Debunking the NYT's sloppy hit piece on Gore

The gray lady gets it woefully, laughably wrong

Posted by David Roberts at 8:46 AM on 13 Mar 2007

Read more about: Al Gore | climate | climate change skepticism | climate science

Yesterday, Drudge breathlessly reported a coming "hit on Gore" from The New York Times. Today that hit has come, in the form of a state-of-the-art piece of slime from Bill Broad.

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. As usual with these things, unless you've been following the debate carefully, you'll be left with a false impression -- in this case, that scientists are divided over the accuracy of Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth.

I find it difficult to believe that Broad doesn't know exactly what he's doing here. (See RealClimate for a discussion of one of his previous travesties.)

I could go almost sentence by sentence, but let's just run through some of the highlights. I apologize for the length, but there's really a lot of trash here to shovel through.

Here's the central thrust: "... part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous."

All right, so let's see some exaggerated and erroneous claims, right?

Things start promisingly, as the article names one of these critics: Don J. Easterbrook, professor of geology. Easterbrook said, "there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing [from Gore], and we have to temper that with real data." What inaccuracies? Astoundingly, the article doesn't cite a single alleged inaccuracy until 28 paragraphs later. It's this:

[Easterbrook] hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

But Gore never said (as far as I know, no one has ever said) that the temperature swing in the last century is the widest temperature swing ever. Gore's point is that the global average temperature has never shifted so much so quickly -- about ten times faster than previous swings. That speed, after all, is the primary evidence of human involvement.

So we have exactly one "inaccuracy," and it's based on a thuddingly obvious misunderstanding.

Here's something else you never hear about Easterbrook in the piece: he doesn't believe human GHG emissions are causing current global warming. That's fine. More power to him. But it puts him way outside the scientific mainstream; the recent IPCC report put confidence in the culpability of human GHGs at between 90-99%. Does Easterbrook's ... idiosyncratic stance on the basic science of climate change not warrant a mention, since he is the critic most prominently featured? Apparently not.

Moving on. Many of Gore's critics, the piece says, "occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots."

Sound familiar? You just know what's coming next, right? Yup, brace yourselves for Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee:

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration.

...

"[Gore]'s a very polarizing figure in the science community," said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center.

Let's be frank here. Vranes -- Robin to Pielke Jr.'s Batman -- is a climatologist only under a strained definition of that term; he's published little peer-reviewed work and mainly blogs (like me!). The only reason anyone knows his name is that he once had a "sense" that scientists had "oversold" climate science -- a sense not shared by other climate scientists. Why is Vranes' sensation worth reporting? God knows, but google around a bit and you'll see it's made Vranes famous.

As for the next 'graph, where to begin? First, Roger Pielke Jr. is not an "environmental scientist." He's not a scientist of any kind, though he's got a track record of encouraging that misapprehension. RPJr. is a policy guy who spends most of his time blogging and getting quoted in the media. Given that he's not a scientist, why should anyone care what he thinks is going on "in the science community"? Shouldn't we hear from an actual scientist about that?

I know Gore "polarizes" the conservative political community, with whom RPJr. incessantly plays footsie, but as this trainwreck of an article illustrates, there aren't too many mainstream scientists willing to talk about how polarizing Gore is.

OK, let's take stock. So far, to establish that "part of [Gore's] scientific audience is uneasy," we have a gross misunderstanding from one scientist who doesn't believe GHGs cause global warming, and the unsubstantiated quotes of two well-known media hounds. And that's what Broad led with.

Some 12 paragraphs in, we finally hear from mainstream climate scientists. What do they say?

"He has credibility in this community," said Tim Killeen ... director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a top group studying climate change. "There's no question he's read a lot and is able to respond in a very effective way."

Kinda puts a new spin on things, huh? At least for the three people who read this far into the piece.

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.

Then comes another cheap shot: "Some of Mr. Gore's centrist detractors" -- Who? No names offered. -- "point to a report last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ... [which] portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process." But Gore, "citing no particular time frame, envisions [sea level] rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent."

