Yesterday, Drudge breathlessly reported a coming "hit on Gore" from The New York Times. Today that hit has come, in the form of a state-of-the-art piece of slime from Bill Broad.
This may be the worst, sloppiest, most dishonest piece of reporting I've ever seen in the NYT. It's got all the hallmarks of a vintage Gore hit piece: half-truths, outright falsehoods, unsubstantiated quotes, and a heaping dose of innuendo. As usual with these things, unless you've been following the debate carefully, you'll be left with a false impression -- in this case, that scientists are divided over the accuracy of Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.
I find it difficult to believe that Broad doesn't know exactly what he's doing here. (See RealClimate for a discussion of one of his previous travesties.)
I could go almost sentence by sentence, but let's just run through some of the highlights. I apologize for the length, but there's really a lot of trash here to shovel through.
Here's the central thrust: "... part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous."
All right, so let's see some exaggerated and erroneous claims, right?
Things start promisingly, as the article names one of these critics: Don J. Easterbrook, professor of geology. Easterbrook said, "there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing [from Gore], and we have to temper that with real data." What inaccuracies? Astoundingly, the article doesn't cite a single alleged inaccuracy until 28 paragraphs later. It's this:
[Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
But Gore never said (as far as I know, no one has ever said) that the temperature swing in the last century is the widest temperature swing ever. Gore's point is that the global average temperature has never shifted so much so quickly -- about ten times faster than previous swings. That speed, after all, is the primary evidence of human involvement.
So we have exactly one "inaccuracy," and it's based on a thuddingly obvious misunderstanding.
Here's something else you never hear about Easterbrook in the piece: he doesn't believe human GHG emissions are causing current global warming. That's fine. More power to him. But it puts him way outside the scientific mainstream; the recent IPCC report put confidence in the culpability of human GHGs at between 90-99%. Does Easterbrook's ... idiosyncratic stance on the basic science of climate change not warrant a mention, since he is the critic most prominently featured? Apparently not.
Moving on. Many of Gore's critics, the piece says, "occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots."
Sound familiar? You just know what's coming next, right? Yup, brace yourselves for Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee:
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration.
...
"[Gore]'s a very polarizing figure in the science community," said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center.
Let's be frank here. Vranes -- Robin to Pielke Jr.'s Batman -- is a climatologist only under a strained definition of that term; he's published little peer-reviewed work and mainly blogs (like me!). The only reason anyone knows his name is that he once had a "sense" that scientists had "oversold" climate science -- a sense not shared by other climate scientists. Why is Vranes' sensation worth reporting? God knows, but google around a bit and you'll see it's made Vranes famous.
As for the next 'graph, where to begin? First, Roger Pielke Jr. is not an "environmental scientist." He's not a scientist of any kind, though he's got a track record of encouraging that misapprehension. RPJr. is a policy guy who spends most of his time blogging and getting quoted in the media. Given that he's not a scientist, why should anyone care what he thinks is going on "in the science community"? Shouldn't we hear from an actual scientist about that?
I know Gore "polarizes" the conservative political community, with whom RPJr. incessantly plays footsie, but as this trainwreck of an article illustrates, there aren't too many mainstream scientists willing to talk about how polarizing Gore is.
OK, let's take stock. So far, to establish that "part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy," we have a gross misunderstanding from one scientist who doesn't believe GHGs cause global warming, and the unsubstantiated quotes of two well-known media hounds. And that's what Broad led with.
Some 12 paragraphs in, we finally hear from mainstream climate scientists. What do they say?
"He has credibility in this community," said Tim Killeen ... director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. "There's no question he's read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way."
Kinda puts a new spin on things, huh? At least for the three people who read this far into the piece.
Then, after a few paragraphs showing that the mainstream scientific community largely supports Gore's movie, and that neither they nor he senses any "backlash," we come to ... the skeptics. Richard Lindzen. Bjorn Lomborg. Naturally, they say what they say. But didn't Broad promise earlier that criticism came "not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists"? I'm still waiting for the rank-and-file to show up.
Then comes another cheap shot: "Some of Mr. Gore's centrist detractors" -- Who? No names offered. -- "point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ... [which] portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process." But Gore, "citing no particular time frame, envisions [sea level] rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent."
Notice that all the work here is being done by the weasel phrases "citing no particular time frame" and "at least visually." Of course, as those awake during the movie know, Gore cited no time frame because he was talking about what could happen if the Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets pass a tipping point and melt quickly, as many scientists fear. As Gore noted -- you know, verbally -- nobody knows when or if that tipping point will be passed. But I guess he "implied" otherwise. Visually.
