Abiotic Source of Isoprene Production Discovered at Sea-Surface Microlayer
Environmental Science & Technology Article
Flow of Information: (START) Env. Sci. & Tech -> Science Daily -> Breitbart (END)
Despite overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is real, there are many people who still deny this objective reality. Even worse, there are large news sources that will cherry-pick quotes, opinions, and scientific articles that seemingly support their false claims and propagate them to the public. My goal was to find an example of such cherry-picking to showcase the unethical lengths that such sources will go to in order to misrepresent the science.
It did not take me long to find an example of this. James Delingpole wrote an op-ed piece ‘You don’t have to be stupid, dishonest, and semi-literate to be a climate scientist but…’ for Breitbart News Network, a right-wing media outlet with 44.7 million website visits in the last month. Delingpole makes a drawn-out argument slandering climate science by attacking the credibility of the entire field of professionals mostly based on a series of exchanges with Prof. Piers Forster of the University of Leeds, who allegedly had a disagreement with Delingpole about a prior article he published. Behind all the drama and distraction present in this article, Delingpole’s piece ‘demonstrates using evidence’ that man-made climate change is wrong based on the single ‘discovery that oceans are producing unexpectedly large quantities of ‘isoprene’ abiotically.’ You can skip the majority of the article, a nonsense rant, and just read the last few paragraphs to understand his attempt at an evidence-based argument.
Delingpole’s ‘evidence’ comes from an uncited but quoted Science Daily article (that I had to look up) titled ‘Surface of the oceans affects climate more than thought.’ Briefly, this article shares the discovery of abiotically produced isoprene from the Env. Sci. & Tech. linked article and explains that isoprene was previously only thought to come from biological precursor sources. Thus, they use this discovery to reasonably state that this new discovery could explain the ‘large discrepancy between field measurements and models,’ in sole reference to measurements and models of isoprene in the atmosphere. This was not meant to be interpreted as a large discrepancy between field measurements and models for manmade climate change, but that is how Delingpole portrayed it in his article. Delingpole extrapolates this to explain how the ‘computer models on which anthropogenic global warming theory are based on are inadequate to the task because they fail to take into account all the real-world data.’
Besides just completely lying about what the Science Daily article was conveying in an attempt to show that science was backing his claim, Delingpole does not account for the fact that manmade climate change is an empirically observed phenomenon, not just a ‘computer model.’ It is important to create climate models to predict future outcomes of events that impact climate change, but at the end of the day even if this article was referencing climate change computational models, it would still not prove the nonexistence of climate change because models can deviate from reality, but that just proves a poor model. We cannot deny objective, quantifiable conclusions from reproducible experiments measuring real world data like global average temperatures. For Delingpole to hinge his entire argument against this reality on a misrepresented Science Daily article about isoprene models is absurd and highly deceptive.
The peer-reviewed Environmental Science & Technology article referenced by the Science Daily article, and thus indirectly implicated in by the Breitbart article, is titled ‘Unravelling New Processes at Interfaces: Photochemical Isoprene Production at the Sea Surface.’ The journal article introduces two problems: (1) a seemingly missing ‘source of organic aerosol in the troposphere’ when it comes to modeling atmospheric phenomena, and (2) a lack of understanding and complete characterization of the sources of many chemical compounds in the atmosphere. Isoprene is a highly reactive, small double-unsaturated organic molecule that plays a role in ozone formation and secondary-source organic aerosol formation through gas-to-particle reactions. Simply put, isoprene is small enough to easily make it into the atmosphere but reacts easily with other molecules to make organic molecules that are prone to aerosol formation. The journal article cites a variety of studies investigating the importance and production of isoprene, but all available studies at the time had only investigated the biological production of isoprene from terrestrial and oceanic microbial communities.
Despite this, emerging research on the sea-surface microlayer (SML) has shown the ocean to concentrate organic molecules, especially those related to the biosynthesis of isoprene, at the surface where they are exposed to direct sunlight. The authors hypothesized and ultimately concluded that the rich, abiotic photochemistry occurring at the SML can spontaneously produce isoprene. More specifically, they used a photochemical reactor chamber resembling sunlight to irradiate a real oceanic SML sample with added nonanoic acid, an organic surfactant, and humanic acid. These molecules are known to be abiotically produced in the ocean and were hypothesized to be precursors or involved in isoprene production, which is why they were added for more dramatic isoprene production for proof-of-concept. The analytical chemists used a special machine that uses mass spectrometry to identify the presence of volatile organic compounds, and more clearly identified the specific signals by comparing with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. In short, the researchers did find a statistically significant amount of isoprene and methy vinyl ketone + methacrolein production to occur in the presence of UV radiation mimicking sunlight on the oceanic SML sample. This is clearly seen in Figure 1 of the paper, showing a spike in the detection of these molecules when the UV light is turned on. Hypothesized mechanism is Scheme 2.