Notice that all the work here is being done by the weasel phrases "citing no particular time frame" and "at least visually." Of course, as those awake during the movie know, Gore cited no time frame because he was talking about what could happen if the Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets pass a tipping point and melt quickly, as many scientists fear. As Gore noted -- you know, verbally -- nobody knows when or if that tipping point will be passed. But I guess he "implied" otherwise. Visually.

Another cheap shot: "So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore's portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium." Did the NAS report contradict Gore? No, it did the exact opposite. Here's a quote from the report:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence ... Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

At this point Broad appears to be regurgitating right-wing talking points without even, as they say, using the google.

If you can believe it, it gets worse. Next we hear that "other critics" take issue with Gore's claim that fossil fuel companies have conspired to obscure evidence of climate change, and that "virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits." Remember, in the movie Gore cited a study by Naomi Oreskes that showed that out of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on some aspect of climate change, exactly ... none disputed the basic consensus. But, Broad tells us:

Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain ... challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

"Hardly a week goes by," Dr. Peiser said, "without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory," including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Oh? Devotees of this debate will recall that when Peiser tried to dispute Oreskes' study, he fell on his face, spectacularly, and eventually admitted as much. Yet he's still getting quoted in The New York Times -- without citing any of these allegedly numerous "examples of pointed disagreement."

All right. That's enough. I doubt anybody's still reading.

For those who are, let's summarize: Bill Broad took to the pages of the paper of record to establish that there is significant concern in the scientific community about the accuracy of Gore's movie. To do so, he trotted out scientific outliers, non-scientists, and hacks with discredited arguments. In at least two cases (Pielke Jr. being a scientist and the NAS report contradicting Gore) he made gross factual errors. As for the rest, it's a classic case of journalistic "false balance" -- something I thought we were done with on global warming. I guess when it comes to Al Gore, the press still thinks it can get by on smear, suggestion, and innuendo.

Broad, and The New York Times, should be embarrassed.

For story: Debunking the NYT's sloppy hit piece on Gore
53 Comments | Post a Comment

Mainstream Media Catches on to the AGW Hoaxers

The anthropogenic warming hoax has come to an end. Yes, Al Gore's pyramid scheme enlisting poli-scientists and pundits and greeners into a disgusting ball of chicanery and lies has all but burst.

Sorry, Charlie, only real hypothesis get to be part of Science.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 9:20 AM on 13 Mar 2007

Excellent work Dave.

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.

by John McGrath at 9:34 AM on 13 Mar 2007

David- you've convinced me....

Unlike other Grist members, I don't purport to be able to read minds so I can't know whether Broad was out to get Gore or whether this is simply a guy trying to get a story and being sloppy. Either way, you should write a letter to the editor of the NYT- I bet they would publish it.

Also, it would be nice to see an article written by members of the environmental community on the uncertainties surrounding climate change in a very forthright and transparent way as a counter-balance to what is this real and/or perceived bias. I don't know enough about the science, but I'm sure that someone here does.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

by Jason D Scorse at 9:40 AM on 13 Mar 2007

That would be

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

by kmp at 9:50 AM on 13 Mar 2007

dishonest

Real Climate has also put together a post that debunks the NYT article on several additional points: Broad Irony. One, the article's discussion of hurricanes is downright false and dishonest. Two, the critics who are given such prominent space in the article have numerous proven and admitted errors and inaccuracies in their own work, none of which are mentioned.

The worst effect of articles like this is that they degrade the legitimacy and credibility of other NYT reporters who work hard to cover the issues accurately and with honesty.

Ped Shed Blog

by Laurence Aurbach at 9:58 AM on 13 Mar 2007

Revkin and Broad

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

by Benny Big Eye at 10:36 AM on 13 Mar 2007

Thanks for the analysis

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.

by Steve Bloom at 10:59 AM on 13 Mar 2007

for once the Times is right

"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!

by rainking at 11:01 AM on 13 Mar 2007

Steve,

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 ...

grist.org

by David Roberts at 11:02 AM on 13 Mar 2007

WMD NYT

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

by sunflower at 11:48 AM on 13 Mar 2007

But what about....