Another cheap shot: "So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore's portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium." Did the NAS report contradict Gore? No, it did the exact opposite. Here's a quote from the report:
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence ... Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
At this point Broad appears to be regurgitating right-wing talking points without even, as they say, using the google.
If you can believe it, it gets worse. Next we hear that "other critics" take issue with Gore's claim that fossil fuel companies have conspired to obscure evidence of climate change, and that "virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits." Remember, in the movie Gore cited a study by Naomi Oreskes that showed that out of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on some aspect of climate change, exactly ... none disputed the basic consensus. But, Broad tells us:
Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain ... challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
"Hardly a week goes by," Dr. Peiser said, "without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory," including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Oh? Devotees of this debate will recall that when Peiser tried to dispute Oreskes' study, he fell on his face, spectacularly, and eventually admitted as much. Yet he's still getting quoted in The New York Times -- without citing any of these allegedly numerous "examples of pointed disagreement."
All right. That's enough. I doubt anybody's still reading.
For those who are, let's summarize: Bill Broad took to the pages of the paper of record to establish that there is significant concern in the scientific community about the accuracy of Gore's movie. To do so, he trotted out scientific outliers, non-scientists, and hacks with discredited arguments. In at least two cases (Pielke Jr. being a scientist and the NAS report contradicting Gore) he made gross factual errors. As for the rest, it's a classic case of journalistic "false balance" -- something I thought we were done with on global warming. I guess when it comes to Al Gore, the press still thinks it can get by on smear, suggestion, and innuendo.
Broad, and The New York Times, should be embarrassed.
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 2:20 am
13 Mar 2007
The anthropogenic warming hoax has come to an end. Yes, Al Gore's pyramid scheme enlisting poli-scientists and pundits and greeners into a disgusting ball of chicanery and lies has all but burst.
Sorry, Charlie, only real hypothesis get to be part of Science.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
John McGrath Posted 2:34 am
13 Mar 2007
"Broad, and The New York Times, should be embarrassed."
No, the NYT should be embarrassed, Broad should be fired. This isn't "mistaken" or "unbalanced", it's malicious and unethical.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:40 am
13 Mar 2007
Also, it would be nice to see an article written by members of the environmental community on the uncertainties surrounding climate change in a very forthright and transparent way as a counter-balance to what is this real and/or perceived bias. I don't know enough about the science, but I'm sure that someone here does.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:50 am
13 Mar 2007
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 2:58 am
13 Mar 2007
The worst effect of articles like this is that they degrade the legitimacy and credibility of other NYT reporters who work hard to cover the issues accurately and with honesty.
Permalink
Benny Big Eye Posted 3:36 am
13 Mar 2007
Broad seems to be a guy who is clearly outside his area of expertise and is operating on pure hubris. That article is just garbage and there's nothing funny about it.
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 3:59 am
13 Mar 2007
What objective indication do we have of the climate science community's collective view of Gore? Well, aside from the fact that the recognized leaders of the community (Killeen and Hansen, e.g.) seem to like Gore's stuff, there's the reception he received at the AGU general meeting in December. I seem to recall a standing ovation.
Oh yes, and the copy of Eos (the American Geophysical Union membership publication)) I just got in the mail featured a map on the front page showing the consequences of 6 meters of sea level rise. 6 meters = 20 feet. And they didn't say when either.
Permalink
rainking Posted 4:01 am
13 Mar 2007
Gosh. It sounds JUST like Gore's movie!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:02 am
13 Mar 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:48 am
13 Mar 2007
Permalink
bkrell Posted 5:03 am
13 Mar 2007
Speaking of which, Oppenheimer may be a brilliant man but I felt kinda sorry for him in the Discovery Channel documentary narrated by Brokaw where he hypothesized El Nino would make the Atlantic hurricane season worse...
I dunno, speaking as someone who cringes every time I have to talk to the press, it is HARD to explain things in a way that doesn't get misconstrued and taken out of context. Gore's done a pretty good job of relating obscure scientific minutia to the average Joe and Jane.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 5:06 am
13 Mar 2007
Us foresters get the same thing from "preservationists", with rhetoric and dogma as extra icing on top.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
DannyK Posted 5:27 am
13 Mar 2007
Permalink
Marky48 Posted 5:50 am
13 Mar 2007
And us fish biologists know what department to blame for no fish. Guess who?