Ultimately, the peer-reviewed journal does not dive into much of how isoprene affects the climate or environment, but really focused on the chemistry of its abiotic production and used their experimental results as proof for the abiotic process discovery. Since they were the first to report this, they could immediately conclude that existing atmospheric models with isoprene production were not complete, as they obviously do not take this abiotic production of isoprene into account, because it was not thought to occur. They explained how this result could help elucidate the gap between inconsistent field measurements of isoprene and predictive models of it. The Science Daily article definitely exaggerated this inconsistency by using the phrase 'large discrepancy,' despite no numbers being cited in the Science Daily article in the paragraph of this claim. This still does not excuse Breitbart News Network for blatantly lying about the meaning of this discrepancy to mean a lack of scientific consensus on climate change. Delingpole never cited the Science Daily or Environmental Science & Technology articles, despite quoting Science Daily and alluding to the work of the peer-reviewed article. Likewise, Delingpole never attempted to report any numbers for the discrepancy. He only strictly refers to Professor Forster, who is irrelevant to his supposed evidence-based argument, and then showcases some email from 'Tilo' who is supposed to be a connected author to the publications in discussion, but whose name I cannot find on anything related to this.
Either James Delingpole lacks the basic comprehension skills to understand the Science Daily article he quoted, or he intentionally lied to his audience about the quote he was picking, hoping they were too lazy to follow up with his claim. This may explain why he did not cite the article nor even say it came from Science Daily. James Delingpole brags about his supposed Oxford English degree in this article, yet he broke almost every ethical practice in journalism. Cherry-picking data and quotes for confirmation bias, not reporting any numbers, blatantly misrepresenting the abiotic production of isoprene research, failing to cite, and unnecessary slander will earn James Delingpole and his Oxford English degree a repulsive score of 1.25/10. The only credit (+.25) I can award him is for the direct quote from Science Daily which allowed me to easily find the article in reference, although it was completely immoral for him to not cite it.
Wow! Reading through this review and the article you found really showed that what we are receiving in our news can be wildly inaccurate/misleading simply because of an ulterior motive an author wants to portray to their viewers. I think what sticks out the most to me is that he failed to follow general well-practice for presenting information without clear bias to the public (basic journalism) but was ranting about how scientists are failing to do their job correctly: "read or understand the most rudimentary argument." Kind of scary, but hopefully people still know not to believe everything they see on the internet without fact checking! Do you think if this article was stated to be an opinion article what he presented would be any more acceptable?
ReplyDeleteI totally agree Sofia, in my opinion, it is a journalist's ethical obligation to report facts and maintain neutrality, just as scientists must do. Of course, everyone has bias and it is not always possible to maintain true neutrality in practice, but I have little tolerance for blatant ignorance and denial of objective truths. I think it should have been more obviously stated that it was an op-ed, but I do not excuse the author for his deception of the public, op-ed or not. And you're right about the fact checking, except the sad thing is I had to dig a little deep to find the facts - I have a bad feeling that most Breitbart News Network readers are not willing to put in this effort, and honestly, I could probably fact check more of what I read in the news.
DeleteI really like how you used this assignment to show how scientific data is sometimes maliciously twisted, not just as a result of incompetence or incorrect interpretations. In your research did you find anything about the readers' responses/reactions to the Breitbart article?
ReplyDeleteThere is actually a comment section on the bottom of the article. Sadly, it appears to have an overwhelmingly positive reaction in favor of the op-ed piece, that is, they are supporting Delingpole and believe his 'evidence' against climate science. As for other readers who have not commented on the Breitbart page, I have not found anything calling it out for its deception or inaccuracy, unfortunately.
DeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your assignment write up because it clearly outlined the transfer of information from one source to another - it was essentially a game of "telephone" where each subsequent author slightly twisted the original findings to fit their schema. I was really surprised to see that even science daily - a somewhat credible source - exaggerated individual findings that were taken out of context from the original paper.
I thought the exact same thing, Siri! I actually meant to make a comment in reference to 'telephone,' because that is exactly what I observed here: we have the original work very focused on atmospheric revenant analytical photochemistry at the sea-surface, Science Daily exaggerating this out to be the missing key of information for some large discrepancy in atmospheric models that they did not specify with great detail, and then Breitbart saying our models are all wrong for climate science and therefore it is fake. I find it quite amusing but it is also disturbing to know how quickly information can be construed through such propagation.
DeleteI really appreciate you giving an example of intentionally misleading articles! In reading this article, did you consider how this misinformation compares to what is spread by other news sources who 'believe' in climate change? (like the other articles we have read in class, how much bias comes in to play on either side of the 'debate')
ReplyDeleteYes, absolutely Veronica! This is an interesting question, so let me start by establishing that climate change is objectively real, and these environmental phenomena we discuss in class have established mechanisms and proof. Thus, when a news source who is a 'believer' in climate change & env. sci., etc. I believe their misinformation is oftentimes more technical in nature, but with good intentions. They are usually trying to report a truth or important manner, and do not need to cherry-pick quotes to deceive anyone, as they can just convince people with objective studies and facts. Thus, although they may make mistakes with reporting numbers or messing up a detail in the experimental procedure, the main point can usually get conveyed, which oftentimes closely aligns with the truth of the peer-reviewed study. However, this news article had to cherry-pick and deceive their audience because the field of science overwhelmingly does not support their viewpoint, to the extent I would say that they are objectively incorrect. When you are trying to lie to people about objective evidence to spread your opinion on a subject, this is where misinformation becomes extremely harmful, in my opinion.
