environment: denialists media irresponsibility Richard Muller
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 10, Day 28: Muller’s Earth
I grew up reading Popular Science (thanks to my Aunt Virginia, who gave me a gift subscription one Christmas and kept renewing it year after year). It was good to see them carry a clearly presented explanation of the UC/Muller study:
Last year, as climate change deniers were up in arms over the so-called “Climategate” controversy involving alleged manipulation of climate data, one skeptical scientist proposed taking a fresh look. Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California-Berkeley and a self-described climate skeptic, undertook to review the temperature data underlying most global warming studies. Now his team has wrapped up their work, and it apparently solidifies the other studies’ findings.
Actually, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project found the Earth is getting even warmer than other climate scientists claim.
The findings have neither been peer-reviewed nor published, so some skeptics and deniers are as yet unsatisfied, but Muller says the group has submitted the papers for publication. Meanwhile, the data is all online for anyone’s review.
I’ve never written to them before. This was fun. Sent October 24:
Now that the data on global warming has been confirmed once again, this time by a denialist-funded study led by prominent “skeptic” Richard Muller, the petro-funded anti-science talking points will have to change. We can say goodbye to “it isn’t happening, therefore it makes no sense to do anything about it,” and say hello to “nobody knows why it’s happening, therefore it makes no sense to do anything about it.”
While Dr. Muller and his colleagues made no attempt to attribute causality, this doesn’t mean that “nobody knows why it’s happening.” The scientific consensus on the primary drivers of global climate change is quite robust: it’s us — human beings, and our relentless consumption of carbon fuels.
Given the grave sociopolitical and environmental consequences of our fossil-fuel addiction, a shift to renewable energy is an absolute necessity even if we ignore global warming. All that is lacking is the will.
Warren Senders
environment: false equivalency media irresponsibility
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 10, Day 26: Your Lips Are Moving, But I Can’t Hear A Word You’re Saying.
Time Magazine offers Dominique Browning a chance to explain why people don’t talk too much about climate — and while her piece is reasonable enough, it largely ignores the elephant in the room:
There’s been much hand-wringing — but perhaps not enough soul-searching — among environmentalists about how climate change got to be the political third rail. The New York Times ran a lengthy piece asking “Where Did Global Warming Go?” which raised more questions than it answered.
Here is some more explicit finger-pointing, along with a few proposals. I speak as an informed, and deeply concerned, citizen; as a grumpy environmentalist fatoosted by my tribe; and as a person who has had a lifelong career in “communications.” But mainly, I’m up at night worrying about global warming because I’m a mom who hopes someday to have grandchildren. And I don’t like the terrifying mess my kids will face. (By the way, “climate change” is yesterday’s weak phrase; it doesn’t begin to convey the intensity of trouble that is now upon us. I’m going with “climate chaos.”)
{snip}
We know exactly why climate chaos has fallen off the national agenda. We’ve let it happen. And by “we” I mean everyone from environmentalists to doctors to scientists to teachers to politicians, to parents. There’s no one else to blame. We care about this issue. But we’ll be more ardent, and more focused, when the message is more urgent: we should fight global warming because our lives depend on it.
It’s a good piece, but…
Sent October 22:
Dominique Browning barely touches on the pivotal role of the corporatized news system in her attribution of causes for the decline in robust discussion of climate change in the United States. The deregulation begun under Ronald Reagan has put our media increasingly under corporate control, and the national interest has suffered dramatically thereby. Nowhere is this more telling than in the media’s handling of climate change, where false equivalency — the “balancing” of each scientifically-informed voice with a petroleum-funded one — has helped convince the public that the debate is “still open.”
With each new study (even ones funded by conservative climate denialists) confirming the planetary scientific consensus, any debate we should be having about climate change is no longer whether it’s real and dangerous, but what to do about this increasingly immediate threat. And any action on climate that ignores media reform condemns itself to ineffectuality.
Warren Senders
Aaaaaaand…………….they published it!
environment: denialists false equivalence media irresponsibility scientific consensus
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 29: Potayto, Potahto, Tomayto, Tomahto
The Bangor Daily News runs an excellent piece of analysis on why climate denialism is so deeply rooted in our contemporary culture. Spread this piece far and wide!