Marky48
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:01 am
13 Mar 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:39 am
13 Mar 2007
No one wants to talk about forests as a MAJOR source of GHGs. Too bad, too, because here's something we CAN do very easily to reduce climate change.
I'll just keep wielding my paintgun in my job as "forest sculptor" and "world saver"....lol
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
EddieP Posted 7:28 am
13 Mar 2007
"This may be the worst, sloppiest, most dishonest piece of reporting I've ever seen in the NYT. It's got all the hallmarks of a vintage Gore hit piece: half-truths, outright falsehoods, unsubstantiated quotes, and a heaping dose of innuendo."
He then takes apart Broad's story and its contributors, claiming that the article was one long scandalous hit on Gore. However, he neglects a few sections of the Broad story in order to embellish his own point, something that he no doubt would rail against if another journalist (or blogger) had done it. Here's the ending two paragraphs from Broad's "hit piece" on Gore, which Roberts left out:
---
Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton who advised Mr. Gore on the book and movie, said that reasonable scientists disagreed on the malaria issue and other points that the critics had raised. In general, he said, Mr. Gore had distinguished himself for integrity.
"On balance, he did quite well -- a credible and entertaining job on a difficult subject," Dr. Oppenheimer said. "For that, he deserves a lot of credit. If you rake him over the coals, you're going to find people who disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right."
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 9:40 am
13 Mar 2007
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 1:20 pm
13 Mar 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:27 pm
13 Mar 2007
Thank you William J. Broad. You have restored balance to scientific debate. No longer will people who want to evaluate data and make decisions using Occam's Razor instead of Gore's Bazooka.
It was much the same with McCarthyism or the Red Guard under Mao in the Sixties. Groups of people, such as the followers of Al Gore, can be swept up into a violent mob.
Anyone who challenges them in debate is attacked ad hominem with disgraceful terms. Rather than argue, they label and mock.
Mr. Broad, when people are turned into a mob, they need someone who can present a balanced, secure, and superior view to undo the mob.
I am glad that I live in country where the New York Times and it's reporter can still present facts that are bold, yet understanded, and rational.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 2:23 pm
13 Mar 2007
In any event, appreciated reading this. Thank you.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:39 pm
13 Mar 2007
>I'll just keep wielding my paintgun in my job as "forest sculptor" and "world saver"....lol
If you don't want to be misunderstood then why don't say what the fork you have to say straight out? No paradoxes, no hinting, no cute coyness, no one liners that obscure more than they clarify. Outline exactly what you think ought to be done about fires as a source of GHG emissions. If what you advocate is not clear-cutting, then don't link to people who do advocate it. If you prefer being provocative to being clear, then don't play the martyr when people are provoked.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:23 pm
13 Mar 2007
Of course, you can ban me for "opposing views" but, I control the paintgun.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:11 am
14 Mar 2007
Of course, no one will heed my warnings because, like most Americans, they think that self-righteousness will save them from themselves.
One more time: Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?? Are you thinking globally and acting locally?
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 12:34 am
14 Mar 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:48 am
14 Mar 2007
Since many of you don't appear to even LIKE forests, why not ban me right now?
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:24 am
14 Mar 2007
What does it mean to be a true environmentalist?
There is apparently a civil war within the environmental movement, if there really is a movement. While some of us are out in the world getting our boots muddy, trying to do what we can to preserve the biosphere... using our knowledge, experience, and intuition (when reason fails)... others sit in their Ivory Towers and tell us about their wonderful ideas and how we are all misguided.
Yes... I'm might be ready to say that a true environmentalist does not just talk, does not just donate money to good causes, does not just sit in his or her chair and direct imaginary armies of activists, does not focus their efforts on creating a new system. A true environmentalist goes out into the natural world and acts to either reduce the harm caused by humans or actually repair earlier damage.
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 1:43 am
14 Mar 2007
Why do supposed "progressive" thinkers here throw out ALL logic when it comes to forests? They propose all sorts of grand schemes to save the world with hybrid cars, fancy fuels, renewable energy and "green" thinking but, when it comes to forests, they're OK letting them fully release their stored carbon.
There are plenty of people who form their positions on shallow emotional responses, rather than science and logic. This is true for environmentalism, just like it's true pretty much everywhere else.
But many of us understand what "less trees, more forest" means, and understand that this is not inherently a contradiction. It's really not such a hard concept, so give us some credit.
