In the right-wing tabloid New York Post, movie critic Kyle Smith has a review of An Inconvenient Truth that virtually defies mockery. It almost invites sympathy.
Right off the bat, there's this:
But there is wide disagreement about whether humans are causing global warming (climate change preceded the invention of the Escalade) and about whether we should be worried about the trends.
Um, no there isn't.
His implication that he is our only hope ... is ridiculous.
What implication? What possible fever dream did Smith pull this from?
For jaw-dropping ignorance, this is probably the coup de grace:
Global warming hasn't noticed that we got the lead out of our gasoline or that Stage One smog days in Los Angeles fell from 121 in 1977 to zero in 2004. All regulations and taxes to date have done nothing. Does this hint that pollution isn't the cause?
First of all, regulations and taxes are the reason smog days fell in Los Angeles. Second of all, who the %&$! ever said smog causes global warming? Third of all ... oh, screw it.
This is the funniest bit:
He assesses the tradeoff between the economy and the environment with the kind of buffoonery you'd expect in a Marxist comic book, displaying a cartoon of a scale with Earth on one side and bars of gold on the other.
Gore, you may recall, says that there is no tradeoff between the economy and the environment. The cartoon -- which Gore is using to mock that notion -- was pulled from a Bush administration presentation. It is the administration's assessment that is buffoonery. You really stepped on a rake there, Kyle.
How about this:
Why doesn't he get specific and replace the "gold bar" side of the scale with, say, a $50,000 tax on SUVs? The ensuing destruction of the car business would hurt blue-collar workers, not the rich.
A tax on SUVs would destroy the car business? Aren't the carmakers that don't focus on SUVs dominating the car business? Wait, and if the car business were destroyed, no rich people would be hurt? Don't rich people own the car business? And wait, isn't the point to slow global warming, not hurt the rich?
Gore says that America, alone, is the problem.
[Sound of my finger going up and down on my lips making that burbblety sound]
Here's a doozie:
"We have to think differently about war," he says, referring to environmental effects of weapons. "We can't just mindlessly continue the patterns of the past." It's a chilling statement: Even when bombs are flying, Gore promises to measure CO2 first.
Let's see: Gore wasn't "referring to the environmental effects of weapons." He was making a philosophical point: that more powerful technologies should make us think differently about how we behave. Somehow, somewhere, perhaps up his own rear, Smith found some kind of implication that Gore is ... a traitor? Too concerned with nature to drop nukes on people? Something? I honestly can't even tell.
And finally:
The final shot of Gore shows him bravely silhouetted against the cosmos, a lone figure tenderly surveying the firmament.
No. The final shot of Gore does not show him silhouetted against the cosmos. That's a hurricane, dumbass.
You may think it's a waste of time taking this column apart. But even though nearly every sentence is wrong, it's worth examining. This is the far-right id. This is what's floating around the heads of College Republicans. There's no attempt to address the science presented in the movie, no indication of worrying, caring, or even engaging at all with the issue. There's just pure, reptile-brain partisan warfare, an attempt to take a perceived ideological enemy down a peg.
Li'l Kyle is obviously a media browshirt who got pushed out of the VRWC nest too early, before he was ready to pontificate without training wheels (to mix metaphors). But he's not an anomaly. You want to know why global warming is a partisan issue? Because there are thousands and thousands of Kyles out there.
Climate Citizen: Mary Stuart Masterson
Reactions to Al Gore’s book o’ solutions, “Our Choice”
The must-read solutions book by Al Gore
Comments
View as Flat
bookerly Posted 6:15 pm
04 Jun 2006
What the heck is this? I must be getting old.
There are thousands and thousands of Kyles because rich people with lots of money spend it nuturing and encouraging them.
Be afraid.
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:01 pm
04 Jun 2006
Fear is indeed in order, Patrick. As you have just pointed out on another thread, the Republican worldview does not include many elements. But they are all either socially divisive. Or can be spun that way, as when here, Gore's concern for CO2 emissions is somehow interpreted to mean that he would cripple America's ability to defend itself. It is obvious that what fiercely unites these people, in spite of whatever they may disagree about, is a determination to win decisively, and to stay in power forever. And with that end in mind, they are prepared to say and do all kinds of nonsense. And of course they dare not listen to, trust or even like anyone whom Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, etc., have warned them against.
