Oy. Things are, as usual, happening faster than I can blog them. Before it gets too old, let me be the last person in the green blogosphere to link to this remarkable article in Newsweek. It's about the history of the global warming denial industry.
It's not remarkable because it uncovers any new information. Those playing close attention -- and reading sources like, ahem, Grist -- have known about this stuff for a long time. It's remarkable because it gathers it in one place and presents it forcefully, without the usual strained attempt to "balance" it with the same discredited arguments from the same discredited yahoos. Check out this Q&A from the live chat about the article:
White Stone, Va.: How can the responsible media best meet their "fairness/accuracy/'balance'" responsibilities in dealing with climate change deniers?
Sharon Begley: We haven't figured that out, have we? In my case, whether it's climate change or the latest fossil find, I believe that only those who do research in the given field are qualified to comment. Further, I don't think science is like political or social issues, where all views are of equal weight. To the contrary: in science, there really is a 'right' answer, tho it may take time to emerge, and journalists have a duty to tell readers what that answer is likely to be. Me, I don't do he said/she said, but delve into the arguments and see which has empirical merit. It's not that hard.
Well (and rarely!) said. Huge kudos to Begley. (Maybe you should write a letter to the editor thanking Newsweek -- I'm sure they're receiving tons of bile from the right as we speak.)
Two things I wanted to note in particular:
- First, Begley makes the crucial point that although the deniers are on the ropes, and have largely receded from mainstream coverage, they're still out there, still very busy, and still have a hold over crucial members of Congress.
- Second, check out this lamentable concluding paragraph:
Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that. If anything can, it will be the climate itself.
Argh. Not the usual framing: solving this problem is going to present ordinary Americans with huge costs. That is politically disastrous. We can profitably reduce carbon emissions. Tell your friends! Tell Begley! Tell the world!
What to make of the new climate poll
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Flat
Sean Casten Posted 5:29 am
08 Aug 2007
For those interested in lots more detail, check out Ross Gelbspan's 1998 book The Heat Is On, which was providing a pretty detailed overview of the denial industry almost a decade ago.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:36 am
08 Aug 2007
The Unseen Lies: Journalism As Propaganda
What I know, which is narrow, is that solar energy is cheaper than coal, five times cheaper than oil.
Permalink
plum Posted 6:03 am
08 Aug 2007
Another point I've noted elsewhere, especially among the scientist types; she doesn't have the stereotypical hippie aversion to carbon sequestration. That alone should be enough to convince people we're not your granny's greenies.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:18 am
08 Aug 2007
If the CO2 erupts onland near a city, everybody suffocates and dies.
If the CO2 goes down into the ocean floor, who knows what thats going to do to ocean chemistry.
And the ocean holds thousands more times the carbon thats currently in the air. You mess that up too far either direction and we are dead.
_
Besides which, much like cellulosic ethanol, the concept with "clean coal" is to sell people on building conventional coal plants NOW, with the faux promise of making it better in the future.
Even without the massive expenses of carbon capture, coal is already expensive compared to renewables, now that new plants have to comply with the clean air act.
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:34 am
08 Aug 2007
He was disappointed when I asked him what was under his thumb.
Permalink
sindark Posted 5:14 am
15 Aug 2007
While I certainly agree that climate change needs to be tackled, I do not think this is a realistic position. The Stern Review projects that mitigating climate change will cost about 1% of GDP per year. While a few companies - those making solar panels, for instance - will profit from the re-allocation of resources, it is unrealistic to expect that it will cause net growth in the economy.
This is especially true if we believe that deep cuts are required by 2020.
Arguing that mitigation will be low-cost and painless is also a strategy likely to come back and bite if and when it proves more costly than the most optimistic estimators expected.
Permalink