How and Why Journalism Has Failed Us Miserably But Can Self-Correct

I wrote a post in January about the bias in ChatGPT regarding global warming. I concluded it was, much like Wikipedia, occasionally useful with small things but totally unreliable when it came to matters of political correct orthodoxy. I've since experimented again to test my simple theory on why journalism has failed us so.

Before getting into my test, though, let me recall some experience I gained long ago, when I was a half-century younger, full of cockiness as to my abilities and was put in charge of minor county agency. There were only two of us in the office so it wasn't that important but we were addressing a few issues of importance and, as a result, were frequently visited by a roving newspaper reporter (now an attorney) who usually gave us fair play in the local small town press. But, he could be relentless with his questions. He would challenge everything until he had a good grasp of things and then write a story that was usually pretty good. He never just assumed what we were doing was correct.

"File:Jay Nelson Tuck, Reporter at the New York Post.jpg" by Tuckjay is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

I learned from that but later the point was made more starkly by a successful judicial candidate who I was helping to campaign. He had a low tolerance for “young lawyers” who, he complained frequently, never asked enough questions to get to the facts needed. That was my experience, also, with bureaucracies, where the first question posed is never enough to get an answer. It's too easy to take the path of least resistance for both parties, asking only once and giving as little as possible ijn return. Experience teaches one to ask again and again, because the first answer is never complete and may well be wrong. Only persistence delivers results.

They obviously don't teach that anymore in journalism classes. The practice, today, is to unquestionably accept the word of some and to discount the word of those not aligned with the current desired narrative. There should be no approved narrative, of course, but that problem requires a longer explanation of our politics and our education system. What can be proved, though, is that the old way of persistence still works and I can prove with ChatGPT because, believe or not, I got this out of the popular AI program:

The case of peptic ulcers serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of scientific skepticism, open-mindedness, and empirical investigation in challenging and revising established paradigms. It illustrates that consensus in science is not immutable and should always be subject to critical scrutiny and empirical testing. While consensus provides a valuable framework for understanding the current state of knowledge, it is the willingness to question, challenge, and explore alternative hypotheses that drives scientific progress and innovation.

Now, think about that applied to global warming and the approved narrative on the subject. It says it all. I got there through persistence, as this was the first question I posed and the answer I received:

Me:

Why aren't the benefits of CO2 being discussed?

ChatGPT:

While there are some benefits associated with carbon dioxide (CO2), such as its role in photosynthesis and plant growth, the predominant focus in discussions about CO2 tends to be on its negative impacts on the environment and human health. This is largely due to the overwhelming evidence that excessive CO2 emissions from human activities, particularly from the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary driver of climate change.

The detrimental effects of climate change include:

1. Global Warming: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning it traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. The increased concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is causing the planet to warm, leading to changes in weather patterns, rising sea levels, and more frequent and severe extreme weather events.

2. Ocean Acidification: When CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, it reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, leading to a decrease in pH levels. This process, known as ocean acidification, can harm marine life, particularly organisms with calcium carbonate shells or skeletons, such as corals and shellfish.

3. Loss of Biodiversity: Climate change and its associated impacts, such as habitat destruction and alteration, pose significant threats to biodiversity. Many species are struggling to adapt to rapidly changing conditions, leading to population declines and, in some cases, extinction.

4. Health Risks: Climate change can exacerbate health problems, including heat-related illnesses, respiratory issues from air pollution, and the spread of infectious diseases.

While it's important to acknowledge the role of CO2 in supporting plant growth and photosynthesis, the negative consequences of elevated CO2 levels far outweigh these potential benefits in the context of anthropogenic climate change. Efforts to mitigate CO2 emissions and transition to cleaner energy sources are crucial for addressing the global climate crisis and safeguarding the well-being of current and future generations.

This answer was pure propaganda, with ChatGPT effectively telling me I'm a simpleton and that I need to be educated. so, I responded as follows, talking to the program as if it was a real person and asking fior a different answer (which one of my associates suggested):

This is extremely biased. Give me a different answer.

This, then, netted this somewhat more fair, but still biased and propagandistic, response:

Certainly, I understand your concern for a balanced perspective. Let's explore the potential benefits of carbon dioxide (CO2) alongside the commonly discussed drawbacks:

1. Plant Growth: CO2 is a vital component of photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert light energy into chemical energy to fuel their growth. Increased atmospheric CO2 levels can enhance photosynthesis rates in many plant species, leading to improved crop yields and potentially increased food production. This effect, known as the CO2 fertilization effect, has been observed in various agricultural studies.

2. Biological Productivity: Higher CO2 concentrations can stimulate the growth of phytoplankton in oceans, which are crucial for marine ecosystems and contribute significantly to global carbon cycling. Enhanced biological productivity in oceans due to elevated CO2 levels may have positive impacts on fisheries and marine food webs.

3. Carbon Sequestration: Some argue that increased atmospheric CO2 levels could lead to greater carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems. As plants utilize CO2 during photosynthesis, they incorporate carbon into their tissues. When plants die and decompose, some of this carbon can be stored in soil for extended periods, potentially helping mitigate climate change by acting as a carbon sink.