The real issue seems to be the forest industry's checkered past, with profit-driven harvesting agendas masquerading as environmental initiatives. I'm not accusing you personally, but this is a reality that has been (and probably still is) a part of the industry with which you work. So a little skepticism is appropriate in the face of "big company wants to cut trees, for the sake of the ecology".
I think I understand your position, and I sympathize. But, whatever your personal moral and professional qualifications, you are associated to an industry with a terrible track record and an established history of greenwashing. That's something that you, and people like you who really do care about the forest, are going to need to deal with. And getting all martyr-like doesn't help.
Permalink
worstedwitch Posted 1:47 am
14 Mar 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:55 am
14 Mar 2007
One crank, on the other hand, bizarrely wrote that the Times had "sat on" the Broad article for a year, then printed it finally in the Science section, not on the front page, and so demonstrated how truly radical it is ... Oh well.
WiscIdea, I rather agree with your sentiments, on how to define "environmentalist," which is why I do not call myself an environmentalist. I think the title belongs to people who have some sort of professional education or training in a relevant field, and who regularly commit a significant number of hours to some real, focused environmental activity.
But I do not see why that has to be restricted to "going out into the natural world." Writers, teachers, researchers and journalists can all be engaged in a true and respectable environmental activity, of great value to the "movement," even though they do all their work under a roof.
And then, not that it really matters, but there seems to be no term for such as myself. "Lumpen-environmentalist"? "Camp follower"? "Dilettante"? "Hypocrite"? Somehow such names seem less than fair ...
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:15 am
14 Mar 2007
Perhaps I exagerated a bit -- hmmm, ties this in with the thread's actual topic -- to get my point across. As far as I'm concerned, the writers, teachers, researchers, and journalists you mention would also be environmentalists. I'm trying to suggest that there are people actively engaged in protecting or restoring the biosphere vs. people who are not quite in touch with reality and seem to enjoy complaining rather than solving real problems.
Based on what I've read on the Grist website, I'm not sure anyone is a "true" environmentalist.
I like to consider myself one, but apparently only by my own definition. One activity I engage in, creating GMOs to reduce the use of chemicals, is not generally considered pro-environment. Like the gentleman who earns a living managing forests, I find this all very irritating.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:16 am
14 Mar 2007
Forward!
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:35 am
14 Mar 2007
Really that is all I'm asking. Dude if you are advocating something - explain it. Don't just keep referring to it and assume that every sensible person supports it. Note how a request for a explaination is taken as an unfair attack by backcut.
In terms of my reference to "clear cutting" - dude you linked on your first comment months ago to someone who does advocate clear cutting. Again, instead of whining, why not explain you position at least ONCE. Asking that is not being emotional. I'm not going to play your game again. You make an obscure reference. I guess what your position is. You attack me for guessing wrong and play the misunderstood martyr. Say what you advocate. Or link to a piece that explains your position. Not a piece that explains forest fires are a problem. I know that. A piece that explains what you think should be done about it and why fewer trees means more forest.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:37 am
14 Mar 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:41 am
14 Mar 2007
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:56 am
14 Mar 2007
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:00 am
14 Mar 2007
Noooooooooooooooooo!
I truly never read that he was in favor of clearcutting. I listened to his NPR radio spot and he never once mentioned clearcutting.
Yes, read my posts and you'll see that what I want our forests to look like isn't much different than what eco-folks want. If you don't like what we'e doing in the forests, by all means, meet us in court. Blathering about "greenwashing", clearcutting and high-grading is just sooooooo 90's. If you'd have read my posts, you'd see that the Forest Service, here in California, banned clearcutting and high-grading back in '93. And no lawsuit told us to do that. We did it because it was the right thing to do.
But, I digress. You guys take care of the biofuels and renewable energies, and I'll, take care of the forests. If you want some enlightenment, read my posting history. If not, get the marshmallows and willow sticks.
8^X
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:12 am
14 Mar 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:28 am
14 Mar 2007
>But many of us understand what "less trees, more forest" means, and understand that this is not inherently a contradiction. It's really not such a hard concept, so give us some credit.
Maybe you will see why he is not a credible source.
Secondly as to your posting history. All you say is that favor harvesting, but done right (maybe with government owned timber companies rather than greedy private ones.) You never say what "done right" means. You have NOT provided everything one needs to understand your position. If all means is that you favor real sustainable sivaculture, which would mean thinning, but little or not harvesting of mature trees then we actually don't disagree.