NEW YORK — Tucked between treatises on algae and prehistoric turquoise beads, the study on page 460 of a long-ago issue of the U.S. journal Science drew little attention.
“I don’t think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that,” the author recalls.
But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: “Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of “global warming” didn’t set off an instant outcry of angry denial.
In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the “greenhouse effect” is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened.
What’s going on?
Read it and weep. Here’s my response, sent Sept. 25:
While much climate denialism is simply rooted in people’s unwillingess to accept unpleasant news, we must also consider the role of the American news media. The principle of false equivalence facilitates journalistic irresponsibility: as long as both sides’ positions are reported, the reporter’s work is done, regardless of their truth or falsity.
However, the two positions in the climate change “debate” are not equally true. On one side: tens of thousands of climate experts from all over the world, building a robust scientific consensus with predictive power that have steadily increased over the past several decades. On the other: a few well-publicized contrarians amply funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Which is likelier? Thousands of climatologists all making spurious claims in order to get funding — or the world’s wealthiest corporations trying to rig the game, as they’ve done so many times before? Denialism is not supported by the facts.
Warren Senders
environment Politics: Al Gore denialists false equivalency media irresponsibility
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 22: He Told You So
The Whittier Daily News reports approvingly on Al Gore’s 24-hour climate reality marathon:
NO one packs more information into a slide show than Al Gore, who won an Oscar for his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006.
Gore, the leading voice on global climate change, was back at it last week with his 24-hour streaming video show “Climate Reality Project” (www.climaterealityproject.org) broadcast from 24 different locations in 13 languages Sept. 14 to Sept. 15.
While one right-wing blogger called it “death by PowerPoint,” I found it informative and worth a watch. If you missed it, you can catch re-runs on his website and on his Current TV channel. Not one fact will move you to act, but perhaps the avalanche of facts, quotes and paraphrases from just the “24th hour” presentation given by Gore himself from New York, will.
The link has an excellent set of bullet points that you would do well to copy and use over and over.
Sent September 18:
The corporate forces aligned to muffle Al Gore’s message are enormous. Through the misleading practice of false equivalency, in which two opposing sides are equated under the guise of journalism, many in our news and opinion media have abdicated their responsibility to the truth.
When the American public sees a one-to-one ratio of worried climate scientists and petro-funded denialists, it’s no wonder that there’s still “debate” on the veracity of climate change. But the correct proportion isn’t one-to-one; it’s more like ninety-seven to one. If ninety-seven heart specialists told you to quit smoking, and three said they wanted more tests…what would you do?
While some candidates explicitly reject science (or pretend to in order to curry the favor of primary voters), climate change’s terrifying consequences should remove this issue from the political arena. The vast majority of climatologists are telling us something important. Will we wake up and pay attention?
Warren Senders
environment: climatology denialists false equivalency media irresponsibility scientific consensus scientific method
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 11: I Didn’t Feel Like Writing Today, But I Did Anyway. So?
The Evansville IN Courier-Press runs a carefully neutral assessment of the state of scientific opinion on climate change and extreme weather:
The destruction wrought by Hurricane Irene has sparked another round of debate over global climate change, with believers advocating urgent action to address what they fear is a looming environmental catastrophe and doubters characterizing the issue as a hoax created to promote a political agenda.
And it is emerging as a major political issue, with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, leading in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, counting himself among those who doubt that burning fossil fuels has an impact on the earth’s climate.
“I don’t think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question,” Perry said during a stop in New Hampshire, home to the first-in-the-nation primary.
While a vast majority of climate scientists readily acknowledge that man is contributing to what they perceive as a problem by producing greenhouse gases, few at this stage are willing to declare that global climate change is leading to an increased frequency in hurricanes like Irene, although they don’t dismiss the possibility.
