“Leonardo DiCaprio hit back at accusations of hypocrisy as he unveiled an eco-documentary he wrote, produced and narrated at the Cannes film festival. Asked after the premiere of The 11th Hour whether he had taken a fuel-guzzling jet on his way to the French Riviera, the Titanic star spat back sarcastically 'No, I took a train across the Atlantic'.” ABC News Online, 20 May, 2007.
Though there are some warnings of extreme consequences, most of the reporting seems to concentrate on the political aspects of global warming. Perhaps the media feel on firmer ground when bashing government officials, bureaucratic foot dragging, misplaced agency priorities, and high-level cover-ups. Chronicling the struggles of people trying to “live green” is also popular, particularly if there is a Hollywood celebrity involved. For a decade, the image of Leonardo DiCaprio driving his hybrid Toyota Prius has defined Hollywood environmentalism.
How accurate and unbiased is the reporting? There are some disturbing signs that getting the right story may be more important to some reporters than getting the story right. Consider this statement made by Dr. David Deming, a geologist and geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma, in testimony given before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
“In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.”450
This seems to indicate that the media are reporting the story they want, not the truth. Deming continued, “There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming,” adding “In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria.”
Dr. Deming is not alone in charging the media with inaccurate reporting. One reader of the Baltimore Sun wrote in regarding an article about the IPCC conclusions saying, “I'm not a scientist, but the following words used to describe what the media reports to be scientific fact are troubling: ‘could,’ ‘probably,’ ‘might,’ ‘maybe,’ and ‘possible,’”451 Such writers are often pilloried for “denying global warming” when what they are actually complaining about is the way global warming is being reported. Paul More, an editor at the Sun, dismissed the complaints of readers saying:
“The readers who criticized this round of The Sun's reporting did so, in my view, not just because they disagreed with the conclusions of the scientific panel. They were angry because they reject the reality of global warming because they see it mostly in political and ideological terms.”452
Not all news outlets are slanting the news to raise ratings or increase circulation. The Wall Street Journal printed the following on their op-ed page. It was written by MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a member of the National Academy of Science's expert panel:
“Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But—and I cannot stress this enough—we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.”453
Of course, others see matters in a different light. Al Gore, speaking about the conclusions of the IPCC, said the media “have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.”454 After citing a study that showed 53 percent of topical newspaper articles offer “false balance” on global warming, he said, “I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, ‘It may be real, it may not be real,’ is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.”
The science is complex and hard to understand, balanced reporting is biased reporting, and nothing gets in the way of a good catastrophe story. This isn't science, it's bad journalism driven by politics.
Other Voices
Along with the “official” IPCC reports and the reporting on them in various media outlets there is a third set of players in the global warming crisis. These are special interest groups, lobbying groups, and activists of all kinds that fall into the category of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Many are local or national in scope and membership, while others are international, claiming millions of members.
Among the NGOs are Greenpeace International, the World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, Center for a New American Dream, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo (CICERO), Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Climate Change Belgium, Columbia Earth Institute, Earth Repair Foundation, The Environmental Change and Security Project (ECSP), and Friends of the Earth International, to name just a few.
What do these various defenders of Earth say about global warming? Here are some sample statements from well-known NGOs:
“Time is running out. We need more international action now to reduce the gas emissions responsible for global warming.” Catherine Pearce, Friends of the Earth International's climate campaign coordinator, 30 September 2004.455
“There are many serious and troublesome problems going on in the world which will affect all present and future generations, unless humanity and all governments implement practical solutions from now on.” Earth Repair Foundation.456
“Without action, climate change will cause the extinction of countless species and destroy some of the world's most precious ecosystems, putting millions of people at risk.” WWF.457
“This problem is unlike anything seen in the past. It affects the whole planet and threatens every person living in every country on every continent. However, we can do something about it. It's not a threat coming from outer space. It is people, us, who are causing climate change by polluting the atmosphere with too much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.” Greenpeace International.458
“Bush and Co. have betrayed the cause of climate protection up to now. We have 13 years at most to avert the worst impacts of climate destruction, and yet there is not even a glimmer of a breakthrough on the horizon at present.” Greenpeace International Climate & Energy campaigner Stephanie Tunmore.459
“The most important thing you can do is to get involved in the political process and get rid of all of these rotten politicians that we have in Washington D.C. Who are nothing more than corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company, these villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity. This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Comments at Live Earth.
