I find it very peculiar that the New York Times can publish an editorial observer piece about unheeded warnings–“Cassandra, the Ignored Prophet of Doom, Is a Woman for Our Times,” by Adam Cohen (4/19/10)–without once mentioning climate change.
The piece cites various foretold disasters–Bernie Madoff, sexual abuse by priests, the financial meltdown, September 11, New Orleans–without mentioning the looming catastrophe whose impact seems likely to eclipse all of these. (One of China’s top economic planners recently predicted that the economic disruption caused by global warming “would be equivalent to that of the two world wars and the Great Depression combined.”) Cohen does mention Al Gore as the originator of the phrase “inconvenient truth,” but recalling which truth Gore was referring to is left as an exercise for the reader.
But perhaps this omission is not so strange, considering that more than half of the paper’s science writers are reportedly doubters when it comes to climate change (FAIR Blog, 3/17/10). That would explain why the Times put stories questioning climate scientists on the front page (11/21/09) while relegating reports clearing them of the charges against them to brief items in the back pages (3/31/10, 4/15/10). Maybe in this instance, the Times believes, Cassandra happens to be wrong.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment, but there is a major distinction between all of those “foretold disasters” and climate change.
Those disasters were discrete events which occurred, by and large, in the past. They have been confirmed by historians.
On what date did Katrina happen? When was Madoff arrested? When did Bear Sterns fail? When did they pass TARP? Those are all knowns. Even much of the church’s abuse is known and dated.
And yet on what date do historians say the Earth’s (current) climate shifted? On what day did man have an impact? In other words, on what day was Cassandra proven right?
I should point out that this is a literal distinction or, if you prefer, a merely technical one. Which is not to say that climate science is wrong (since it is agreed upon in such overwhelming numbers) merely that unlike those other things it is ongoing, its effects are still being measured, and its full impacts are still being predicted.
There is no “Cassandra was right” historical entry for modern climate change, such as this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Then again, if it was convenient perhaps it would be mentioned.
Jcalton, you raise a good point. That said, how many people have to drown to constitute your definition of a “historical entry”?
If you always wait until Cassandra is proven right before listening to her and considering her warnings, then of what value is she? In the case of the priests, Cassandra has been right for hundreds of years.
You make a somewhat valid point, jcalton. But the article would have been much better if it had mentioned things that Cassandra is warning us about now and asked why we are ignoring her warnings once again. Global warming and climate change is the biggest of these by far. Not only that, but there is plenty of proof that global warming has been happening for the last few decades. It’s not just a future event. It has already begun and will get much worse in the future. If we dealt with the financial crisis way we are dealing with global warming, we would have let the crisis turn into a huge disaster instead of bailing out the banks and spending stimulous money.
The NYT seems to be as much against the fight to stop global warming as it was for the invasion of Iraq. The results will be far worse this time.
Gosh, I started reading the Science page of the NYTimes and was distracted by the large animated ad from the American Petroleum Institute web site of EnergyTomorrow.org. Gosh I wonder how much revenue that generates for the Times? I know the print edition has plenty of car ads, and every so often a full page ad from ExxonMobil. I wonder, does their editorial expression tend to help or hinder their advertising revenue?