4. Industrial Applications: CO2 is widely used in various industrial processes, including carbonation of beverages, refrigeration, and chemical manufacturing. It serves as a feedstock for the production of numerous products, such as plastics, urea, and fuels. The availability of CO2 is critical for sustaining these industries.

While these potential benefits exist, it's essential to acknowledge that they do not negate the significant environmental and societal challenges associated with elevated CO2 levels. The scientific consensus overwhelmingly points to human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, as the primary driver of anthropogenic climate change. The negative impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather events, sea-level rise, and ecosystem disruptions, pose significant risks to global ecosystems, economies, and human well-being.

Therefore, while recognizing the potential benefits of CO2 in certain contexts, it remains imperative to address and mitigate its adverse effects through sustainable practices, emission reductions, and investments in renewable energy sources to ensure a more balanced and resilient future for our planet.

So, I tried a third time with this:

What is the source of the supposed consensus to which you refer? The IPCC acknowledges uncertainty in its actual science documents versus its political summary. And, since when is science done by consensus? It's supposed to be about challenging consensus with more research.

This got a much better answer because I apparently convinced ChatGPT that I wasn't an idiot and wasn't going to accept politicized blather as an answer:

You raise valid points about the nature of scientific inquiry and the importance of challenging consensus with ongoing research. Let's clarify a few key aspects:

1. IPCC Reports and Consensus: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produces assessment reports based on comprehensive reviews of scientific literature by thousands of experts worldwide. While the summaries for policymakers are subject to negotiation among governments, the underlying scientific assessments undergo rigorous peer review. The IPCC does acknowledge uncertainties in its reports, as scientific understanding is continually evolving, and there are inherent uncertainties in climate modeling. However, the consensus among climate scientists is robust regarding the fundamental understanding that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary driver of recent global warming.

2. Nature of Scientific Consensus: In scientific contexts, consensus refers to the prevailing view among experts in a particular field based on the weight of evidence. It does not imply unanimity or dogmatism but rather reflects the convergence of evidence and expert judgment. Science advances through skepticism, critical evaluation of evidence, and the testing of hypotheses. However, when overwhelming evidence supports a particular conclusion, such as the role of CO2 in driving climate change, it forms the basis of scientific consensus until new evidence emerges to challenge or refine it.

3. Ongoing Research and Challenges to Consensus: Science is indeed a dynamic process, and consensus can evolve in response to new data, methodologies, or theoretical frameworks. Skepticism and critical inquiry are essential components of scientific progress, driving researchers to question prevailing theories, conduct experiments, and propose alternative hypotheses. Consensus is not immutable but adapts to accommodate new findings and insights. However, challenging existing consensus requires robust evidence and rigorous analysis, as extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

In summary, while scientific consensus provides a foundation for understanding complex phenomena like climate change, it is not static or immune to revision. Ongoing research, debate, and scrutiny are integral to the scientific process, ensuring that our understanding continues to evolve in pursuit of more accurate and comprehensive explanations of natural phenomena.

That last part was a nice admission, so I pressed further, as we should hope any good journalist might do and I got to the truth as I see it:

Me:

Well, that's closer to the truth as I see it, but you fail to acknowledge the consensus regarding ulcers was nearly 100% until one brave scientist proved it was otherwise and solved the problem.

ChatGPT:

You bring up a significant example from the history of science regarding peptic ulcers, which highlights the importance of challenging prevailing consensus with empirical evidence. In the case of ulcers, the prevailing belief among medical professionals for decades was that they were primarily caused by stress, spicy foods, and excess stomach acid. However, this consensus was eventually overturned by the pioneering work of Australian scientists Barry Marshall and Robin Warren.

Marshall and Warren challenged the existing paradigm by proposing that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) was the primary cause of peptic ulcers. Despite facing skepticism and resistance from the medical community initially, they conducted extensive research and eventually demonstrated a causal link between H. pylori infection and ulcer formation through a series of experiments, including self-administration of the bacterium by Marshall to induce gastritis.

Their groundbreaking work not only revolutionized our understanding of the pathophysiology of ulcers but also transformed medical practice, leading to the widespread acceptance of antibiotic therapy to treat H. pylori infections and the subsequent decline in ulcer-related surgeries and hospitalizations.

The case of peptic ulcers serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of scientific skepticism, open-mindedness, and empirical investigation in challenging and revising established paradigms. It illustrates that consensus in science is not immutable and should always be subject to critical scrutiny and empirical testing. While consensus provides a valuable framework for understanding the current state of knowledge, it is the willingness to question, challenge, and explore alternative hypotheses that drives scientific progress and innovation.

What this little exercise demonstrates is that persistence pays. Argument pays. These are the things lacking from modern journalism which is no longer practiced. Most modern journalists are, sadly, no more than shills or stenographers for politically correct narratives and destroyers with respect to the opposition.

#Journalism #ChatGPT #PoliticalCorrectness #Climate #GlobalWarming #Persistence