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.

by bkrell at 12:03 PM on 13 Mar 2007

Funny parallel

"half-truths, outright falsehoods, unsubstantiated quotes, and a heaping dose of innuendo."

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

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 12:06 PM on 13 Mar 2007

Bad Tuesday for the Times

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.

by DannyK at 12:27 PM on 13 Mar 2007

Trees V. Fish

"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

by Marky48 at 12:50 PM on 13 Mar 2007

Luvagod,

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

grist.org

by David Roberts at 1:01 PM on 13 Mar 2007

Ignorance is bliss??!?

...and denial ain't just a big river in Africa.

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

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 1:39 PM on 13 Mar 2007

Calling the kettle a little warm...

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."

by EddieP at 2:28 PM on 13 Mar 2007

Placement...

...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).

by Steve Bloom at 4:40 PM on 13 Mar 2007

action hero

David's getting lots of love over at Huffington Post. Great work -- and no question that David is an official "rapid response" team member.

Ped Shed Blog

by Laurence Aurbach at 8:20 PM on 13 Mar 2007

Thank you, Mr. Eisenhower

Thank you William J. Broad. You have restored balance to scientific debate. No longer will people who want to evaluate data and make decisions using Occam's Razor instead of Gore's Bazooka.

It was much the same with McCarthyism or the Red Guard under Mao in the Sixties. Groups of people, such as the followers of Al Gore, can be swept up into a violent mob.

Anyone who challenges them in debate is attacked ad hominem with disgraceful terms. Rather than argue, they label and mock.

Mr. Broad, when people are turned into a mob, they need someone who can present a balanced, secure, and superior view to undo the mob.

I am glad that I live in country where the New York Times and it's reporter can still present facts that are bold, yet understanded, and rational.

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

by jabailo at 8:27 PM on 13 Mar 2007

Very good ...

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.

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

by A Siegel at 9:23 PM on 13 Mar 2007

forest sculptor

>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.

by Gar Lipow at 9:39 PM on 13 Mar 2007

My message...

gets lost when you shoot the messenger. Why repeat myself when it's all in my posting history? It's better to just post "reminders", Gar's last message so clearly shows the anti-forestry bias and "bait and switch" tactics so cherished by "preservationists". I know of no one who still proposes clearcutting as a valid, widespread silvicultural solution for climate change. Yes, it's easy to argue against coal, nuclear and food biofuels. However, no one seems to want to argue for sustainable ecosystem management.

Of course, you can ban me for "opposing views" but, I control the paintgun.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 10:23 PM on 13 Mar 2007

Appalling

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. They're OK with letting endangered species habitat burn to the ground along with watersheds that supply our drinking water. They're Ok with over-harvesting of other countries' forests, as long as there's no cutting in their own backyards.

Of course, no one will heed my warnings because, like most Americans, they think that self-righteousness will save them from themselves.

One more time: Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?? Are you thinking globally and acting locally?

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 7:11 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Are forests...

...even the issue here? Or is everything essentially about forests, and grist should simply change its name to forests.org?

Victual Reality

by Tom Philpott at 7:34 AM on 14 Mar 2007

What's a few billion tons of CO2 gonna hurt?

So go ahead and idolize Mr. Gore while your forests disappear in clouds of smoke. As long as you're righteously saving a few pounds of CO2 with your hybrid, you can continue to feel good about yourselves.

Since many of you don't appear to even LIKE forests, why not ban me right now?

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 7:48 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Ah....once again, the discussion deteriorates...

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.

by wiscidea at 8:24 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Hey Backcut!

