|
Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors
|
||||
More on the 'reasonable middle'Why Broad's NYT piece isn't all that importantPosted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 11:07 AM on 13 Mar 2007[ed. note from David Roberts: It appears everyone in the climate world was writing about this piece at once! My response is here; RealClimate's is here; Tim Lambert's is here. Now take it away, Andrew.] William J. Broad writes today on the complicated relationship between Al Gore and the scientific community in the New York Times. Here's the thesis of the article: But part of his 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. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism. So what evidence does he supply for this "uneasiness"? Why, he quotes some really reasonable and middle-of-the-road scientists: Jim Hansen, Dick Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, Roy Spencer, Benny Peiser, Bob Carter, Paul Reiter, Michael Oppenheimer. Wait. Lomborg, Peiser, and Reiter are not climate scientists. Lindzen, Spencer, and Carter are scientists, but between them, they have about as much scientific credibility on this issue as the Tobacco Institute has on the health effects of smoking. Hansen and Oppenheimer are strong advocates on the other side. Oppenheimer even consulted for Gore on the movie. And then there's this Easterbrook guy, who I don't know. But he's retired, which makes me a bit suspicious that he's a nut. So when you strip away the journalistic husk of the article, you're left with the unsurprising conclusion: Lindzen and two or three other scientists are uneasy about Gore's statements. Stop the presses! Mr. Broad, your Pulitzer's in the mail! It's too bad. There is a story here, just not the one that was written. The real story is about how Al Gore is battling and beating the Exxon/Bush uncertainty agenda. Gore's statements (and his few inaccuracies) cannot be viewed by themselves in isolation; rather, they have to be viewed in relation to the inaccuracies and downright mendacity of the other side. After reading Mr. Broad's article, here are a few things to remember:
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.
|
sign in
Search Gristmill
Using Gristmill
Recent Comments
|
|||