Roger Tattersall, aka “Tallbloke” has an old story worth re-telling today in the “false balance” arguments being made about my appearance on PBS. Its’ all part of a strategy. He writes:
Nice old cutting this, from the ‘Boston Sunday Globe’ 31 May 1992. Click for the full size image, sorry for the poor quality, but it is legible. The attempt to remove dissenting voices from the media has been in full swing for 20 years. Lewdandorky’s attempt to get man made global warming sceptics written off as ‘lunar landing deniers’ is just another route to the same goal. These people are unable to convince the public via fair open debate with their intellectual opponents.
It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides as if it were a question of balance. Given the distribution of views, with groups like the National Academy of Science expressing strong scientific concern, it is irresponsible to give equal time to a few people standing out in left field.
T]he overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.
-Stephen H Schneider 1992-
Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says in comments there:
That is a scan I originally linked to in my JunkScience guest article “In Case of Heart[land] Attack, Break Glass” http://junkscience.com/2012/02/19/in-case-of-heartland-attack-break-glass/ (7th paragraph there), and in my comment here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/the-other-problem-with-the-lewandowsky-paper-and-similar-skeptic-motivation-analysis-core-premise-off-the-rails-about-fossil-fuel-industry-corruption-accusation/#comment-1076717 which is within the comments section of my own guest post at WUWT about ‘the other major problem’ with the Lewandowsky paper.
I also showed it in the comment I placed at the PBS NewsHour to predict the AGW backlash Watts was going to get: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec12/climatechange_09-17.html#comment-653837814
My heartfelt hat tip goes to Australia’s Brenton Groves for supplying me with that scan and the larger “Racing to an environmental precipice: Fear of future on deteriorating planet sets agenda for Rio de Janeiro summit” May 31, 1992 Boston Globe article containing it.
I believe there was a Gore / Schneider / Gelbspan connection at the beginning of it all. Consider that in September of 1992, Schneider said the following in a Discover magazine “Can We Repair the Air?”article (8th paragraph): “The White House, some business groups, and a few contrary-minded scientists had always argued that the possibility of a nasty greenhouse effect was too uncertain to justify spending billions of dollars to fix it. They (as the tobacco industry has done for decades with smoking) called instead for further studies. …” http://discovermagazine.com/1992/sep/canwerepairtheai120/?searchterm=Hurricanes%20Intensify%20Global%20Warming%20Debate ( http://www.webcitation.org/69uvrQUd2 )
My thanks to you for spreading the word of how this is a 20 year boilerplate smear.
It is 3 simple talking points: “settled science” / “corrupt skeptics operating in a parallel manner to old tobacco industry shills” / “the media is not obligated to give skeptics equal balance because of the first two points”.
Ross Gelbspan consolidated this 3-point mantra into the successful smear it became after late 1995. The story must be told far and wide, and I and can use all the help I can get in telling it.
Brendan H says:
September 20, 2012 at 11:33 am
No, Brendan–there’s a big difference between showing or proving and “making assertions”.
And if you devolve into saying that’s an example of irony, that’s a mere assertion too.
@NeilT “what more could I say more that would convince you?”
You could explain why the Venusian atmosphere (over 90% CO2) ,over the same pressure range as Earth’s atmosphere, is almost EXACTLY the temperature it should be according to its distance from the sun.
It is OBVIOUS that the CO2 concentration has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on temperature.
Rocky Road: ‘No, Brendan–there’s a big difference between showing or proving and “making assertions”.’
I know, which is the point: Akston asserts, he also tells, and he claims. What he fails to do is show or prove. All he’s doing is boasting to Miss Taggart about how great he and his friends are at showing and proving, but without actually showing and proving.
‘And if you devolve into saying that’s an example of irony, that’s a mere assertion too.’
If I do, yes. But I didn’t. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t even claim mere assertion for my irony comment, just speculation. So what? Assertions – supported and unsupported – are an unavoidable part of human communication. There are at least two in this paragraph, and this sentence is arguably a third.
But if you’re very keen to show and prove, let’s get back to your original assertion: ‘This completely distorted mindset was refuted with a particular paragraph in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged…’
Show and prove away.
The impression I get from the Ayn Rand piece is that Akston strives to achieve dominance by force of will or from status and consensus such that he can merely make assertions yet because of his power have the other person feel that he or she has been shown the proof.
The subordinated person then feels , falsely, that he or she has arrived at a decision freely when in fact that is not the case.
It is a chilling scenario on a par with the similar ‘conversion’ of Winston Smith at the end of 1984 and it is that type of control that authoritarians always seek. Indeed it is at the heart of their method as shown to us by Orwell and Rand.
For the rest of us it takes a strong mindset and a good education to have any chance of resisting such pressure so as to be able to demand proper showing and proving.