David made an excellent point, in his post on the Yale document's partisanship section, that the Democratic-voting citizenry have no problem with bipartisan leadership on this issue. It is the Republicans who are holding things up.
Permalink
bryankwalton Posted 12:16 am
05 Jun 2006
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Permalink
mihan Posted 12:29 am
05 Jun 2006
Education: Kids are seldom taught science in a way that connects it to their daily lives, leading them to believe that science is both boring and irrelevant.
Culture: This is a pet peeve of mine. To be called "culturally educated," you must be aware of global politics, have read a recent book, and/or have seen a film-festival film. Maybe be familiar with a Shakespeare play. At a cocktail party, these are all fair game for stimulating, adult conversation. But bring up any current scientific topic? "I don't know anything about that" is an acceptable response. When I was a grad student, English majors would expound upon (and expect me to follow) their theses; when I brought up my research, the response was, "Oh, that could be interesting." Science literacy is not seen as a necessity in this culture, and, even worse, science illiteracy is seen as acceptable.
The result is that there are people (like Kyle) who believe that scientists are saying that pollution/lead/the ozone hole are causing global warming, and people who don't know that this is BS.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:38 am
05 Jun 2006
Thanks also for explaining on another thread that E=mc^2 is not so obviously easy a solution to energy problems as another contributor would have us believe. I suspected as much, but of course I am not a physicist of any kind, let alone a bona fide one.
Permalink
kmp Posted 4:21 am
05 Jun 2006
Would that even this low standard were true. Maybe I am going to the wrong cocktail parties, but I read voraciously, see the occasional art-house film, have a pretty decent grasp of world politics and know my Hamlet from my MacBeth. However, I am often lost these days in cocktail-party conversations, because I don't really watch a lot of TV. (Not that I don't enjoy a good dose of cheesy entertainment now and then, it's just that I'm so rarely home!)
Survivor, American Idol, LOST, 24, The Sopranos, Desperate Housewives, Will & Grace.... etc, etc, etc. All these shows that I have never seen (or often have never heard of) are what people stand around and chat about. The shows, the plotlines, the actors, the love lives of the actors, the weight/drinking/drug problems of the actors.
Try to bring up the global energy crisis in a crowd discussing whether or not Jennifer Aniston is upset about Shiloh. Even better, ask "who?" like I did recently - but only if you can handle incredulous stares and a lot of "me-time."
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:24 am
05 Jun 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
btrygg Posted 7:10 am
05 Jun 2006
I loved science and hope that everyone has at least a basic understanding of ecosystems, but don't leave the English majors out here! We too have an important function in the Environmental Movement. Maybe more emotional ties to the environment they live in will bring those VRWCs into the fold. What better way to do that (especially for those who aren't science literate) than to appeal to them in writing. Take our wonderful Grist for example...
Permalink
mihan Posted 7:32 am
05 Jun 2006
My point is simply that it's "cool" to not know a thing about science, but if someone said, "yeah, I just don't read anything" it would seem odd.
kmp: I totally hear you! I don't have a teevee, and have had many experiences like the ones you describe. The only solution is to hang out with insulated academics, which has its own problems (see my previous comments). Maybe we should hang out?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:44 am
05 Jun 2006
Smith's piece does not reflect a failure of education. It represents the elevation of partisan character assassination over intellectual honesty and moral concern. People like Smith don't want to understand. They want to get back-slaps from their "team."
Y'all are giving him too much credit if you think he's the victim of simple misunderstanding.
www.grist.org
Permalink
dhwert Posted 7:47 am
05 Jun 2006
"Correction: an earlier version of this review incorrectly linked lead and smog to global warming."
Guess even VRWC fledglings can admit their wrong. Sort of. Eventually. On one thing.
Although I wouldn't mind jumping on the bashwagon, I would point out that this is ... the NY Post. Not usually known as a bastion of subtlety, intelligence, or thoughtful critique.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:04 pm
05 Jun 2006
Actually, everyone here is right (for a change (grin)). David is absolutely correct that Kyle is a paid hack and shill, and education won't change that.
But everyone who says that lack of education is part of the problem, they are all correct as well.
Scientists need to learn both how to and the importance of communicating with English and Sociology majors (hint, their votes count too).
