by nick_russill
In the previous posting I mentioned Eric Berger, who writes that climate change is not worth writing about because it is just so-much doom and gloom – that those scientists just keep boring everyone with the climate models, even if they are credible; that the populace is glassy-eyed reading about the end of the world.
Then why not write about how individuals can take control of their own approaches to the causes? How we do not need to wait for governments to decide for us? How a bottom-up approach can change it all? How about really educating the readers about the things that they can really have an impact on?
I have written about just a few of the scientists who are talking about this, who are not doom and gloom. There is a lot of really interesting science being done to help find solutions to this problem, to reduce our use of fossil fuels, to keep the doom from happening.
They remain excited and confidant that we can find a solution.
How about Daniel Nocera, whose lab has discovered a new catalyst for splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen, perhaps making it possible for each of us to not only produce all the electricity to run our homes but also to power our cars? All without having to get any power at all from the grids.
How about Amory Lovins, who is working on an approach that could use market-driven approaches to solving our dependency on oil, without the need for any government action?
How about devices to remove water from the air? How about new approaches to carbon sequestration? How about dropping prices of photovoltaics? How about individual wind turbines on each house? How about geoengineering?
A creative writer could find all sorts of things to write about that would engage their readers on this topic. Compare the comments on Eric’s post with these from Andrew Revkin’s at the NYT.
It seems to me that even though Andy may have stepped in something with his false comparison of Gore and Will, the conversation is at a much more informed level. Andy engages with his readers and really works to explain things in a way that is not divisive. He actually adds his own comments to help the conversation along.
He provides context so that a reader con actually understand. To my mind, a science reporter is more than just a reporter that writes about science. It is more than the standard he said-they said form of journalism.
They have to have a keen understanding of the scientific method and how science is done. They have to be able to add some interpretation to the story, to act as a guide for the reader. They have to write about the scientist as much as the science.
It has been my experience that most people really enjoy a good science story. People are really curious about the world around them. So if the readers get glassy-eyed about some science, it is more a reflection on the writer than on the topic.
Andy is an example of someone who can write about a topic like climate change, all the while engaging both scientists and lay people in a conversation on the topic.
Read his article about the current Will article and its obfuscations. Andy may not always get everything ‘right’ but he is busily educating his audience with facts, helping them become informed so that they can be part of a solution, rather than just feeling helpless. They can be part of the conversation that works to find solutions to problems, rather than just complain.
Or for a more relevant post to Eric’s writings, Andy discusses the hype of climate change in a very engaging way which leads to a much more informed conversation in his comments.
In this case, there is a conversation that actually educates as it informs. That is why I read him even when I might disagree with his viewpoint.
February 27, 2009 at 9:21 am
[...] 27, 2009 by Richard On my other blog I discuss some of the approaches science reporters are taking towards climate change. Some are bored with doom and gloom, so they write very little. Some are engaged in educating their [...]