tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post5335061678668568268..comments2023-10-04T03:49:15.384-06:00Comments on Environmental Journalism Now: Bill Broad to Al Gore: "cool the hype"CEJ Adminhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04017381382025138213noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-6161134036745461062009-06-24T02:17:08.719-06:002009-06-24T02:17:08.719-06:00Yep, let’s take back gore’s award for documentary ...Yep, let’s take back gore’s award for documentary and give him the award for best science fictionSkywayonlinehttp://www.skywayonline.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-39487399313692037272008-12-22T14:34:00.000-07:002008-12-22T14:34:00.000-07:00HI Al Gore is certainly a good environmentalist bu...HI Al Gore is certainly a good environmentalist but the theory that carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming is so stupid that it fails to hold water.<BR/><BR/>Carbon dioxide has the most important role in global warming but as the measurer or thermometer only.<BR/><BR/>As the world warms or cools the ability of carbon dioxide to rest in the water varies.<BR/><BR/>If you boil water, all gases are driven off. As the water gets cold so more and more gases get absorbed.<BR/><BR/>Carbon dioxide is a measure of what's happening but has nothing to do with the cause.<BR/><BR/>We are talking of extremely low levels of gas shifting up and down a few per cent either side of 0.03 percent of the total gas in the air.<BR/><BR/>As part of the carbon cycle it quickly gets "fixed" in any case.<BR/><BR/>The hype about carbon values or carbon bonds or whatever the current fashion is is just a new way of taxing "Jack in the Street".<BR/><BR/>Don't we alredy pay far too much for fuel anyway?<BR/><BR/>What happened to the nuclear technology that would make power too cheap to meter.<BR/><BR/>Todays lie is carbon dioxide causes global warming just as much as yesterdays lies about cheap power.quicksilverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05119450121214867658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-986271856361986222008-10-10T10:22:00.000-06:002008-10-10T10:22:00.000-06:00Bolt is a smart guy but he is paid to write contro...Bolt is a smart guy but he is paid to write controversially in a conservative Melbourne paper. There's a broader agenda to his criticisms of Gore's film.<BR/><BR/>I was impressed by the case made in An Inconvenient Truth. The mounting evidence of melting polar ice caps and the projected images of coastal flooding was the most frightening aspect.<BR/><BR/>And Gore kept qualifying his warnings with statements like "even in a best case scenario..." He really slammed the climate change sceptics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-76770394451756742872008-08-19T04:59:00.000-06:002008-08-19T04:59:00.000-06:00Good Job! :)Good Job! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-17624256660864353112008-04-20T13:06:00.000-06:002008-04-20T13:06:00.000-06:00payday loan credit<A HREF="http://kaban.yoyohost.com" REL="nofollow">payday loan credit</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-76000584053938995412007-10-26T13:14:00.000-06:002007-10-26T13:14:00.000-06:00Thanks to author.Thanks to author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-83440647905897640242007-10-26T13:00:00.000-06:002007-10-26T13:00:00.000-06:004VaOO9 Nice Article.4VaOO9 Nice Article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-25229158769985246942007-10-26T12:00:00.000-06:002007-10-26T12:00:00.000-06:00GesS7X Nice Article.GesS7X Nice Article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-8567490046334322572007-10-26T01:35:00.000-06:002007-10-26T01:35:00.000-06:00OKzp2l Your blog is great. Articles is interesting...OKzp2l Your blog is great. Articles is interesting!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-8625846969183590062007-03-15T16:19:00.000-06:002007-03-15T16:19:00.000-06:00To answer your question, Tom, I think there was a ...To answer your question, Tom, I think there was a perfectly reasonable story there about how the small band of denialist scientists didn't like AIT and how even the leaders of the climate science community think there were some minor problems. The theme of the story could have been the question of whether AIT would have been as effective if Gore and the producers had made sure to be completely reflective of the scientific uncertainties. They could have been asked that question directly, and who knows, Roger and Kevin might even have had something useful to contribute on that (IMHO) much more interesting albeit decidedly less "yellow" point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-10152821319849530782007-03-15T16:10:00.000-06:002007-03-15T16:10:00.000-06:00John, recall that Roger's point is not that Gore i...John, recall that Roger's point is not that Gore is polarizing in general (which is what your characterization implies, and which I would agree is an uncontroversial observation) but "in the *science community*." The evidence on that would seem to be to the contrary.<BR/><BR/>This is just more of the same stuff that gets Roger in trouble with the self-same science community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-77419523303891307522007-03-15T11:22:00.000-06:002007-03-15T11:22:00.000-06:00Steve -Your obsession with Roger's comment seems f...Steve -<BR/><BR/>Your obsession with Roger's comment seems frankly a little bizarre, and a classic case study for the "Pielke watch" feature over at Inkstain.<BR/><BR/>I read him to be saying something that I find completely uncontroversial - that Al Gore has become a polarizing figure in this scientized debate.John Fleckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01945772782727225745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-82449406097623318852007-03-14T16:55:00.000-06:002007-03-14T16:55:00.000-06:00As far as I can tell, Easterbrook is a well known ...As far as I can tell, Easterbrook is a well known geoscientist. He even has a Geological Society of America award named after him. True, it's because he endowed it. But the GSA would not have gone along with this if Easterbrook were not a credible scientist who is respected in his field. <BR/><BR/>I think the paper you are referring to must be the one he delivered at a GSA conference last year — "Causes of Abrupt Global Climate Changes and Global Warming: Predictions for the Coming Century." In it, he does seem to be arguing that solar cycles are more important than CO2 in influencing climate shifts during the 20th century, and he predicts a cooling from 2006 to 2035. That certainly puts him in a small minority of climate scientists.