Comments on: Conflicted About Correcting Al Gore http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: EDaniel http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061&cpage=1#comment-13021 EDaniel Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:56:42 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061#comment-13021 Has anyone corrected Al Gore on this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gorecnd.html "Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power" "He said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations." Has anyone corrected Al Gore on this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/washington/18gorecnd.html

“Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power”

“He said the goal of producing all of the nation’s electricity from “renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources” within 10 years is not some farfetched vision, although he said it would require fundamental changes in political thinking and personal expectations.”

]]>
By: Maurice Garoutte http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061&cpage=1#comment-13009 Maurice Garoutte Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:56:11 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061#comment-13009 Will, Your argument to keep science above the political fray of greed and power seeking is in the direction of goodness. However, the public still trusts science more than politics. (Go figure.) Politicians with more ambition than credibility are using science to justify policy decisions. When the negative effects of the cap and trade tax become clear the public will no longer respect news stories that start out “Scientists say”. Tax policies can be changed in one election cycle but reputations will take longer to recover. Will,
Your argument to keep science above the political fray of greed and power seeking is in the direction of goodness. However, the public still trusts science more than politics. (Go figure.) Politicians with more ambition than credibility are using science to justify policy decisions.

When the negative effects of the cap and trade tax become clear the public will no longer respect news stories that start out “Scientists say”. Tax policies can be changed in one election cycle but reputations will take longer to recover.

]]>
By: W_R_Howard http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061&cpage=1#comment-13006 W_R_Howard Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:39:00 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061#comment-13006 I also want to second Tom Yulsman's comment above. He notes "rallying support for action will depend on whether people can trust what they read in the press about climate change..." If we are invoking the authority of science (e.g. think of statements like "the science is settled") as the driving imperative for major economic reforms to our energy sector, then we are making justification for that action contingent upon the validity and credibility of the science. I think this approach has a number of potential pitfalls, and the climate science community needs to be extremely careful about suggesting that the science dictates any particular action (if any) in response to the risks we identify. Whatever actions global society takes to attempt to reduce these risks will result from decisions made on the basis of economics, politics, psychology, fear, greed, etc. In short all the motivators that drive political decision-making. Science will play a role surely, but it may not be the dominant driver. I also want to second Tom Yulsman’s comment above. He notes “rallying support for action will depend on whether people can trust what they read in the press about climate change…”

If we are invoking the authority of science (e.g. think of statements like “the science is settled”) as the driving imperative for major economic reforms to our energy sector, then we are making justification for that action contingent upon the validity and credibility of the science. I think this approach has a number of potential pitfalls, and the climate science community needs to be extremely careful about suggesting that the science dictates any particular action (if any) in response to the risks we identify. Whatever actions global society takes to attempt to reduce these risks will result from decisions made on the basis of economics, politics, psychology, fear, greed, etc. In short all the motivators that drive political decision-making. Science will play a role surely, but it may not be the dominant driver.

]]>
By: W_R_Howard http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061&cpage=1#comment-13005 W_R_Howard Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:22:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061#comment-13005 I was at the Copenhagen meeting, presenting my own paper in one of the technical sessions, and saw Prof. Schnellnhuber's talk. The "1-billion-carrying-capacity" claim struck me as extreme, but was not the only one I questioned. He also claimed that land should be "reserved" in rich nations like the US, in order to ensure food security for poor nations whose agricultural capacity would be compromised by climate change. First it's not clear how food-growing capacity would be affected overall on a continental scale under various global-warming scenarios, given model projections that rainfall would tend to increase in some regions and decrease in others (overall the physics would suggest that wet regions get wetter, dry regions get dryer). Secondly, the comment struck me as odd given my understanding that developing nations are not looking to the developed world for food security but rather are trying to export food and other agricultral products (e.g cotton) to the developed world. As I understand it (economists correct me here), developing nations in Africa, for example, are pushing the US and EU to reduce farm subsidies so that their exports are competitive. [My paper was on the alteration of ocean chemistry by CO2, and not on the economic issues Prof. Schnellnhuber was emphasising.] Cheers, Will Howard I was at the Copenhagen meeting, presenting my own paper in one of the technical sessions, and saw Prof. Schnellnhuber’s talk. The “1-billion-carrying-capacity” claim struck me as extreme, but was not the only one I questioned. He also claimed that land should be “reserved” in rich nations like the US, in order to ensure food security for poor nations whose agricultural capacity would be compromised by climate change. First it’s not clear how food-growing capacity would be affected overall on a continental scale under various global-warming scenarios, given model projections that rainfall would tend to increase in some regions and decrease in others (overall the physics would suggest that wet regions get wetter, dry regions get dryer).

Secondly, the comment struck me as odd given my understanding that developing nations are not looking to the developed world for food security but rather are trying to export food and other agricultral products (e.g cotton) to the developed world. As I understand it (economists correct me here), developing nations in Africa, for example, are pushing the US and EU to reduce farm subsidies so that their exports are competitive.

[My paper was on the alteration of ocean chemistry by CO2, and not on the economic issues Prof. Schnellnhuber was emphasising.]