It is an adult version of playground bullying, pure and simple.
Stephen Wilde: ‘The impression I get from the Ayn Rand piece is that Akston strives to achieve dominance by force of will or from status and consensus…’
Ayn Rand might be a bit surprised by your interpretation since Akston is one of her heroes, in fact the mentor and a father figure to the main hero, John Galt.
Within the novel, the intent of this passage and others is to persuade, or ‘show’, Dagny Taggart that she should join Akston’s band of brothers, since the heroes are superior in every way to the looters and moochers in control of the government and industry.
In fact, some commentators regard Akston as the fictional embodiment of Rand’s ideal academic.
Given that, it’s interesting that you interpret Akston’s speech as an instance of authoritarian bullying – surely not what Rand intended, but certainly telling, just not in the way that Akston is claiming.
That shows how differently a passage can be interpreted when taken out of the wider context.
I have the book. Now I must read it.
To All,
On Kivalina, see the article “Appeals court rules against village in global-warming suit, http://www.adn.com/2012/09/21/2634170/appeals-court-rules-against-village.html, reporting on a decision released last evening by the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
“A federal appeals court has ruled against the Northwest Alaska village of Kivalina, which sued energy companies over claims that greenhouse emissions contributed to global warming that is threatening the community’s existence.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a U.S. District Court ruling that Kivalina didn’t have standing to sue oil, coal and power companies.
The eroding village sought monetary damages to help with the estimated $400 million to relocate.”
The Court of Appeals decision, like the lower court decision it upheld, concluded that “the Clean Air Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) action that the Act authorizes, displaces Kivalina’s [federal common law tort] claims” against the energy companies. The panel noted that:
“Kivalina’s survival has been threatened by erosion resulting from wave action and sea storms for several decades. … But in recent years, the sea ice has formed later in the year, attached later than usual, broken up earlier than expected, and has been thinner and less extensive in nature. As a result, Kivalina has been heavily impacted by storm waves and surges that are destroying the land where it sits. Massive erosion and the possibility of future storms threaten buildings and critical infrastructure in the city with imminent devastation. If the village is not relocated, it may soon cease to exist. Kivalina attributes the impending destruction of its land to the effects of global warming, which it alleges results in part from emissions of large quantities of greenhouse gases by the Energy Producers.
****
[The village alleged the activities of the Energy Producers] constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with public rights, including the rights to use and enjoy public and private property in Kivalina. Kivalina’s complaint also charged the Energy Producers with acting in concert to create, contribute to, and maintain global warming and with conspiring to mislead the public about the science of global warming.”
The Court ruled that Kivalina lacked standing to bring a “public nuisance” tort claim under federal common law because that the Clean Air Act and EPA authority thereunder “displaces” any federal common law claims. The nature of the remedy sought by Kivalina, damages rather than injunctive relief, did not alter that conclusion. Kivalina’s remedy, if any, said the Court of Appeals, “must rest in the hands of the legislative and executive branches of our government, not the federal common law.”
The similar tort claims brought by Kivalina under Alaskan state law were dismissed earlier in the case, without prejudice to refiling in Alaskan state court. Those state law claims are being met by a defense of federal preemption, which is arguably reinforced by this appellate ruling. But this judicial odyssey is not yet over.
The full appellate decision can be downloaded here – http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/09/21/09-17490.pdf.
I hope this is useful.
MK
Love how not one but two people offer a partial quote of Steven Schneider as if it somehow supports this absurdly titled blog post. “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”, he said, as correctly reported by Eugene S Conlin and approximately guessed at by “tallbloke”. How very curious that neither of them offered the rest of the quote: “I hope that means being both”.
I wonder why on earth they would have omitted that rather relevant part of the quote? Did they feel that was honest? Did they feel that was effective? I think it was neither.
NeilT, NeilT my man. Come on. In science the ONUS is down to those who make claims to provide the evidence. I made 2 simple challenges to you and you refused. Why should anyone take you seriously???
Now pay attention to what the climactic models say:
East Africa to get less rain
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0984-y
East Africa to get more rain
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/%7Emnew/research/publications/hulme_et_al_african_climate_CR_2001.pdf
You do realise that your resistance to provide evidence does not make you look good at all.
PS I, as a sceptic, don’t have to provide any evidence at all. That’s how science works.
@ur momisugly Blog Lurker, September 20, 2012: Much obliged for the James McCarthy tip. Although I already had McCarthy’s name in my massive notes pile, many names carry no immediate importance with me until their relevance whacks me upside the head via tips like this. E.g. Anthony Socci, an Al Gore staffer I’d never heard of, but inadvertently had in my notes in relation to some critical point concerning the smear of skeptics. The few words I initially had about him ballooned up to something over 4000 words in my notes. Now, I’m finding some entertaining things about the McCarthy/Gelbspan association…. thanks!