Newsweek takes on deniers without faux balance

Finally

Posted by David Roberts at 11:39 AM on 08 Aug 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change skepticism

Oy. Things are, as usual, happening faster than I can blog them. Before it gets too old, let me be the last person in the green blogosphere to link to this remarkable article in Newsweek. It's about the history of the global warming denial industry.

It's not remarkable because it uncovers any new information. Those playing close attention -- and reading sources like, ahem, Grist -- have known about this stuff for a long time. It's remarkable because it gathers it in one place and presents it forcefully, without the usual strained attempt to "balance" it with the same discredited arguments from the same discredited yahoos. Check out this Q&A from the live chat about the article:

White Stone, Va.: How can the responsible media best meet their "fairness/accuracy/'balance'" responsibilities in dealing with climate change deniers?

Sharon Begley: We haven't figured that out, have we? In my case, whether it's climate change or the latest fossil find, I believe that only those who do research in the given field are qualified to comment. Further, I don't think science is like political or social issues, where all views are of equal weight. To the contrary: in science, there really is a 'right' answer, tho it may take time to emerge, and journalists have a duty to tell readers what that answer is likely to be. Me, I don't do he said/she said, but delve into the arguments and see which has empirical merit. It's not that hard.

Well (and rarely!) said. Huge kudos to Begley. (Maybe you should write a letter to the editor thanking Newsweek -- I'm sure they're receiving tons of bile from the right as we speak.)

Two things I wanted to note in particular:

First, Begley makes the crucial point that although the deniers are on the ropes, and have largely receded from mainstream coverage, they're still out there, still very busy, and still have a hold over crucial members of Congress.
Second, check out this lamentable concluding paragraph:
Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that. If anything can, it will be the climate itself.
Argh. Not the usual framing: solving this problem is going to present ordinary Americans with huge costs. That is politically disastrous. We can profitably reduce carbon emissions. Tell your friends! Tell Begley! Tell the world!

For story: Newsweek takes on deniers without faux balance
6 Comments | Post a Comment

Wow

As you say, nothing new, but remarkable to see it in the major media.

For those interested in lots more detail, check out Ross Gelbspan's 1998 book The Heat Is On, which was providing a pretty detailed overview of the denial industry almost a decade ago.

by Sean Casten at 12:29 PM on 08 Aug 2007

And to the point.

There is a well established zero-carbon (aka renewable) energy and efficiency propaganda out there in MSM. The lies are so well entrenched over the decades that official sources become parrot heads. The point would be to start telling the truth.

The Unseen Lies: Journalism As Propaganda

What I know, which is narrow, is that solar energy is cheaper than coal, five times cheaper than oil.

by sunflower at 12:36 PM on 08 Aug 2007

And the hordes did descend

It didn't take long for the deniers to show up in the live chat and start peppering Begley with all the common talking points. To her credit, she was patient and polite, although a few of her "Why is this still an argument?" answers gave a glimpse into deeper frustrations.

Another point I've noted elsewhere, especially among the scientist types; she doesn't have the stereotypical hippie aversion to carbon sequestration. That alone should be enough to convince people we're not your granny's greenies.

by plum at 1:03 PM on 08 Aug 2007

Hippy Aversion?

Me I have the Engineering aversion to carbon sequestration.

If the CO2 erupts onland near a city, everybody suffocates and dies.

If the CO2 goes down into the ocean floor, who knows what thats going to do to ocean chemistry.

And the ocean holds thousands more times the carbon thats currently in the air. You mess that up too far either direction and we are dead.

Besides which, much like cellulosic ethanol, the concept with "clean coal" is to sell people on building conventional coal plants NOW, with the faux promise of making it better in the future.

Even without the massive expenses of carbon capture, coal is already expensive compared to renewables, now that new plants have to comply with the clean air act.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 2:18 PM on 08 Aug 2007
[ Parent ]

thumbs

I co-worker bought that magazine, just so he could put his thumb over the bottom corner (with the "" explanation) and show me just "Global Warming is a Hoax"

He was disappointed when I asked him what was under his thumb.

by odograph at 2:34 PM on 08 Aug 2007

Costs

"We can profitably reduce carbon emissions."

While I certainly agree that climate change needs to be tackled, I do not think this is a realistic position. The Stern Review projects that mitigating climate change will cost about 1% of GDP per year. While a few companies - those making solar panels, for instance - will profit from the re-allocation of resources, it is unrealistic to expect that it will cause net growth in the economy.

This is especially true if we believe that deep cuts are required by 2020.

Arguing that mitigation will be low-cost and painless is also a strategy likely to come back and bite if and when it proves more costly than the most optimistic estimators expected.

a sibilant intake of breath

by sindark at 12:14 PM on 15 Aug 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.