Last month CJR blogger Curtis Brainard (1/29/10) complained that the media were not giving enough attention to some complaints—mostly from climate change deniers—about the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and complaints about IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri. Jim Naureckas suggested right here that this was a bad idea, but today the New York Times (2/9/10) seemed to take CJR‘s advice.
The headline (“U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege”) and second paragraph suggest something important:
But Dr. Pachauri and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are now under intense scrutiny, facing accusations of scientific sloppiness and potential financial conflicts of interest from climate skeptics, right-leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists. Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, called for Dr. Pachauri’s resignation last week.
So what’s the status of these charges? You have to read a few more paragraphs until you’re told that”several of the recent accusations have proved to be half-truths,” and that the “general consensus among mainstream scientists is that the errors are in any case minor and do not undermine the report’s conclusions.” Well, shouldn’t that be made clear from the start?
There are two scientific criticisms made about the last IPCC report—one has been found baseless, while the other was an actual mistake, though the magnitude of the error seems to have been overstated. But that’s apparently good enough to craft a whole story around the “IPCC Under Siege” theme, and to collect quotes from the likes of leading denier Christopher Monckton: “The chair is an Indian railroad engineer with very substantial direct and indirect financial vested interests in the matters covered in the climate panel’s report. What on earth is he doing there?”
Monckton is, among other things, “the chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute”— a climate change denying think tank that apparently does not disclose its funders (SpinProfiles). Yet apparently the Times sees Monckton as a credible source for critiquing the head of the IPCC for failing to disclose his financial ties.
Peter and Jim, Curtis responded to the criticism, and if his piece jibes with his explanation here, I think he’s being treated – pardon the pun – unfairly.
He doesn’t seem to be ignoring mainstream bias, which is what he’s being dumped on for, isn’t it? There are plenty of bastards carrying corpress water, and dissing someone who doesn’t appear to be guilty of that is a waste of time, and more importantly, just plain wrong.
I’d really like to see a response to his reply.
Here’s a piece from the Guardian that I think does a pretty good job of covering the controversy:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/09-8
I’d be interested to know how Curtis, Jim and Peter view it.
I agree with the IPCC author quoted at the end of the Guardian piece:
“The sad reality is this whole manufactured climate controversy is like arguing over the dinner menu on the Titanic as it sinks. The fact is, the climate is warming. Do we want to deal with this problem or not? Do we owe anything to future generations who are not here today to be part of the decision-making process. Science and the IPCC cannot answer these questions.”
I think that both the Guardian article and the New York Times article cited above are both manifestations of that manufactured controversy. They make no sense as news stories outside the denier-fabricated narrative of the great climate hoax. But at least the Times is now eating its own lunch.
Jim, I just don’t suss where you’re going here. It seems to me that the “controversey” has to be covered – its existence is factual, isn’t it? But in covering it, the false claims and manufactured “crisis” in climate change science should be the focus, which the Guardian piece, perhaps poorly, takes a shot at doing, doesn’t it?
In other words: Don’t ignore … expose.
Am I missing something here?
And how is the NYT “now eating its own lunch”? Skinny me on this, please.
Related piece:
Climate Change Scientists Losing ‘PR War’ to Vested Interests
A Nobel peace prize-winning Welsh physicist says climate change scientists are losing “a PR war” against sceptics with vested interests.
by BBC News
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/12-1
What seems to be happening is that if you don’t have the money or the inclination to hire a PR firm, you will be beaten down with all kinds of innuendo and smears on your professionalism, your character and your credibility. It’s terrible that this is happening to scientists interested in keeping our world sustainable, but misinformation campaigns are commonplace now all accross the board. Anyone who stands up to right wing profiteering, is subject to this treatment and massive amounts of people are added to the ever-burgeoning ranks of the ill-informed. The New York Times who seems to have bought into this, is on a slippery slope to just becoming one big advertisement for right corporate interests.
Thanks, Cathy. Exposing half-truths, misinformation campaigns, and those interests that would keep us ignorant is a never-ending battle. We need clean air, clean water, good food, adequate clothing and shelter for our climate, fair pay for our work, safe transportation, adequate medical care. Those that make a mess should clean it up, not cover it up.
After Hurricane Katrina, Sir John Lawton, chairman of Britain’s Royal Commision on Environmental Pollution, said: “If this makes the climate loonies in the States realize we’ve got a problem, some good will come of this awful situation”.
Sir John understimated the staying power of the climate loonies, and the vast amount of money EXXON MOBIL spends to support them.
I believe it¡¯s disgusting people generate a great deal money off people as i am. I have tried EVERYTHING there’s. I cannot even leave the house simply because this trouble is so bad, then to charge so much money for a promise to remove it.