The comments include a great deal of idiocy. Sigh. This letter was written with multiple delays and a great drooping lack of motivation. But By Grabthar’s Hammer, I wrote it and sent it on September 8, whether I’m proud of it or not. Here you go:
America has a science problem. The overall level of scientific literacy in our country is shockingly low, a state of affairs that bodes ill not only for our country’s future, but that of the world as a whole. Nowhere is this more problematic than in reporting on climate change, a profoundly important issue for our species’ future. When scientists discuss the relationship between large-scale phenomena (like the greenhouse effect) and local events (a particular storm or some other form of extreme weather), they’ll use careful language that describes the relationship precisely, minimizing its emotional impact. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of climatologists are absolutely convinced that anthropogenic climate change will bring a drastic worldwide increase in extreme weather events — and that only rapid action can avert catastrophe. When news media give equal weight to the opinions of a few contrarians, it is both scientifically ignorant and deeply irresponsible.
Warren Senders
environment: analogies hurricane media irresponsibility
by Warren
2 comments
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 1: Variations On A Theme II
The August 28 Boston Herald addresses Irene with an AP article listing the people who’ve been killed so far along the storm’s path.
Too bad the planetary environment isn’t a missing white woman. So I sent them this version of the same concept on August 28:
If our media handled hurricanes as they’ve handled climate change over the past few decades, we’d be deafened by choruses of “hoax,” gratuitous mockery of storm warnings, and bland assertions that “scientists disagree” on the existence of tropical storms.
And if we discussed climate change the way we’re discussing Irene, our media would regularly update current threat levels, we’d disseminate advice on preparation, and plans for handling the future’s extreme weather events would be on everybody’s lips.
Extreme weather is short-term, fitting the needs of our 24-hour news cycle; climate is long-term and won’t adjust to our national case of ADD. But if we don’t substantially address climate change, the coming centuries’ news will be all weather, all the time.
Warren Senders
environment: analogies hurricane media irresponsibility
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 8, Day 31: Variation On A Theme I
The Worcester Telegram for August 28 has a routine AP article on my state’s preparation for Hurricane Irene:
BOSTON — Massachusetts prepared yesterday to get belted by Hurricane Irene as the weakened but still powerful storm spun up the East Coast, threatening to shut down bridges onto Cape Cod and dump a foot of water to the west.
Two thousand Massachusetts National Guard troops were activated Saturday, joining the 500 already deployed Friday. Meanwhile, President Obama declared a state of emergency in Massachusetts late Friday, meaning state and local storm response will be bolstered by federal aid.
I tossed off another version of my comparison for them and sent it along mid-afternoon on August 28:
If our nation talked about Irene like it’s talked about climate change, our print and broadcast media would be filled with pundits calling hurricanes a liberal hoax, sober voices agreeing that “scientific opinion is divided” on whether tropical storms actually exist, and cheerful assertions that gale-force winds and heavy flooding are actually good for us.
On the other hand, if we talked about global climate change like we’re talking about hurricane Irene, our news outlets would treat it as a legitimate emergency, updating threat levels regularly, helping people prepare for the worst, and offering perspectives on planning and preparedness for the coming centuries of extreme weather.
We can’t dismiss weather, since it happens to us every day. Climate, on the other hand, moves in years, decades, centuries and millennia, so it’s easier to ignore. Nevertheless, the threat is very real, and there is no more time to waste.
Warren Senders
environment: denialists hurricane idiots media irresponsibility
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 8, Day 30: Pay No Attention To The Cyclone Behind The Curtain
The August 26 New Jersey Star-Ledger opines about the advent of Hurricane Irene:
We can now add Hurricane Irene among the symptoms that scientists warned we’d experience as global warming occurs.
Wind of up to 100 mph, predicted to lash the East Coast. Ocean waves as high as 12 feet. That’s in line with what scientists have said, that hurricanes would become more severe as ocean temperatures rise.
The comments section is a wellspring of stupid.
Sent on August 28, just before going out to check the windows and yard for wind-susceptible debris. The storm will hit later today.
If America responded to Irene in the same way it has dealt with climate change over the past decades, our television, newspapers and talk radio would be filled with voices asserting that hurricanes are a liberal plot, dueling pundits agreeing that the “science isn’t settled” on the existence of tropical storms, and blithe platitudes about how 100 mph winds and massive tidal surges are actually good for us.