Perhaps, we could use more collabrative efforts, across disciplines, to build a better informed world?
patrick
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 9:17 pm
05 Jun 2006
What we need is not a clearer explanaton of the science, but a clearer explanation of the motives and the money of those who are blocking policy change. Environmentalists would be more successful if they talked about property rights and rent-seeking.
Permalink
Chuckville Posted 3:23 am
06 Jun 2006
Remember the allegory of the Ant and the Grasshopper...
Winter is coming.
Charles Shaw
Author/Activist
Chicago, IL
Permalink
CowsEatGrass Posted 7:55 am
06 Jun 2006
However, and I hesitate a bit to even ask this question, is it worth responding to him with more "pure, reptile-brain partisan warfare, an attempt to take a perceived ideological enemy down a peg?"
This is kind of fun, and it makes us feel better, but I think those are the same primary motivations of most of the "young republicans" you refer to.
I'm not trying to downplay the role of ideology, but we Greens can be pretty passionate and thus pretty fun to poke in the ribs with these kind of comments because we come back with rections like this. (This is also why congress accomplishes so little, in my opinion.)
Are we missing a chance to discuss the real issue (perhaps science education?) with a reply like this coming from one of the best environmental publications out there?
Andy
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:10 am
06 Jun 2006
They're engaged in partisan warfare. They do this stuff because it works, and a timid, earnest, wonky response is pretty much what they expect. They're very practiced at polluting the public conversation, and progressives, no matter how many times it happens, keep acting like we're in an intellectual debate and not a knife fight. That's why we keep losing.
The substantive discussion about the existence of global warming, and our culpability for it, is over. It's settled. There are many details to be worked out, obviously, but the big picture is clear. Any of these Kyle Smiths could easily discover as much, with so much as five minutes of inquiry. They don't, because they don't care. They're simply not playing the same game as you.
At this point, it's about power and perception. The Kyle Smiths of the world must be mocked. They must be called out and shamed. Their smears and falsehoods must be redefined as socially unacceptable. They've spent decades defining environmentalists as commie hippies and liberals as traitorous and godless. You think they stopped to worry whether that was "appropriate"?
www.grist.org
Permalink
atreyger Posted 9:24 am
06 Jun 2006
The problem though, in reality, is that none of this is really going to affect the people who do not have a grasp of mathematics, chemistry, physics and climate science (which in turn would include biology, ecology, and some engineering knowledge). All of us could read all we want about it from both sides of the 'discussion', but none of us would still have any idea of what's actually going on. For example, I have no idea how CO2, CH4 or N2O are GHGs. I just know that they are, and the comparative effect of each, just like SO2 is a coolant (what with the aerosols and such).
How about the climate models that the climate researchers use? Do they account for everything? What DO they account for? There's almost no way for a layperson to know, and then even for many scientists. So you see what I frequently see in peer-reviewed journals: so-and-so has suggested that this effect is true. Let's see what happens on the periphery of that effect and try to feed it back into the whole picture. It may be very difficult for scientists to grasp more than their portion of the picture, harder for popular science type writers, and virtually impossible for someone who studies finance or works in a deli.
This is what feeds the entire 'discussion' - none of us (non-climatologists) really know what is going on. AND... the climatologists themselves only have a theory, which does not reinforce any belief in the god-fearing folk, along with the evolutionary theory.
I believe a statistician, apologies for not remembering his name, sometime ago said: "No one has ever paid for a standard error."
Well, in this case, people (climate change 'skeptics') are paying for a lack of standard error, with reviews the likes of Smith's being able to persist.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 10:27 am
06 Jun 2006
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:23 am
07 Jun 2006
Have you had a chance, yet, to see An Inconvenient Truth? If not, you should see it. The plot showing CO2 concentration, alongside global average temperatures, for the last however-many years, is convincing to anyone. You don't need any kind of science background to see that the patterns completely overlap, that one predicts the other, and that the whole pattern has been relatively predictable up until the last 50 years or so.
As stated in the movie, Gore's specific goal is to "identify obstacles" to people believing in global warming and to remove those obstacles. The CO2 plot alone, is very, very alarming, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could look at that and not be worried for the future. This makes a hatchet-job like Kyle Smith's article not just poor journalism, but unethical as well.