DeleteI also wanted to emphasize how much I enjoyed having not just two articles in the mix, but a third sort of "middle-ground" between real science and complete ridiculousness. It was interesting to see how information gets intentionally moved into less and less credible chambers. I wonder from your perspective, does the existence of places like Science Daily pose a risk to the science community if people are able to cherry-pick like they do? Would their job be more difficult if they only had a published, peer-reviewed study to look at?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely Nathan, but ultimately I think the positive outweighs the negative - more people engage with Science Daily and learn awesome facts about science presented in a simplified manner than people who abuse it to further their incorrect opinions. With that said, I wish peer-reviewed journals would adopt a NASA report style where you have to summarize your work in a paragraph written at middle or high-school reading level. This would hopefully promote more general public engagement with them, so as to minimize the risk of miscommunication from a middle man.
DeleteIt's interesting to me that within the Breitbart article it has quotes from multiple scientists explaining how the results of the ES&T paper don't say anything close to what Delingpole interpreted it as in his previous article, yet Delingpole immediately dismisses the quotes by calling them "irrelevant" and "straw-man arguments". Reading the ES&T paper immediately makes it clear that these quotes are completely relevant and explain exactly what is meant when the paper talks about a discrepancy between models and field measurements, however it is very clear that the Breitbart article has no interest in leading its readers to the original paper given the lack of citation and the general tone. I'm curious how you would approach trying to communicate the realities of climate change to someone reading this misinformation, say you had been the one emailed asking for a response to the article - is there a productive way you can think of to respond?
ReplyDeleteI thought the same exact thing when I was reading this, which made Delingpole look even more foolish to me because the comments he cited were completely valid and on-topic. This is the +0.25 points I gave him because I could see how he was wrong before I even read the peer-reviewed article thoroughly. As frustrating as this is, I think an email to Delingpole or someone so stubborn like him has to be surprisingly non-confrontational and gentle, otherwise you will set him off and not get through. I might try something like this:
DeleteDear Mr. Delingpole,
I recently read your piece '...' and had quite a laugh with the amusing tone you used throughout the article. As an author of the study you cited, I wanted to reach out to clarify a few things you said. You are absolutely right in that our models in climate science are not perfect as demonstrated by abiotic isoprene discovery, but this is actually a case for all models in science by the definition of a model. What models we meant, in this case, were actually referring to was atmospheric models of aerosols, which do play a role in global temperatures and climate. Climate change, although modeled with computers to make future predictions based on current conditions, is an empiric observation, which is a fancy way scientists say a reproducibly measured phenomenon. CITE a few simple studies... etc
The key is, I would try to be gentle and maybe even comedic or witty, if possible, to try to establish a connection with Delingpole. By showing Delingpole that scientists are just regular people, it might not make him so bitter towards everyone in the field. Just a suggestion.
Very interesting and frustrating set of articles to read! One of the problems that seems to be driving the misinformation from the popular press article that you highlighted in your post is that a lack of understanding in science is prevalent. Specifically, the reality that theories/models cannot account for all variables and are consistently refined to explain new data. Take for instance the Bohr model of atom to wave-mechanical or Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics. In both instances the initial models described a lot of the data but some small pieces could not be accounted for so new models were developed to build on them that could explain these phenomena. Does this make these old models meaningless? Obvious to us the answer is no because so many inventions and discoveries were made based on them. The same is true with our model of climate change. Past models described it very well, but small details cannot be accounted for and each piece of research modifies the model slightly to account for it. The popular press article as you highlighted seems to argue that this makes our models of climate change as meaningless, which is obviously dubious. This mentality is also present if you read the comments of this article too. How do you think we could reconcile this with the general public? In other words, what sort of strategies do you think we could take to shift the mentality of part of the general population that the need for a model to explain every single phenomenon to be meaningful is impossible and not science?
ReplyDeleteYou are exactly right Mike, fantastic point! A model is basically meant to be a simplified version of the real world by definition, and thus can always be improved by adding more real-world factors into the model. As frustrating as it is, I do think that a lot of people reject science because they simply cannot understand it, or its principles, and it is comforting to think that if science is inherently wrong, then this justifies their difficulty comprehending it (i.e., how can something that is wrong make sense). This is why science education is so important to children and the public, because it inspires a lifelong curiosity for the world around us and gives an appreciation of the world we live in. Of course, not everyone needs to be a scientist, but a great foundational educational system should drive the main points of science across in a fun and engaging way that will resonate with people forever. Though this is a very complex and nuanced issue.
Delete