re seeing more in the scientific community?
Hanes: I think you’re seeing a couple different things in the scientific community. The people I talked to did talk about how they’re seeing a shift in the demographics of who’s becoming a climate scientist. Back a generation ago, the people getting involved in climate science were sort of pure scientists. You know, people who are fascinated by things like ice samples and carbon measuring, and all these great kind of nerdy science things.
Increasingly, people are going into the climate science realm to make a difference. And that often brings with it a particular political leaning. And so some of the people I talk to made the point that there’s this effort now to try to make sure that people are checking that a little bit. People have a lot of passion, and they care about the world, and they’re wanting to make sure it’s safe and habitable and equitable. And that’s all great.
But the realm of possible climate solutions is really big. And that’s one of the encouraging things that I see when I report about this. And one of the tricks now is to both hold the importance of it and to be passionate about what’s happening, but also keep a big enough tent and an expansive enough view to let all of these different possible solutions come through.
Collins: You write about this topic a lot, obviously, and there’s always this push-pull. You worked on a huge, very hopeful series called “The Climate Generation” about action among the very young. You’ve also just recently written about the Supreme Court decision that erodes the power of the Environmental Protection Agency.
So how hopeful are you that in this great sift of data and informed projections, even given what you say about the future not being clear, is there a sense that there are paths people might be able to agree on, taking into account the trade offs that any steps on climate will take?
Hanes: Yeah, well, writing about “The Climate Generation,” which was our multi-part international series about young people going to find different ways of solving and adjusting and transforming their lives because of climate change. What that series really showed me is that, again, the solutions are under a really big tent.
This is a big transformation that’s happening because of climate change in all different aspects of the economy of people’s day to day lives, of education, of their ideas of what a good life is, and I’m really hopeful that there will be lots of solutions across the board and lots of changes in all of those areas.
Some of the transformations don’t have to be bad. At the same time, I also am reading the science every day, and I understand why there is a core group of climate scientists who kind of want to shake everybody and say, “wow, there’s this really big, important, terrifying thing, and nobody’s paying attention.”
And I think, again, one of the things I’ve learned in covering this issue is that you have to be able to hold both. There’s a lot of hope, there’s a lot of worry, but in some ways those two things actually go together.
Collins: Hm. That’s great. Where, if you can say, is your reporting taking you next? What kind of stories are you working on?
Hanes: Well, at The Monitor, I think we have the great chance to look at this issue in a way that is helpful, and clear-sighted, and hopeful, and nuanced. And so a lot of the reporting that I’ll be doing will hopefully be taking that approach, and looking at these places where there might be an overlap of different opinions where you might find new solutions, both economic and in the world of biodiversity, and looking at how society is transforming sometimes under day-to-day life.
Collins: Well, thanks so much for coming on, Stephanie, for talking about this story, [and] for all the other stories and projects you’re working on. I really appreciate it, and I hope to have you back soon.
Hanes: Oh, thanks so much. I appreciate it.
Collins: And thanks for listening. You can find our show notes with links to the story discussed here and to all of Stephanie’s work and to her past appearances on this show at CSMonitor.com/WhyWeWroteThis. This episode was hosted by me, Clay Collins, and produced by Mackenzie Farkus. Jingnan Peng is also a producer on this show. Our sound engineers were Jeff Turton and Alyssa Britton. Original music is by Noel Flatt. Produced by The Christian Science Monitor. Copyright 2024.
