I didn't read more than a few paragraphs of Mr. Broad's broadside, but others have, and were not impressed.
How the World Works - Salon.com
William Broad, a science writer for the New York Times, writes an article asserting that “rank-and-file scientists” are criticizing Al Gore's presentation of climate change science in “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, at RealClimate, and David Roberts, at Grist, take Broad apart, sentence by sentence.
...
Broad includes a smattering of scientists who do support Gore, and say he gets it mostly right. Which makes his article a classic example of the false objectivity so common in mainstream journalism. “Balanced quotes” from both sides, with little clue as to whom the reporter deems trustworthy.Which brings us back to Grist and RealClimate. Mann et al. make no bones about what they believe -- indeed, Michael “hockey stick” Mann is a central player in the politics and science of climate change. But I don't mind that, because I can easily subtract for bias, if I know what it is. What I find invaluable is the added context, the background provided on the interview subjects chosen by Broad, the in-depth analysis of why they think various assertions of “scientific fact” have been misinterpreted, twisted or outright bungled.
Ten years ago, I would have read Broad's piece and thought, hm, maybe Al Gore ain't all that. Today, I read the New York Times and wonder, what does the blogosphere have to say?
Exactly: the sources of information (and counter-information) are distributed all around the world, and are more powerful than in different eras. Assertions can be fact checked and refuted much easier, for the common good, at least more often. It isn't just the blogosphere, it is also that the sources are more easily found.
Technorati Tags: Al_Gore, climate_change, global_warming, media
I think that one of the ridiculous parts of that article was naming Roger Pielke Jr. as an "environmental scientist" when he seems to just be some sort of media star who gets calls from the press all the time.
A couple of things are just plain wrong with the Broad article. First, Kevin Vranes has not published any peer-reviewed articles on climate change, yet he’s quoted as a climatologist. Here’s a link to his published articles.
http://tinyurl.com/2lhaqc
Vranes’ motto should be: “I’m not a real climatologist, but I play one on my blog.”
Then you have Roger Pielke Jr., who in the Spring of 2006, pocketed a couple of thousand dollars writing for Regulation Magazine which is put out by the Cato Institute. Cato takes in millions from Exxon Mobil to fund contrarians like Roger Pielke Jr. and give them a high media profile.
Here’s Roger’s Regulation article: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n1/v29n1.html
And just months ago, Roger Pielke Jr. testified at a congressional hearing that President Bush does not distort science. This opinion stands in stark contrast to testimony and newspaper reports finding a history of scientific suppression by the Bush administration.
The Associated Press revealed that it was Republicans who had invited Pielke to come and speak.
http://www.timesreporter.com/index.php?ID=63687&r=4
Roger Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado who was invited by GOP lawmakers, said “the reality is that science and politics are intermixed.”