Tell me do you agree or disagree with the following: harvesting a mature living tree likely to go on living is not carbon neutral - even if it is embedded in a home or replaces fossil fuel. Some of the carbon in a tree is embedded in the soil, and almost all of that is released on harvest. It also takes energy and releases carbon release to harvest and process a tree. A young tree or even several young trees replacing it will require decades, perhaps centuries to replace that lost carbon. And those young trees will be more subject to fire, drought, disease and pests than the mature tree they replace.
Is the above paragraph contrary to the practice you favor? Nothing you have said answers that for sure, though your comments on houses last for centuries hints that it does.
All that you assert for certain in your posts is your unsupported to word that you are unlike the older foresters, and know how to do things right. Oh yeah, and a recent injunction to us to worry about biofuels and leave forestry to you. Yeah, an appeal to authority really substantiates your case to have logical arguments.
Seriously, if I've wronged you help me see it. Provide ONE link beside Moore. Or spend the same amount of time you spend talking about roasting marshmellows, explaining your position.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:29 am
14 Mar 2007
Permalink
Marky48 Posted 6:14 am
14 Mar 2007
Lose the ad hominem otherwise we'll get the idea forestry folks are just dumb rednecks. It makes you look bad. How'd you like that scenic photo I posted at your blog? Nice huh?
Marky48
Permalink
frye Posted 6:15 am
14 Mar 2007
You want to fight pollution, then fight pollution. Don't gift-wrap it in pseudo-science so people will listen.
Fact: C02 makes up less than .05% of the atmosphere. This amount has barely budged in the past forty years since the post-war boom forty years ago. And where does CO2 come from? In order of amount produced, it comes from: 1. The Oceans, 2. Volcanoes, 3. Animals (decay, flatulence, excrement, etc...), and way down at the bottom is all of human activity. There is so much more the 'media' finds uninteresting that actually does cause climate change: cloud cover, water vapor, sun spot activity, etc...that the best you can do is seek it out.
Remember, these same people predicted an ice age 30 years ago and the media lapped it up. Now they have a new nut to give the press, and they're lined up with plates and utensils. So if you want to fight pollution, then tackle that.
Permalink
Marky48 Posted 6:21 am
14 Mar 2007
Marky48
Permalink
Marky48 Posted 6:25 am
14 Mar 2007
Marky48
Permalink
Backcut Posted 7:24 am
14 Mar 2007
This seems to be EXACTLY what Al is experiencing in the NYT.
Maybe if Grist ever posts another story about forests, I'll add more substance to my posting history but, for now, some people here just don't wanna know just how bad our forests have gotten. Of course, no one bothered to look at links to pictures I have posted, showing how bad it has gotten.
8^X
LURKmode=/ON
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Marky48 Posted 10:25 am
14 Mar 2007
Marky48
Permalink
engt Posted 10:28 am
14 Mar 2007
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:49 am
14 Mar 2007
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/3/1/15735/74564
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:50 pm
14 Mar 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Baby Boomer Posted 6:28 am
15 Mar 2007
Check out The Daily Howler for Bob Somersby's analysis of this pitiful article. As a former journalist, I grieve for the level of reporting at the NYT.
Permalink
heathblue Posted 7:40 am
15 Mar 2007
I do have to say that I don't agree with this paragraph in your post Mr. Roberts:
"Then, after a few paragraphs showing that the mainstream scientific community largely supports Gore's movie, and that neither they nor he senses any "backlash," we come to ... the skeptics. Richard Lindzen. Bjorn Lomborg. Naturally, they say what they say. But didn't Broad promise earlier that criticism came "not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists"? I'm still waiting for the rank-and-file to show up."
Lindzen and Lomborg are legitimate members of the scientific community who do recognize the importance of global warming as a threat to civilization as we know it but do also provide balanced criticisms of global warming theory.
Just my 2 cents.
Permalink
Marky48 Posted 2:18 pm
15 Mar 2007
Well, this is no feather your cap healthblue, nor theirs. Scientific veiwpoint is innacurate though. It's a media viewpoint. In science, as Naomi Oresekes showed in her survey of peer-reviewed papers on the subject, none refuted climate change. That's because in science they can't. In the easily coopted media they can carry a false balance weight. Like the Dodo it doesn't fly well.
Marky48
Permalink
Evandream Posted 7:41 pm
07 May 2007
Evan Dream, Fsbo Real Estate Inc. Web-programmer
Permalink