About that “Death star that  may kill us”  story on Crikey website last week.

It turns it that it has killed the reputation of the astronomer, Dr Edward Sion, who made the claims at a conference in Washington DC, and  scored big headlines with his paper and its related press release.

Not only did it contain one serious, and to fellow physicists, blazingly obvious error, but according to discussions on astronomy forums such as Bad Astronomy, the error was pointed out at the conference, the error was not corrected by the author, the paper hasn’t yet been withdrawn, and no apology has yet come out of the beneficiary of the those headlines, Villanova University in Pennsylvania.

Phil Plait, the blog’s author, dumped on the paper as more “disaster porn”. But doesn’t this raise a much more important issue?  About how the credibility of scientists self-destructing as they get sucked into the dishonest techniques of strategic media manipulation that are already endemic in finance, environmental, consumer and medical reporting at large.

And the credibility of reporters such as me? OK, so I’m mad as hell, it is my fault, but the author had a power point display, he had a paper, and the press release, which I didn’t actually read, since I distrust anything that comes between a scientist and the public.

And the error was so pointless. The real story is that we do have a potential type 1a supernova in our cosmic neighborhood, yet sufficiently far away not to destroy the ozone layer pole-to-pole, and us.  This is kind of exciting, should it explode any time soon.  Bring it on! Let’s have a –9.3 magnitude (extremely bright) star high above us, one that is also dazzlingly apparent, like a giant morning or evening star, until well after sunrise and before sunset.

An event we could study with unprecedented clarity for a supernova, and learn more about this cosmic alchemy that turns star stuff into heavy metals, and shows us how the cosmos lives, dies and renews.  A death star that is also a life star.

That should have been the story, and it will be too, should the white dwarf star in binary system T Pyxidis exceed its Chandrasekhar limit.

This death-star fiasco  raises the PR abuse of science in other fields. The University of Queensland just can’t help itself raving on about two-hour hypersonic flights to London being made possible by its world-beating research into scramjets, yet this research is far more relevant to weapons development and better rockets, both apparently too unpalatable for public consumption.

The climate-gate controversy may have been overdone by deniers and other critics of atmospheric research, but the leaked emails show the same focus on how to make headlines and cause public anxiety over climate change that has driven increasingly hysterical press campaigns about these issues from the parasites among social engineers and political and bureaucratic opportunists who hang off the science, which in itself, struggles for oxygen.

Atmospheric research is complex, fascinating and full of unresolved issues, even though the conclusion, that the release of fossil carbon at a high rate comes with serious consequences, is surely by now beyond rational doubt.

But this science is overwhelmed by media campaigns by the cultural warriors of denialism on one side and opportunists on the other.  The global warming issues are being fought by PR firms and press secretaries, not scientists. The researchers are caught between the sanctimonious drivel from a government hell bent on expanding the coal industry no matter what while pretending to put the planet first, and the ingrained denialist ignorance of the opposition, and ratbags such as Senators Joyce and Fielding.

One reason the “disaster porn” pushers in critical areas such as health and climate change are so frustrated is that the shriller the message the more suspicious and resistant the public becomes.

Isn’t the way forward more engagement with scientific research, by articulate researchers, unfiltered by heads of departments concerned about conformity with government policies, or university managements mainly concerned with marketing campuses as brands rather than centres of learning?