Kaela
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:55 am
07 Jun 2006
I have not seen it, but I am very familiar with all the graphs and suggestions. I was just saying that I am a (budding) scientist in the ecological field (non-climatology) and despite having read and seen plenty of papers about global warming and its effects (as well as learning about the feedback mechanisms and a lot of other factors) I cannot pretend to know anything about the models that are used to predict the effects. Also I still don't fully understand how the GHGs work (I have an idea, but physical chemistry is not my forte).
I can imagine the variables and relationships that would go into the models, but I know that they cannot account for everything. If they could, then they would no longer be a model, but the system. However, my point was not that I don't understand it, my point was that I don't fully understand it and I have quite a bit of education in a field that is somewhat related.
Imagine people who don't understand the science at all, including some of the people on this blog (I'm not trying to blame, each one of us has their own strengths). Then, as a result, what happens is that you have a lot of hand-waving from both sides, with polarization of the pro- and con- groups who don't know what's going on and are just listening to others (media, hearsay and the more educated ones - Popular Science and this movie type of information).
I guess my point is that if all of us would have a better education in science and math, then this problem would be reduced. After all, Americans are notorious for having one of the worst education systems in the developed world up until college. And definitely not everyone goes to college, and the ones that do tend to have a very narrow education in their field. Mihan was absolutely right.
Permalink
kmp Posted 3:41 am
07 Jun 2006
My point is this - every adult in this country could go out and get a PhD in climate science and it would not stop the debate. The debate is currently not fueled by scientific understanding or a lack thereof; it is fueled by greed, fear and old-fashioned contrariness. Organizations like CEI are paid by oil companies to foment dissent, pick apart facts, to make it appear that the science is not, or cannot, be understood. Much like our criminal defense system, they have only to plant the seed of "reasonable doubt" in the American psyche and CO2 is "innocent until proven guilty." Other skeptic organizations are driven by fear of change and fear of impacts on the profit-based bottom line. Hacks like Smith jump on the bandwagon for their own reasons - I won't pretend to understand them.
I use my Mom as my non-science sounding board whenever I need one. She is a great woman, my Mom, intelligent, caring, witty; but her artist's mind simply cannot grasp anything remotely scientific or technical (I still have to guide her step-by-step through clicking on a link in an email). I can guarantee that my Mom, lack of scientific understanding and all, would come out of this movie with the following knowledge:
We are steadily increasing global levels of CO2
CO2 concentration alone is predictive of global temperature
Increases in global temperature are bad
I think point #2 is the most important thing that I took out of the movie; notice I said "predictive" not "causative." I don't pretend to know how CO2 concentration in the air affects the complex and nuanced global climate. But it is clear from the plots over a vast length of time that global temperature and CO2 concentration are predictive of each other. And this point, I believe, will be obvious to anyone who sees the movie, regardless of his or her state of scientific education.
Permalink
CowsEatGrass Posted 3:53 am
07 Jun 2006
That said, your "commendable but naive" comment is a mischaracterization and a bit patronizing.
I don't think the author wants to have a real discussion, I think you're correct that he's looking for a knife fight. Why do you want to be a part of that? Just back away and let him flail until he stabs himself (as he did quite wonderfully in his editorial).
See the thing is that I agree the substantive discussion is over amongst scientists, but it's not in the minds of a lot of other folks. Most of the people you live and work with (in a big West Coast city at an environmental organizaion) probably get it, but that's not everybody. Some still don't care, and more pretend they don't care because they don't understand and don't want to be made a fool of by you or Kyle if they speak up.
You wouldn't need to mock Kyle if everyody knew he was an ass just be reading his piece. Until they do, why waste your time. I just don't see how it's productive. I didn't mean appropriate as in "proper" or "polite;" I meant to say that I don't think you're accomplishing what you really want to, unless it's simply to have fun, make yourself feel better, and make us laugh (at which it was likely a success).
I hesitated with the first post because mockery is one of my favorite pasttimes and I really think Grist does a good job at getting serious issues out there--maybe some fun is in order. I also think there's a real chance of missing or delaying a workable solution while tied up in a knife fight.
Andy
Permalink
CowsEatGrass Posted 4:09 am
07 Jun 2006
I think this is central to winning the minds of those who understand the complexity of the issue, but not the particulars.