Now imagine that we responded to climate change the way we’re dealing with Irene. We’d hear about current threat levels regularly in the media. Advice on preparation would be widely disseminated; strategies for mitigating the storms of the coming centuries would be part of our national conversation.
And that’s the difference: weather can’t be ignored, while climate moves on too grand a scale for us to notice. But climate change will bring weather the likes of which we cannot imagine. Let’s get ready.
Warren Senders
environment Politics: biodiversity media irresponsibility prairies scientific method
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 8, Day 25: Cockroaches and Grasses?
More on the “Prairie grasses will do okay” story, this time from the August 7 Colorodoan, and featuring the researcher in charge describing his methodology. It’s pretty interesting:
CHEYENNE — On the plains west of here Thursday, plant physiologist Jack Morgan inspected some grasses growing on a plot surrounded by a hollow hoop beneath an array of small heaters suspended from metal rods.
“Can you hear the hissing sound?” he said. “That’s the sound of the CO2 being emitted. It does it at a controlled rate, and we measure it in the middle of that ring.”
What Morgan, a rangeland scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Fort Collins, really is measuring is how rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere as a result of climate change might alter how grasses and weeds grow in the western Great Plains – critical information for ranchers and cattle owners who could see their businesses reshaped by climate change.
There are, alas, negative consequences to positive consequences. Hence this letter, sent August 7:
Jack Morgan and his research team are offering something rare: a positive side-effect of climate change. While their findings of plant resilience are very welcome, it’s important to keep a sense of the larger picture. Increased drought resistance is crucial on a climatically altered planet, because there’ll be more droughts — along with more extreme weather of all sorts. The prognosis for Earth’s environment over the next millennia is pretty grim; extreme losses of biodiversity are probably inevitable, even if prairie grasses do better than expected.
Powerful forces in our media and politics have been actively denying the scientific basis of climate change predictions for many years. As the evidence keeps mounting, we’ll start hearing a “global warming is good for us” message instead, in which studies like Dr. Morgan’s will be misapplied to advocate against meaningful action on climate and energy issues. This must not be allowed to happen.
Warren Senders
environment Politics: corporate irresponsibility fee and dividend media irresponsibility
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 8, Day 21: In The Country Of The Crazy And Stupid…
In August 4th’s Quincy Patriot-Ledger (MA), D.R. Tucker discusses the eminently sensible fee-and-dividend approach to taxing carbon emissions:
In mid-June, more than 80 members of the Citizens Climate Lobby met with House and Senate members to seek support for a market-based, revenue-neutral solution. Under their proposal, known as “fee and dividend,” a gradually increasing fee would be charged on coal, oil and natural gas at the point of origin or import.
The fee would be set initially at $15 per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel.
Proceeds would be distributed as dividend checks to the public directly.
This fee will increase the cost of fossil fuels, but the dividend checks will reduce the impact on working families.
The state economy will reap benefits from increased investment in energy conservation and establishment of new companies developing renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. This proposal will create local jobs in energy conservation and renewable energy.
This revenue-neutral approach to addressing climate change is politically neutral, easing progressives’ concerns about the manipulation of emissions trading in cap-and-trade and assuaging conservatives’ fears about increasing the federal government’s role.
It’s the right action to take, a move that will pay dividends simultaneously to the consumer, the state economy and the environment.
“Eminently sensible” = doomed. Sent August 4:
Mr. Tucker’s prescription for an economically and environmentally sane climate policy is exactly correct. Unfortunately, as events over the past decade have demonstrated time and time again, sanity appears undervalued by our representatives in politics. If a fee-and-dividend approach to carbon emissions is to have a chance of succeeding, our print and broadcast media must do their job. The “balanced” model, with every scientifically informed expert countered by a paid shill from the petroleum industry, is both an intellectual and an environmental disaster. By convincing a plurality of Americans that the science “isn’t settled,” this approach has drastically degraded the quality of the discussion, bringing progress on environmental issues to an absolute standstill. The Jeffersonian ideal of a “well-informed citizenry” is crucial for a functioning democracy; when reporting on a threat as significant as climate change, our media must abandon irresponsible “false equivalency,” and rededicate itself to reporting scientific truth.
Warren Senders