Conflicted About Correcting Al Gore
March 15th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
My friend and colleague Tom Yulsman expresses some sincere conflict about noting Al Gore’s latest exaggeration. Tom writes of his blog post:
I thought quite hard about whether to post this, because I know people are going to attack me for undermining the cause of action on climate change. So let me clear: My intent is exactly the opposite. I fervently believe that we must take action both to reduce carbon emissions and to adapt to climate changes that are inevitable no matter what we do. And that’s why I published this. Because rallying support for action will depend on whether people can trust what they read in the press about climate change, and what public leaders on this issue are saying.
What is it that Gore said and Tom was reacting to?
[Businesses leaders] are seeing the complete disappearance of the polar ice caps right before their eyes in just a few years.
Tom writes:
I really do want to give former Vice President Al Gore the benefit of the doubt when it comes to global warming, since he has accomplished so much to raise awareness on the issue. But he just seems to be hard-wired to exaggerate — to his own detriment, as well as to the cause of reining in climate change.
And in this case, the failure of a journalist to challenge Gore’s assertion that all polar ice will be gone in a few years just makes the problem worse.
If Gore’s heart is in the right place, shouldn’t he get a pass on some slight exaggerations? Or is there some way to interpret Gore’s statements in such a way as they are not incorrect? It’s not like he is George Will or anything, right?
March 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
And even if the extreme scenarios would materialise, it’s about disappearing summer polar sea ice in 2100. So the dissapearance is not even complete, there still will be winter polar sea ice.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I guess those who believe in Gore are upset about this latest exaggeration but, honestly, almost everything Gore says and writes is an exaggeration, to the point where I don’t see how any honest person can take anything he writes or says seriously. For example, literary critic Camille Paglia wrote in Salon magazine:
“When I tried to watch Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” on cable TV recently, I wasn’t able to get past the first 10 minutes. I was snorting with disgust at its manipulations and distortions and laughing at Gore’s lugubrious sentimentality, which was painfully revelatory of his indecisive, self-thwarting character. When Gore told a congressional hearing last month that there is a universal consensus among scientists about global warming — which is blatantly untrue — he forfeited his own credibility.”
Gore himself has said: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it (global warming) is.” That is, he habitually exaggerates. Both Inconvenient Truth and Earth in the Balance are filled with unsubstantiated exaggeration for rhetorical effect.
Gore is also making millions of dollars in his various “green” businesses, thanks to the fears he’s whipped up. Conflict of interest?
Gore is no saint; he’s a politician. And, as we all know, politicians lie for effect. His sin, if I might put it that way, is dragging down the credibility of science in the process.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
“His sin, if I might put it that way, is dragging down the credibility of science in the process.”
FWIW, I agree completely. (self-snip; I disrespect the guy so much that I had to snip my own thoughts, before Roger did).
March 15th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“Businesses leaders] are seeing the complete disappearance of the polar ice caps right before their eyes in just a few years.”
Even though that’s in quotes in the article, I’d like to hear it for myself. It seems too far out for Al Gore. I know he exaggerates–especially with regards to his own importance, when he was a politician–but this just seems too weird.
Of course, we have Hans Joachim Schellngruber, who allegedly (essentially) claimed–at a major scientific conference, no less–that global warming may kill 5-10+ billion people by the year 2100.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/scientist-warming-could-cut-population-to-1-billion/
So the times seem generally pretty weird.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
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?
March 15th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
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.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
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/
March 16th, 2009 at 5:38 am
“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.?
March 16th, 2009 at 7:18 am
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?
March 16th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
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.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:22 am
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
March 17th, 2009 at 8:39 am
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.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
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.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:56 am
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.”