http://www.swellnet.com.au/surfpolitik.php?surfpolitik=King_Tides_and_Killer_Sharks_130109.php

Yesterdays tidal event was an excellent example of the shortcomings of the mainstream media and how it can irresponsibly spread misinformation. Most east coast media outlets picked up on the 'king tide' story and, without any scientific verification, attributed the high water to a crazy array of unrelated misfortune.

King tides happen every year. They are nothing new. They are not brought on by climate change and nor are they tsunami. King tides are, like all tides, caused by a confluence of the sun and the moons gravity pulling on the ocean surface. Admittedly yesterday's was the largest tide in 18 years (for some areas) yet it was simply one phase of the oceans tide. Nothing more.

Perhaps it was that the Department of Environment and Climate Change used yesterday's high tide as a model for a possible climate change scenario that got everyone in a tizz? News reporters caught wind of the 'climate change' story and sent cameramen and journos down to the seashore to document the event.

What did they get? A few waves lapping at the shore a wee bit higher than the normal tide line. Hardly good television. Never mind, the 'king tides' were then attributed to a swathe of other accidents that happened yesterday:

The Herald Sun reported a fellow who was riding his motorbike at high speed along a beach in northern NSW as 'swept out to sea by a king tide'.

Sky News reported that the king tide caused a dinghy to overturn and throw three men into the sea at Merimbula southern NSW.

The Tweed Daily News said that 'yesterday's king tides at Snapper Rocks were not the best for surfing' and in an enormous leap of scientific knowledge 'the extremely high tides also brought extreme lows to the coast.'

But the Courier Mail in Brisbane took the fearmongering to radical new heights when it warned holidaymakers of the king tides and ran a shot of Cow Bombie in WA breaking at 25 feet.

And to top off this 24 hours of media lunacy a colleague of mine was even asked by someone - from a scientific department no less - if the current spate of shark attacks were due to the king tide!

Perhaps it's the over-arching fear of climate change that drove this bandwagon. If so, then it may be a bit easier to understand. Because if the climate change scenarios do occur, then the outcome for humans is pretty damn bleak. But misinformation and blatant fearmongering do nothing to help the cause.

I would've thought that anyone with even a cursory understanding of ocean dynamics would know that the events attributed to king tides yesterday were bollocks. And I would've expected someone in the respective media outlets might either know that, or at least seek verification from someone who did.

I guess it shows how little the mainstream world understands these issues but how well they understand the value of a dramatic story. And that bodes very badly for news we receive on climate change.

Taking mainstream news with a grain of salt may sound like commonsense, but commonsense seems to be something that's in short supply when talk of climate change rolls around. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a climate sceptic - just the opposite in fact. But what I can't stand is issues being pushed because they fit pre-determined entertainment agendas.

The mainstream media has just shown us how much mileage they'll get from a lapping high tide with a tenuous link to climate change. How credible will they be when the issue gets critical? What will climate change be accused of? And how will the real issue get represented in the media quagmire?

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/3073112/Great_Wave

What are we going to do with the media? There is a big disconnect - a chasm between what real scientists and researchers write and what is actually reported.

The media are there to achieve a goal - eg newspaper sales, TV ratings etc.  That's what drives their reporting.

We've had two other examples of that recently on this forum - the "life almost created in laboratory" and the "Traces of life found on Mars" idiocy.

The real scientists must shudder when they hear or read the reports. I know I did.

I remember about 10 years ago talking to a local reporter about air pollution monitoring. I explained the national standards - what was an acceptable level for say SOx. I was very patient. I explained how the local air pollution levels were consistently well within these levels. "See, here's the PM10 - notice how it's below the line? That means that it's well within the standard, which is good"  

The next day I saw the main newspaper headline. "******(Town) Local Air Quality Well below Standard"

My face turned bright red. I might have Scottish blood but I am usually calm and collected. I don't often go off the deep end. This was a rare exception. I was totally ropable.

Fortunately I couldn't get through to the reporter by phone.  By the time I had driven there, I had calmed down somewhat, otherwise the next day's headlines might have been "Journalist attacked by Environmental Scientist".

Here is another beauty:


Quote:

Climate horror scenario for ACT BY ROSSLYN BEEBYSCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER 19/01/2009 9:14:00 AM

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/climate-horror-scenario-for-act/1410182.aspx

In science, the work isn't finished until it has been communicated effectively.

tallowood wrote on Jan 19^th, 2009 at 9:41am:

Here is another beauty: Quote: Climate horror scenario for ACT BY ROSSLYN BEEBYSCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER 19/01/2009 9:14:00 AM http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/climate-horror-scenario-for-act/1410182.aspx

You mean the headline I take it? The main problem with that article is that it gives the impression that what's happening today is exactly the same as happened 20,000 years ago. It clearly is not. Just naming one trivial difference, the rate of temperature rise is about 5,000 times faster.

And another two

Seachange beats climate change

Quote:

CAIRNS could be in for a tourist and population boom after a leading scientist said southerners could avoid the impact of climate change by moving to the  tropics.

Signs of alarm among fauna at bottom of the sea