
In an article for Yale’s Environment 360, prominent science journalist Michael D. Lemonick rebukes the New York Times for its credulous 8,000-word profile of climate denier Freeman Dyson. As the Wonk Room previously noted, in March the New York Times Magazine ran a fawning cover article about Dyson by Nicholas Dawidoff, a baseball writer. Lemonick, who noted climate scientists describe Dyson’s ideas about global warming as “clueless,” “appallingly ill-informed,” and “flat-out wrong,” took particular umbrage at Dawidoff. When asked by NPR’s On the Media if whether it mattered if Dyson was right or wrong, Dawidoff answered:
Oh, absolutely not. I don’t care what he thinks. I have no investment in what he thinks. I’m just interested in how he thinks and the depth and the singularity of his point of view.
Lemonick responds with a sharp critique of Dawidoff and the New York Times:
This is, to put it bluntly, bizarre. It matters a great deal whether he’s right or wrong, given that his views have been trumpeted in such a prominent forum with essentially no challenge.
Lemonick, the senior writer at Climate Central and a twenty-year veteran science journalist for Time Magazine, interviewed Dyson, who freely admitted, “I have no credibility” on climate science or policy:
I have two great disadvantages. First of all, I am 85 years old. Obviously, I’m an old fuddy-duddy. So, I have no credibility. And, secondly, I am not an expert, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert.
Dyson’s happy explanation that his decades as a theoretical physicist should not substitute for actual knowledge raises into question the judgment of Dawidoff and his editors at the New York Times Magazine.
I find it hard not to echo my old friend Mike's reaction to the NPR interview (we cut our teeth in journalism together in science magazines in the 1980s).The only reason I grind away at the ugly interface of climate science and policy year after year -- believe me, I'd way rather write about pythons or songwriting -- is to provide some reliable sense of what we know, don't know, need to know, and can't know (the fundamental uncertainties) and what real-world choices are left based on that mix.
I certainly want to know, and convey, the motivation of sources as much as possible, but primarily to help reveal for readers why someone may be taking a certain stance. To have that as the only goal is, well... what's Mike's phrase?