Cheers,
Will Howard

]]>
By: yulsman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061&cpage=1#comment-12994 yulsman Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:04:06 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061#comment-12994 Sylvain: As long as the Guardian's interview transcript is correct (see: http://www.cejournal.net/?p=1415), Gore was quoted correctly. But FYI: the Youtube video you reference was of another comment, made in Germany a couple of months ago. Sylvain:

As long as the Guardian’s interview transcript is correct (see: http://www.cejournal.net/?p=1415), Gore was quoted correctly. But FYI: the Youtube video you reference was of another comment, made in Germany a couple of months ago.

]]>
By: Maurice Garoutte http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061&cpage=1#comment-12987 Maurice Garoutte Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:18:49 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061#comment-12987 That last sentence cuts both ways. If George Will’s heart is in the right place, shouldn’t he get a pass on some slight exaggerations? Or is there some way to interpret Will’s statements in such a way as they are not incorrect? It’s not like he is Al Gore or anything, right? That last sentence cuts both ways.

If George Will’s heart is in the right place, shouldn’t he get a pass on some slight exaggerations? Or is there some way to interpret Will’s statements in such a way as they are not incorrect? It’s not like he is Al Gore or anything, right?

]]>
By: jae http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061&cpage=1#comment-12984 jae Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:38:32 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061#comment-12984 "My job as a journalist is to try as hard as I can not just to get the facts straight but also to try to tell the truth about the facts. That explains why my comments were tempered. But it is also journalism’s creed is to hold power to account. Which is why I decided to publish that post." I would really be interested in your thoughts about how well the MSM journalists are meeting these criteria these days. Especially holding power to account, vis-a-vis BO, given that people hardly knew who he was before the election--and don't know much more even now (only my opinion, I guess). Why are the journalists still so quiet about his past associations, e.g.? “My job as a journalist is to try as hard as I can not just to get the facts straight but also to try to tell the truth about the facts. That explains why my comments were tempered. But it is also journalism’s creed is to hold power to account. Which is why I decided to publish that post.”

I would really be interested in your thoughts about how well the MSM journalists are meeting these criteria these days. Especially holding power to account, vis-a-vis BO, given that people hardly knew who he was before the election–and don’t know much more even now (only my opinion, I guess). Why are the journalists still so quiet about his past associations, e.g.?

]]>
By: Sylvain http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061&cpage=1#comment-12980 Sylvain Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:21:24 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061#comment-12980 It was definitely not misquoted. Anthony Watts posted this link to you tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrPCUWWjh0c In this post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/14/guardian-al-gore/ It was definitely not misquoted. Anthony Watts posted this link to you tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrPCUWWjh0c

In this post:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/14/guardian-al-gore/

]]>
By: yulsman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061&cpage=1#comment-12978 yulsman Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:01:43 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061#comment-12978 It is possible that the Guardian reporter misquoted Gore. But the quote is so specific that I kind of doubt that. It's more likely that Gore has an image of imminent calamity stuck firmly in his mind, which can trip him up in situations like this. In my post I speculate that he meant to say that Arctic sea ice would be gone in a few years. But even then he would have been exaggerating — as my post points out with mention of a new study, published in Nature Geoscience, finding that Arctic sea ice in September could be gone by 2100. Of course some scientists say sooner, maybe 20 years. Either way, it's a far cry from complete deglaciation and 230 feet of sea level rise in a few years. As for Roger's question about whether Gore should get a pass if his heart is in the right place, definitely not from a journalist. Whether I feel personally that a particular politician is generally doing the right thing is irrelevant. My job as a journalist is to try as hard as I can not just to get the facts straight but also to try to tell the truth about the facts. That explains why my comments were tempered. But it is also journalism's creed is to hold power to account. Which is why I decided to publish that post. It is possible that the Guardian reporter misquoted Gore. But the quote is so specific that I kind of doubt that. It’s more likely that Gore has an image of imminent calamity stuck firmly in his mind, which can trip him up in situations like this.

In my post I speculate that he meant to say that Arctic sea ice would be gone in a few years. But even then he would have been exaggerating — as my post points out with mention of a new study, published in Nature Geoscience, finding that Arctic sea ice in September could be gone by 2100. Of course some scientists say sooner, maybe 20 years. Either way, it’s a far cry from complete deglaciation and 230 feet of sea level rise in a few years.

As for Roger’s question about whether Gore should get a pass if his heart is in the right place, definitely not from a journalist. Whether I feel personally that a particular politician is generally doing the right thing is irrelevant.

My job as a journalist is to try as hard as I can not just to get the facts straight but also to try to tell the truth about the facts. That explains why my comments were tempered. But it is also journalism’s creed is to hold power to account. Which is why I decided to publish that post.

]]>
By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061&cpage=1#comment-12977 Mark Bahner Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:09:50 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5061#comment-12977 Mispelled Schellnhuber. It's interesting that the story of Schellnhuber's presentation doesn't seem to appear anywhere except that NY Times article. I'd sure like to see the whole presentation. From the account, NY Times account, it was very, very strange! Perhaps he's been working with Steven Chu? Mispelled Schellnhuber.

It’s interesting that the story of Schellnhuber’s presentation doesn’t seem to appear anywhere except that NY Times article.

I’d sure like to see the whole presentation. From the account, NY Times account, it was very, very strange! Perhaps he’s been working with Steven Chu?

]]>