“This is a glimpse into an apocalyptic future. The earth will be transformed by human induced climate change, unless action is taken soon and fast.” Stephanie Tunmore, Greenpeace International Climate & Energy Campaigner commenting on the IPCC report.460
“As climate change wreaks its havoc across the globe, ecosystems could disappear altogether, or they may undergo serious and irreversible changes, such as those happening to coral reefs.” WWF.461
“Human activities are emitting vast amounts of 'greenhouse gases' that prevent heat from escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere. Scientists report that this phenomenon will increasingly lead to catastrophic natural disasters, such as more frequent and intense droughts, floods, and hurricanes; rising sea levels; and more disease outbreaks.” GoVeg.com.462
Unlike the
restrained and measured warnings from the IPCC, NGOs are a bit more strident in their claims of impending doom. They promise an “apocalyptic future” filled with “havoc,” “irreversible changes,” and “catastrophic natural disasters.” “Time is running out” and our leaders are not doing enough or have “betrayed the cause of climate protection” altogether. Robert Kennedy Jr., a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, goes so far as to call anyone who questions global warming a “traitor.”
This type of rhetoric, replete with ad hominem attacks and accusations of treason, is not a fitting part of any public debate, let alone a scientific one. When Marlo Lewis, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, published an article opposing mandatory limits on carbon-dioxide emissions, arguing that Congress should not impose caps until the technology exists to produce energy that doesn't depend on carbon dioxide, he was publicly threatened by Michael Eckhart, the president of the American Council on Renewable Energy. In Eckhart's own words:
“Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America.”463
David Roberts, a writer for Grist magazine, goes even further. His solution for those who are members of what he terms the global warming “denial industry” is: “When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.”464
People wonder why more scientists don't speak out against the distortions and inaccurate reporting of global warming. It is because anyone brave enough, or foolish enough, to do so risks being branded a “climate criminal” by fanatical global warming “true believers.” As a number of scientists have learned, questioning the “truth” about human-caused global warming can have dire consequences. They risk their grant money, their careers465 and even their lives.466 ,467
This all makes Weather Channel personality Heidi Cullen's suggestion, that television meteorologists be stripped of their American Meteorological Society certification if they question predictions of catastrophic global warming, seem like tame stuff. The global warming debate has strayed far from rationality and, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead.”
Al Gore's Convenient Calling
Albert Gore Jr. was born into privilege, the scion of an influential Tennessee family. His father served in the United States House of Representatives before WWII and, after the war, in the US Senate for two decades, so it came as no surprise when Al Jr. also chose a career in politics. Following in his father's footsteps, he served first as a Congressman, then a US Senator, and finally Vice-President of the United States during the presidency of Bill Clinton.
Reaching for the top prize in American politics, Gore was the Democratic nominee in the 2000 presidential election. It was one of the most controversial elections in American history. After a series of voting discrepancies and court challenges, Gore lost the election to George W. Bush when the US Supreme Court ruled that vote recounting had gone on long enough. Embittered by his narrow defeat, Gore left politics for private life and more academic pursuits. Asked to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the lingering resentment over his defeat was still evident when he said in his speech, “Let's make sure not only that the Supreme Court does not pick the next president, but also that this president is not the one who picks the next Supreme Court.”
Al Gore was to eventually return to the public eye with a new mission. He found a higher calling in the environmental movement, a cause he had always supported. Gore claims the roots for his passionate belief, that human civilization harms the Earth, came from Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring. During Gore's childhood, his mother, an educated and politically active woman who took Eleanor Roosevelt as a model, read the book to the 14 year old Albert and his older sister.
Carson's book was about DDT, a pesticide that was widely used to control malarial mosquitoes. But it also had negative effects on birds' eggs, weakening their shells and threatening a number of species with extinction. As a result of Carson's book, DDT was banned around the world. Four decades later, studies have shown that the removal of DDT caused millions of deaths in countries plagued with malaria and dengue fever.