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.

by GreenEngineer at 8:43 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Write to NYT

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

by worstedwitch at 8:47 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Huffington Post

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 deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 8:55 AM on 14 Mar 2007

exagerated to get point across

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.

by wiscidea at 9:15 AM on 14 Mar 2007

exaGGerated... sorry

Two "g"s. Sorry.

by wiscidea at 9:16 AM on 14 Mar 2007

So explain it

>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.

by Gar Lipow at 9:35 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Actually Backcut linked

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.

by Gar Lipow at 9:37 AM on 14 Mar 2007

And Backcuts first post linked to Patrick Moore

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.

by Gar Lipow at 9:41 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Less trees, more forest

For what it's worth, that phrase comes to me from my permaculture teacher, Brock Dolman of the Occidental Arts & Ecology Center. Brock's not a forester, but he is a restoration ecology and a watershed guru. He has also been known to testify at local Board of Supervisors meetings wearing a salmon costume :).

by GreenEngineer at 9:56 AM on 14 Mar 2007

If you even bothered...

to read my posts, you'd be more informed. Is Patrick Moore wrong about wanting to use forests as carbon sinks?!?

Noooooooooooooooooo!

I truly never read that he was in favor of clearcutting. I listened to his NPR radio spot and he never once mentioned clearcutting.

Yes, read my posts and you'll see that what I want our forests to look like isn't much different than what eco-folks want. If you don't like what we'e doing in the forests, by all means, meet us in court. Blathering about "greenwashing", clearcutting and high-grading is just sooooooo 90's. If you'd have read my posts, you'd see that the Forest Service, here in California, banned clearcutting and high-grading back in '93. And no lawsuit told us to do that. We did it because it was the right thing to do.

But, I digress. You guys take care of the biofuels and renewable energies, and I'll, take care of the forests. If you want some enlightenment, read my posting history. If not, get the marshmallows and willow sticks.

8^X

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 10:00 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Again,

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

grist.org

by David Roberts at 10:12 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Backcut posting history

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.

by Gar Lipow at 10:28 AM on 14 Mar 2007

Grist

sorry - the last post was made before yours.

by Gar Lipow at 10:29 AM on 14 Mar 2007

CO2 and Forests

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

by Marky48 at 1:14 PM on 14 Mar 2007

We should all write the NYTimes

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.

by frye at 1:15 PM on 14 Mar 2007

Treehugger Ad Hom

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

by Marky48 at 1:21 PM on 14 Mar 2007

Treehugger ad hom

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

by Marky48 at 1:25 PM on 14 Mar 2007

I'm done, for now

You're going to have to delve quite a bit deeper into my posting history to find what you want, Gar. You still obviously paint me as a clearcut-loving, high-grading, dirt-moving timber beast in the mold of James Watt.

This seems to be EXACTLY what Al is experiencing in the NYT.

Maybe if Grist ever posts another story about forests, I'll add more substance to my posting history but, for now, some people here just don't wanna know just how bad our forests have gotten. Of course, no one bothered to look at links to pictures I have posted, showing how bad it has gotten.

8^X

LURKmode=/ON

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 2:24 PM on 14 Mar 2007

Your links

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

by Marky48 at 5:25 PM on 14 Mar 2007

NYT on Al Gore

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?

by engt at 5:28 PM on 14 Mar 2007

For Marky48

The picture links I was talking about are here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/3/1/15735/74564

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

by Backcut at 6:49 PM on 14 Mar 2007

Mass delusional media

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

by amazingdrx at 11:50 PM on 14 Mar 2007

Subject?

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.

by Baby Boomer at 1:28 PM on 15 Mar 2007
[ Parent ]

Add one more to the 53%

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.

by heathblue at 2:40 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Media Study

"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

by Marky48 at 9:18 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Incredible movie

Incredible movie. I wish I could share the graphs and some of the key slides with folks. Is there somewhere I can find them? We should be able to email them to friends. If they were easily available we could send them along. You would get a good idea of which people thought were the most poignant. The line graph with the carbon levels & the temperature, for instant tells an instant story.
Evan Dream, Fsbo Real Estate Inc. Web-programmer

by Evandream at 2:41 AM on 08 May 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.