<BR/><BR/>Is he a credible scientist? It seems so. Are his ideas legitimate? Well, his peers seem to think so, since they accept his papers for presentation at conferences. Is he right? I'm not a scientist, so that's not for me to say. All I can say, as a journalist, is that his ideas on this subject seem to lie outside the mainstream of scientific thought at the moment. <BR/><BR/>But the real issue is how Broad used him in his story. And I will just reiterate what I've been saying all along, and what many other critics of the story have been saying: Broad misleads his readers into thinking that the sources he uses to debunk Gore's presentation are centrists on the climate change issue. Most if not all very clearly are not.<BR/><BR/>So a question for you: Under what circumstances would it be okay to quote a credible scientist like Easterbrook on climate change? A more pointed way of asking it: Should we journalists ignore scientists whose ideas fall outside the mainstream on a question like climate change? <BR/><BR/>My opinion: We should report credible, peer reviewed science that falls outside the consensus, because it is always possible that the consensus is wrong. On many scientific issues, it frequently has turned out to be wrong. I don't think that's going to be the case with the overall picture of climate change. But the devil is in the details, and many of those details are still the subject of great uncertainty. <BR/><BR/>We certainly should avoid falling victim to false balance in our stories. And we must make sure readers understand where our sources sit before we tell them where they stand. In other words, if a scientist sits with a small band of skeptics, that has to be clear.<BR/><BR/>Broad seems to be on a false balance campaign. And he misled his readers about where his sources sit. <BR/><BR/>-- TomCEJ Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04017381382025138213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-3687397423485748712007-03-14T15:06:00.000-06:002007-03-14T15:06:00.000-06:00Tom, I'm curious about your view of Broad's use of...Tom, I'm curious about your view of Broad's use of Don Easterbrook as a poster boy for mainstream nervousness about Gore. David Roberts and I had the exact same thought upon first reading the article: Who is Don Easterbrook, is he credible and (most importantly) what are his views on global warming? Much to our mutual surprise, about 3 minutes on Google Scholar turned up material showing that Easterbrook not only rejects the IPCC consensus as to the role of CO2 but endorses the long-discredited solar hypothesis. I cannot imagine that Broad was unaware of this, and yet he proceeded to present the "rank and file" Easterbrook as part of the scientific mainstream. Later in the article, he described an Easterbrook presentation to "hundreds" of scientists (IMO trying to imply that those scientists must endorse Easterbrook's views). Easterbrook's credibility is further enhanced when Broad quotes him as denying being in the pay of oil companies or even being a Republican. (On the oil company point, note that Pat Michaels happily makes the same denial since he's in the pay of the *coal* industry.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-54518294482682841642007-03-14T11:34:00.000-06:002007-03-14T11:34:00.000-06:00Hmm, so will Roger be asking for a correction? In...Hmm, so will Roger be asking for a correction? In any case, as Andrew points out there is little evidence in favor of the view that there's even nervousness about Gore acting as a front man for climate scientists. The only broad evidence that I'm aware of is the reception Gore got at the AGU in December. Add to that the fact that Broad was unable to come up with anybody willing to be substantially critical of Gore who is substantially in the climate science mainstream, and it becomes difficult for Roger to make a case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-77399390837347964872007-03-14T09:11:00.000-06:002007-03-14T09:11:00.000-06:00FYI, I blogged about this here.I guess the problem...FYI, I blogged about this <A HREF="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/13/8637/52346" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>I guess the problem I have with all of this is that there really is no evidence that scientists are uncomfortable with Gore. <BR/><BR/>Kevin Vranes' initial post contained no evidence, just Kevin's "sense" that there was "tension" in the scientific community. And the scientists quoted by Broad are not, in any sense, middle of the road. In fact, they are all quite extreme.<BR/><BR/>So I'd be more likely to take all this seriously if there was some evidence to back it up.<BR/><BR/>RegardsAndrew Desslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06930067023788250505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-68048090828534886092007-03-14T08:48:00.000-06:002007-03-14T08:48:00.000-06:00Many thanks for pointing out this error. You are a...Many thanks for pointing out this error. You are absolutely right. My mistake. Even so, Spencer mischaracterizes what the NRC said, although this is not as egregious as saying that the IPCC adds up to so little. <BR/><BR/>As for Roger's quote, he says he was referring not to polarization among scientists over Gore's portrayal of the science per se but of a bigger issue: Losing control of their science to politicians and other advocates. Roger argues that it makes some very uneasy to see an advocate like Al Gore present their science in such a partisan way, whereas others are not so concerned because they feel he's doing a better job of popularizing than they could do. <BR/><BR/>-- TomCEJ Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04017381382025138213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377722265453627416.post-8031744008007109882007-03-14T04:00:00.000-06:002007-03-14T04:00:00.000-06:00The Spencer quote referred not to the SPM but to t...The Spencer quote referred not to the SPM but to the NRC report on the temp record. The argument is slightly different, but it's still the case that what Gore said is not contradicted by the latter (although not strongly supported by it either). Certainly the consistency is better with the stronger language in the SPM. <BR/><BR/>Also, are you really going to let Roger off the hook for that polarizing remark? He truly had no basis to say such a thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com