While Gore attended Harvard, he was a student of the noted oceanographer Roger Revelle, who is mentioned in Chapter 2 of this book. Dr. Revelle, the self-proclaimed father of global warming, had a profound and lasting influence on young Albert. In Gore's own words, Revelle taught him “what was happening to the atmosphere of the entire planet, and how that enormous change was being caused by human beings.” Gore attributes his lifelong dedication to environmental causes to Revelle's teachings.
Mr. Gore comes by his environmentalist leanings honestly. His reemergence from the political wilderness as an environmental prophet of doom was no sudden conversion. But Gore has reinvented himself. From failed politician to a speaker on the college lecture circuit, the new Al Gore is only concerned with saving mankind from its own excesses. He now lectures widely on the topic of global warming, which he calls “the climate crisis.”468
His power-point show on global warming is entertaining, but many of his conclusions are not supported by the science. That did not stop his lecture hall pitch from being turned into a slick documentary—basically a video of Gore presenting his talk. This film was immediately embraced by eco-conscious Hollywood. It would have been shocking if Gore's film hadn't won the OscarTM for best documentary in 2006. Perhaps more surprising was the announcement that Al Gore and the IPCC would share the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007.
The link between proselytizing about global warming and world peace seems tenuous at best. The Economist, observing that two out of the previous three peace prizes went to people and organizations who had nothing to do with peace, stated: “Evidently the committee has decided to redefine the award as the Nobel Prize for Making the World a Better Place in Some Unspecified Way.”469
At the same time that Gore's documentary was being praised by activists, it was coming under progressively harsher criticism. A UK High Court judge, in response to a lawsuit questioning the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, ruled that An Inconvenient Truth, contains significant factual errors. Justice Burton said Gore makes nine statements in the film that are not supported by current mainstream science.470 The specific errors are:
Mr. Gore asserted that sea levels will rise up to 20 feet due to melting ice sheets “in the near future.” Justice Burton: “This is distinctly alarmist” and will only occur “after, and over, millennia.”
Low-lying Pacific atolls have already been evacuated. Judge: There was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
The Gulf Stream that warms the northern Atlantic would shut down. Judge: It was “very unlikely” this would be happening in the future, though a slow down was possible.
Graphs of CO2 and temperature rise over the past 650,000 years showed an “exact fit.” Judge: There was a connection, but “the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.”
The snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro are disappearing due to global warming. Judge: It cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
The drying up of Lake Chad is an example of a catastrophic result of global warming. Judge: There was “insufficient evidence to show that.”
Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. Judge: Insufficient evidence to establish the exact cause.
Polar bears were found that had drowned “swimming long distances—up to 60 miles—to find the ice.” Judge:
Only four polar bears have been found drowned, because of a storm not the lack of ice.
Coral reefs are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. Judge: Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing and pollution, was difficult.
The judge concluded that the film could be shown, but teachers must alert students to the errors he identified.
Illustration 135: Misleading pictures from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
Interestingly, the Motion Picture Association of America rated Gore's film PG, requiring parental guidance due to “thematic elements.” More disturbing is Gore's picture book for children, an inconvenient truth: the crisis of global warming—adapted for a new generation. Supposedly a book about environmental awareness for young children, the book is heavy on images and light on substance. For example, on page 155 looms the full page image of a nuclear fireball. In very small letters the caption reads, “Test detonation of a nuclear bomb, Nevada, 1957.” The opposing page shows five German soldiers in a trench. The photo caption reads: “German soldiers in World War 1, 1914.” Above the German photo, on white background and in bold, large text are the words: “New technologies for fighting, such as nuclear bombs, have dramatically changed the consequences of war.”
Another image of supposed global warming disaster is of stranded fishing boats in the dried out Aral Sea, in Central Asia. This image has a link to ecological problems, but not ones caused by global warming. The Aral Sea was destroyed by Soviet mismanagement. The former USSR diverted the rivers that fed the sea to other uses, another triumph of communist central planning. What do those words and those images have to due with global warming? Nothing. But they leave a horrible verbal and visual impression on young children—and there is a disturbing pattern in this.
The Resilient Earth: Science, Global Warming and the Fate of Humanity Page 31
