What, exactly, is William J. Broad trying to say in this NYT piece? The gist seems to be: Scientists are disputing the alarmist claims of Al Gore’s global-warming movie An Inconvenient Truth! Except for the many world-class scientists who, er, strongly support it. And except for the many others who might quibble at the edges but basically think he got it right. (Let’s remember, folks, we’re talking about a movie, not a Ph.D program.) Follow that?
There is a kind of willful blindness displayed in this piece. The core message of Gore’s movie is: Global warming is real, and it’s time to take it seriously. Which is something Gore has been saying for years, and which the overwhelming majority of scientists now agree with. That’s an important message — it could well turn out to be THE critical message of the 21st century — and it was well communicated in the movie by Gore. (To be fair, in support of the skeptical view, Broad points out that there were only FIVE hurricanes in the Atlantic season this year — not the NINE predicted! Take that, Science!)
Unfortunately, repeating what might be the critical message of the 21st century is not “news.” “News” is finding a couple of random people, such as the article’s guest star Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, who argues with some of the movie’s points. And “newsiness” further requires Broad to bolster up these stray arguments into the illusion of a backlash against Gore.
(Side note: No doubt it will come as a Genuine Shocker to anyone who has followed the global-warming debate that one of the critics quoted is none other than Bjorn Lomborg, who has made a career out of being The Scientist that you quote when you want a global warming skeptic who can put a few statistical-sounding sentences together. Quoting Lomborg as a scientist on global warming is kind of like quoting Joe Lieberman as a Democrat on Iraq.)
The ugliest line in the article is this: “Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions 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.”
Implying … that inundation is imminent. (At least visually!) No one who has seen the movie will find this line credible. But the exaggeration (and others like it in the article) makes you wonder whether Broad’s piece isn’t simply an op/ed in news clothing.
Dan,
I am quite a fan of your book, but I think you have bought into all the stickiness the biased media is feeding you. Saying that Bill Broad is writing an op-ed piece simply because he strays from his employer’s core message is a bit of stretch. In reality, Gore and the Dems are trying their best to mimic the Republicans divide and conquer strategy. By spewing a divisive like global warming, they can sit back and watch the masses line up on either side of the line.
Respectfully disagree with your perspective ~ mark
I’m also a fan but agree you seem off-base with this post. Actually, I’m not sure what the relevance is to your excellent book, which I am in the process of reading and am enjoying immensely.
Are you merely expressing your opinions on this article and this issue? If so, I can’t quibble. It’s your post.
But otherwise, I have to ask: What does this have to do with stickiness? Have I not gotten to that chapter yet?
As a former journalist who reads the press with a critical eye, I can also tell you that examples of editorial disguising itself as news abound. Pick an issue. The mainstream press is losing readers for this very reason.
Finally, I must point out that Lumborg is only one of several prominent scientists and/or political figures who take issue with the various claims of the global warming lobby. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is one. Lord Monckton is another. I could go on.
I agree that Al Gore’s movie has been misrepresented, but that doesn’t mean the arguments against his argument are invalid or unworthy of consideration. They amount to quite a bit more than a few hurricane predictions being off.
As a global technologist, I remember Al Gore’s “Made to Stick” - “SUCCES” comment, “I invented the internet.” This led to people perceiving Gore in a “less than perfect way”. That is because the essence of the interconnected networks is amorphous in nature with no single, holistic creator. If Gore had used the work “pioneered” instead of “invented” his “made to stick” perception would have been more positive and credible for him. I would like to work with you to help others by: (1)creating a list of action words that expedite creatiton time. (2)using my time tested TMVI methodology as substantive components behind the 30 second elevator speech. I literally ‘wrote the book’ on electronic trading - past, present and ‘next chapter’ in the global money business. I developed global systems involving trillions of dollars every day and you cannot make a mistake without it going unnoticed. My Electronic-BoardroomTMVI(r) Solutions have stood the test of time and work to enhance your “make it stick” result.
From what I understand after watching a Channel 4 documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle, is that global warming is happening an most scientists agree with that. The disagreement is over what is causing Global Warming, Humans and CO2 or the Sun. This movie is available in its entirety on youtube.com and may raise even more questions for you.
I think that you would have to admit that the core message of Gore’s movie is that human-generated CO2 is causing global warming. There are a lot of reasonable people, including credible scientists, that feel that this is far from proven.
Much of the material in ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been debunked. The film has been modified some since it’s initial airing, in response to noted errors, but it’s still rife with half-truths and the like.
There really is very little debate among experts in the field as to whether it’s chiefly caused by humans. Pretty much just politicians and partisan groups (and consequently the general public) these days. (Even some of the scientists cited in the program have gone on record stating it misrepresented their views.)