Brian Montopoli, of CBS's "Public Eye," talked with Scott Pelley recently about his "60 Minutes" global warming special. Pelley explains that he deliberately did not talk to those voices who remain skeptical of the science: "It would be irresponsible of us to go find some scientist somewhere who is not thought of as being eminent in the field and put him on television with these other guys to cast doubt on what they're saying." My own belief is that Pelley is being a tad too dismissive--a better approach might be to include the existence of the skeptics but also to contextualize their viewpoint so that the audience understands just how far outside of the mainstream they are.
In any case, Pelley says one thing I definitely don't agree with:
The Reagan administration, Pelley points out, was initially dead set against acting to reduce chlorofluorocarbons, but as the evidence that they were damaging the environment became overwhelming, it came around. He believes the Bush administration might be reaching a similar "tipping point," thanks to the "remarkable unanimity" among scientists on the impact of global warming.
I'm afraid that Pelley is way too optimistic if he thinks this analogy is going to hold. From a policy perspective, dealing with CFCs was massively easier than dealing with global climate change. And Reagan's EPA at the time was run by Lee Thomas, who actually went against the grain in the administration in pushing for the Montreal Protocol. If we have such a rebel administrator in the Bush administration on global warming, that person has been remarkably silent thus far.
So no, I'm very dubious that any action on global warming will be taken with Bush still in office. That's why I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's a 2008 campaign issue.
- Log in to post comments
Chris-
Pelly's "history" of CFC's is dead wrong. The Reagan Administration took action on CFCs in the earl 1980s due to a settlement of a NRDC lawsuit following the Carter Administration's last minute proposal to regulate under the CAAA of 1977 before leaving office. During this time the science was very uncertain and if anything was moving away from an earlier scientific consensus. The Reagan Administration's actions were made easier because industry had invent CFC substitutes and DuPont lessened opposition to regulation, seeing economic opportunities.
The idea that science reached a thrshold of certainty, which then compelled action is a myth. The story is told in this paper:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., and M. M. Betsill, 1997: Policy for Science for Policy: Ozone Depletion and Acid Rain Revisited. Research Policy, 26, 157-168.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/1997.11.pdf
fair enough
You note that you disagree with Pelley's statement that "the Bush administration might be reaching a similar 'tipping point,' thanks to the 'remarkable unanimity' among scientists on the impact of global warming."
That may be so, given Bush's incredible stubbornness, but I think a significant part of his base is indeed tipping. I expect more Evangelicals to realize that this problem calls for relgious action, just as a large subgroup already has.
That's not a new idea. Carl Sagan discussed the environmentalist common ground between science and religion in his last book, Billions and Billions, published posthumously in 1997.
See my blog entry here
and my review of Billions and Billions, http://www.scienceshelf.com/Billions.htm
I agree. He'll act as though he's tipping towards action on global warming right before he leaves office and then the next President will start out opposed to action again. His party will likewise act as though they're doing something on the issue to get some suburban votes during this mid-term election, but then go right back to blocking any action as soon as they're in office. Lather, rinse, repeat, seen it all before.
(caveat: I did not watch the 60 minutes special, so I base my comment on the stated approach rather than the implementation)
Chris, I disagree with your disagreement with not giving any air time to those in science lala-land. To present, say Patrick Michaels, and then try to contextualize it in a (deservedly) nagative way would come off as defensive and *still* give his opinions more exposure than the deserve.
There are legitimate debates going on in climate science (ie attribution of trends in hurricanes) and these should be presented. But where there is near unanimity a piece journalism should present only the consensus. A piece of scientific research of course, should not. That is where the smaller uncertainties should be acknowledged, but not in a prime time television piece.
Coby,
It all depends upon how the reporter executes the contextualization.
You are of course quite correct. It is a difficult question, how to present a politically charged scientific issue to the lay public, probably one of those pesky questions with no Right Answer(tm).
My concern is that by even mentioning these people (Michaels, Lindzen, Crichton) one has immediately bought into the false framework of "Sceptic" vs "Alarmist" and then the public, like a 5 year old asked to choose their own dinner, may choose candy over broccoli.
The down side is of course the risk of being seen as hiding something.
Whether 60 Minutes did the best thing or not, I can't really comment on, as I said above.
BTW, keep up the good work on this critical issue, Global Warming and the broader attack on science.
I mostly agree with Roger, although he may be overly dismissive of the role of scientific certainty. The US led on CFCs because DuPont let it, and DuPont let it because DuPont was in the lead in developing CFC subsitutes.
Comparing DuPont's policy on CFCs with Exxon-Mobil's policy on climate change is depressing.