Climate change proponents(??) still regularly conflate these and assume (for themselves) and advertise (to othes) that correlation implies causation. That will turn off any intelligent person. It doesn't make the problem any less real because this is not necessarily a cause and effect relationship. It just shows the hubris in our willingness to fundamentally alter systems that we know so very little about.
Andy
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:48 am
07 Jun 2006
I think you, like many, many smart and well-meaning people, underestimate how much of public "debate" takes place on a visceral, emotional, subconscious level. If one side is allowed to bully, lie, and mock, and other other is held to Robert's Rules of Order, the latter may be admirable, but they won't be victorious. A bully whose position is taken seriously becomes a serious part of the debate. Mockery is society's way of defining what's absurd, what's outside acceptable lines. Climate contrarians are taken seriously because they're taken seriously. It's time to stop engaging them earnestly, with carefully constructed arguments. It's time for some derision.
There are plenty of issues around climate change that warrant -- need -- careful debate. The existence of climate change is not one of them. We need to get past it.
www.grist.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:39 am
07 Jun 2006
I also lack molecular understanding of black body radiation. But I did see an experiment that demonstrated the infrared reflection or re-irradiation of CO2. I do believe that more CO2 is emitted from a warming climate, as was measured in England (soil emission). And it is reasonable to believe that CO2 is accumulating from coal power plants. I have not seen the numbers on this. So it comes down to confidence in the concurrence of scientists who have.
If A causes B and B cause C then it is safe to say that A is predictive of C. Is it proper in science to say A causes C?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:57 am
07 Jun 2006
The transitive verb "causes," however, can be easily qualified in very many ways; and therefore the same strict precision, the same sense of necessity, is inappropriate. If we understand by "causes" something absolute, "causes always, necessarily, without exception," then A is not only predictive of C, it does indeed cause C. But that is not what we normally mean by "causes." Suppose we wrote, "A sometimes causes B, and B sometimes causes C": in that case it is impossible, reasonably and practically, to determine the causal relationship between A and C. To assert persuasively that A is "predictive" of C, one would have to do a lot better than "sometimes." In the case at hand, regarding Kaela with her Point 2, Al Gore, and Al Gore's sources, I confidently accept that the "sometimes" has been determined with admirable precision, that it amounts to "much more often yes than no," and that therefore the predicate adjective "predictive" is entirely justified.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:09 am
07 Jun 2006
Permalink
KforKansas Posted 4:27 am
11 Jun 2006
Trying to convince the Kyles of the World is a zero sum game. They have professionally cement craniums and they are interested only in broadcast, not in conversation. Arguing with them is like arguing with your drunken uncle at the Thanksgiving table. It will only leave you with steam coming out your ears and him gleefully relishing your frustration. The more you try, the more stuck you get and the more energy he derives from your dilemma. Go ahead and critique his idiotic arguments, just because it feels good, lets off steam and besides, such battiness shouldn't go unchallenged. Just don't think you'll ever "win" anything, except a race on the Heartburn Express.
Deep, cleansing breath ...
Now, what might work is developing respectful, appreciative relationships with those who might be paying attention to the Kyles of the World and thinking they might know what they're talking about. I grew up with these guys, the working class white guys -- the oilfield workers, the farmers and mechanics and worker bees who keep this country humming while they're taking it up the bum and don't even seem to know it. Most of them are pretty nice people who love their country, love their families and communities and just want what they love to be safe and successful. Their utter defection to the Talk Radio Blab-Casters (Quick: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and the Hindenburg? One's an overheated gasbag and the other's a Zeppelin) and the ultra-right wing of the Republican party is more a commentary on the failures of moderate Republicans and Democrats than anything else. They'd even be environmentalists if Greens could figure out a way to talk to them without sneering.
Come up with policies and practices that benefit working class people, talk to them in a way that makes sense and respects their values and see how quickly the tide can turn. They're led by idiots right now because the idiots have taken the trouble to master exactly how to address them to make them feel important and smart. Our world is in grave peril right now and it could all be lost because we who genuinely care couldn't figure out how to involve working class people -- whose interests actually count more than anyone's in this debate bercause they have so few layers of protection between them and catastrophe -- without making them feel stoopid, clueless and inferior.
Sorry for the lengthy post -- sometimes my soapbox takes on a life of its own.
Devoted to a world that works.
Permalink