Well done.  But I must protest when you write:

"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.

hypotheses, plural.  If you're going to troll, you could at least be grammatically correct.

Revkin had a pretty bad piece some time ago that Roberts took apart quite effectively with a strong dose of humor. The difference is that Revkin is a good journalist with a strong track record on climate change who wrote a bad article.

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

Focusing again on Broad's treatment of Easterbrook, note that while avoiding making any reference to his outre scientific views (and hey, where's my hat tip?), Broad made several characterizations seeking to portray Easterbrook as somehow representative of the scientific rank and file.  I think that shows intent.

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.

"It's got all the hallmarks of a vintage Gore hit piece: half-truths, outright falsehoods, unsubstantiated quotes, and a heaping dose of innuendo."
Gosh. It sounds JUST like Gore's movie!

I wrote this piece last night -- I didn't see all the comments from the earlier post until this morning. Not only were we thinking the same thing about Easterbrook, but me and Benny Big Eye simultaneously came up with the same Batman and Robin analogy! Great minds ...

www.grist.org

NYT ran with WMD in Iraq.  These lies about Gore look yellow.  I wonder about the personalities on the Board of Directors.

Hansen and Oppenheimer's quotes in the article?  Though not red meat, they do seem a bit reluctant...

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.

I certainly plan to contact the Times about this.  I buy the Tuesday edition every week because the Science Times reporting is usually very good (although prone to over-enthusiasm at times); this is an embarassment.  The offense is particularly grievous since Broad wrote nearly the same piece once before, talking about the "sensible middle" position on GHG, and was roundly mocked for it.

"Us foresters get the same thing from "preservationists", with rhetoric and dogma as extra icing on top."

And us fish biologists know what department to blame for no fish. Guess who?

Marky48

please, let's not make this into yet another discussion of forestry and fish.

www.grist.org

Dave Roberts starts his dissection of the NYT piece by Broad by claiming:

"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."

...is critical in newspaper journalism, Eddie P.  Look at the hed and look at the relative placement of the critic/supporters.  The worst is that the critics are placed on the same scientific plane as the supporters, which was a screaming conscious distortion on the part of both writer and editor.  FYI Hansen, Kolleen and Oppenheimer are leading climate scientists; the other are not (although it's fair to distinguish Lindzen from the other critics in that he has a large corpus of respected work, albeit tempered by a quixotic 20-year pursuit of a wacky global warming hypotheses).  

I agree with all those who advocate your taking the time to seek getting a version of this published in the MSM -- including the NYTimes.  Perhaps the NYPost wouldn't mind publishing an attack piece on The Times ... The Village Voice??

In any event, appreciated reading this. Thank you.

>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

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.

And at the heart of the matter is...

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!

Chill dude!  And don't paint all of us with the same brush:
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.

David, please do write a letter to the editor of the NYT. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with such bunk.

Thanks, Laurence Aurbach, for the encouraging link to the Huffington Post.  Not surprisingly, DR's long post has received a warm response from the readers there -- whether because they tend to approve of Al Gore's work, or because they mistrust the New York Times, seems to vary.

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!

caniscandida,

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!

Two "g"s. Sorry.

Forward!

>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.

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.

Hit post too soon. I know that phrase I quoted was not backcut, but seems to be backing him up. I want to backcut, just one freaking time to explain his position.

Backcut's first post linked to Pactrick Moore - which did not enhance his credibility. I'd be happy to judge his arguments on their merits instead of who he linked to if he ever made an argument instead of personal attacks.

what any of this has to do with the NYT piece criticizing Gore is utterly beyond me.

www.grist.org

First as to Moore on Clear Cutting:

>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.

sorry - the last post was made before yours.

Forests are carbon sinks. When you clearcut them they get hotter and release CO2. That's the opposite of what is needed now. I'm a professional watershed surveyor and fish biologist who has worked on 7 national forests and the BLM. I've routinely found old growth trees marked too close to the riparian zone. Anyway you cut it, replacing old growth multiple stage mature forests with a patchwork monoculture tree farm is a bad move for all involved.

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

After reading that NYT article, I am definitely writing a letter to the editor! I will applaud them for finally publishing something that stands up to the basic principles of journalistic ethics. I, like many scientists, am overwhelmed by how much meteorological misinformation is being used to garner grant money, get oneself published (if it's dire, then we'll print it higher!), and promote agendas that have nothing to do with the climate.

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.

Gar is correct on the fuels. Our forests are in terrible shape. I worked on the Lassen. There is salvage in the name of the national fire plan with clearcut size exceptions to the 20 acre rule. Link enough of those and it's still the akin to a dog with mange. David because he's saying Gore and his ilk are full of it and wingnuts aren't. Isn't that what Broad was portraying? Isn't he saying global warming is just treehugger BS? Your call.

Marky48

Gar is correct on the fuels. Our forests are in terrible shape. I worked on the Lassen. There is salvage in the name of the national fire plan with clearcut size exceptions to the 20 acre rule. Link enough of those and it's still the akin to a dog with mange. David because he's saying Gore and his ilk are full of it and wingnuts aren't. Isn't that what Broad was portraying? Isn't he saying global warming is just treehugger BS? Your call.

Marky48

I looked at your pictures and saw only rock and ice, which is generally what our wildernss areas are. The forests are another matter and if you're saying they've been hosed then we agree.

Marky48

I started to read this piece but gave up in disgust once I realized what it was. Didn't know about Broad until now, but I won't get fooled again. It's too bad that most of the people who read the article probably swallowed the bait - hook, line and sinker. I wonder if anyone bothered to send a letter to the editor of the Times?

The New York Times. The mass delusional newspaper of record.  Recording mass delusion even before  the Jason Blair scandal precipitated the shift to "fair and balanced" reportage.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

It's really hard for an older reformed semi hippy to follow blogs because people do grab the subject and change it to their passion.

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.

I think this NYT article is a great example of the media study that Gore talks about in his movie.  Just to refresh everyone's memory and to inform the folks who fell asleep after Gore presented his first slide, a separate study of 636 articles about climate change written in newspapers found that 53% of them gave at least equal weight to the 'scientific viewpoint' that global warming was not happening or had natural causes.  The article may not come right out and say that there are scientists that don't believe global warming is happening but it has that effect.  

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.

"a separate study of 636 articles about climate change written in newspapers found that 53% of them gave at least equal weight to the 'scientific viewpoint' that global warming was not happening or had natural causes."

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