There is one thing one could always say about longtime science and enviro writer Gregg Easterbrook. Agree with him or not, you know where he stands. It was usually out near the borderland of accepted and legitimate science. Out of the box, maybe overly skeptical of mainstream belief, always pushing to shift the paradigm, never boring, plenty of boldness. He’s a technology optimist. He makes some people angry. Politics-sociology-technology analyst, and UC San Diego history professor, Naomi Oreskes has labeled him one of the globe’s more consistently misleading writers on global warming.

Thus, on being tipped* that he has a remarkable story on our day star, the Sun, in The Atlantic, I went to it with both anticipation and a tinge of nervousness.

I must amend the declaration above, where I say you always know where Easterbrook stands. On this solar story, it’s hard to say.  The piece has many sentences. Nearly all have vigor and, far as I can tell, a reasonable chance of accuracy. One searches in vain however for the overall message. The Sun is steady, but stars are not. It can wreak havoc. Maybe it will. Maybe it won’t. We should get answers soon. It’s a mystery of vast depth. Scientists guess wrong all the time about what the Sun will do next.  But here’s the latest. Assertions arise, but without further exploration. The hed includes “What we don’t know about the sun may kill us.” Uh oh. But how knowing about it will save us, it does not say.

This story could have used some more care, or room, or both. As it is now, it reads a bit more like the hodgepodge one might assemble for a story pitch to an editor, with an apologetic “here’s my quick rundown on the topics my story will explore and flesh out.” Then the editor, misunderstanding, runs the pitch as a finished piece.

One part I do love. Love him or don’t, Easterbrook does know how to string words together, and to provide unexpected context. Here’s a zinger:

“Ideally, we should have a network of solar satellites similar to the network of weather satellites,” (source) says, “with many satellites around the sun, and also in positions both ahead of and behind Earth’s orbit within the solar system.” Considering that the Solar Dynamics Observatory cost nearly $1 billion, a full array of sun monitors in space could easily run $10 billion, if not more. But then, NASA spent anywhere from $40 billion to $100 billion on the International Space Station, with no tangible benefit to taxpayers.

I couldn’t agree more about the ISS, and was floored and delighted to see this neck-snapper pop up in a story about the Sun. But there is nought but neck-snappers and on-to-the-next-topic-shall-we?’s in here. Spin around enough times and all you get is dizzy.

*re The Tipster – I’d tip a hat to the little birdy but it came by anonymous email. Really. The name on it was ‘anonymous.’ So thank you Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, who called Easterbrook’s story “rambling, baffling, and thesis-less” and more. Only clue is that the domain for the email is associated with swing dancing. So if you know a science journalism-savvy person who also does some sharp dips, flips, and Texas Tommy swingouts when the music gets’a hoppin’, say hi for The Tracker. (Anonymous noted that as we at ksjtracker had just looked askance at another Atlantic story, on genetically modified organisms and food, we should take a long look at Easterbrook’s too. By the way and on to another topic myself, The  GMO story kicked up such a fuss that it has been replaced by a version incorporating corrections the author made in reaction to comments. I didn’t analyze it to see the changes, but the swift response is to be saluted).

- Charlie Petit

This entry was posted on Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 1:20 pm and is filed under Science Stories. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.