[DISCLAIMER: I expect Chris may not like what I'm about to compose because we both generally support the Center for American Progress. Still, you bet I'll speak up when they publish something downright irresponsible - even with the best intentions. That said, readers: What follows in no way reflects the opinions of Chris Mooney. And to my favorite co-blogger: Although I expect you're going feel I'm too hard on CAP, we both know you didn't bring me on board to agree on everything.] So here goes...
As stated above, until last week I thought the Center for American Progress was alright. I mean they had Chris and Matt as speakers and are a leading policy think tank. And now they go and make my job of, you know, presenting the real science behind climate change a whole lot more difficult. Needless to say, I'm not at all impressed with this poor attempt at framing global warming where they basically cut and paste a long list of alarmist predictions without proper fact checking--let alone an understanding of what they claim. It's such a miserable job, I half wonder if some clever denialist has infiltrated CAP from the inside. This nonsense called Top 100 Ways Global Warming Will Change Your Life is so grossly inaccurate and overwhelmingly panicked in tone, I find it difficult to trudge through without wondering if it it was first printed by The Onion.
Assuming that no one is working covertly for the 'other side' (and in terms of climate change - we should not have sides), I can only say that this is a terribly sloppy attempt to make this subject relevant to all of us. But let me assure you, the potential impacts of our planetary fever will be devastating enough that everyone will take notice without this kind of ridiculous approach that mocks the severity of what's at stake. It's a bombastic presentation that undermines the real progress being made by folks working to portray the science accurately. Most troubling, this list provides denialists with a ton of ammunition to point to scientists as a bunch of alarmists.
'Say Goodbye To Baseball?'
'Say Goodbye To French Fries?'
'Say Hello To Bulgarian Hooker Shortages?'
Are you kidding me? This is possibly the most backward attempt at framing I've ever read. It's an organization that everyday people look to for answers and they're highlighting 'More Stray Kitties' and 'Burning Poo.' And halfway through comes a particularly egregious suggestion to my marine biologist sensitivity:
'The Oceans Are Turning To Acid.'
They're certainly not! (But gee, way to scare folks!) Now honestly, I still genuinely like you CAP, but this article is CRAP! The oceans are NOT turning to acid! This demonstrates a lack of taking the time to explore and understand what Ocean Acidification means (expect a post on that soon)--The term is used to describe the way the pH of oceans is becoming less basic as they absorb excess CO2. Yes, it may indeed be an enormous and extremely frightening problem because of potential implications for organisms that depend on calcium carbonate like corals, algae, oysters and on... but this kind of inaccurate bold text invokes visions of the demise to the Wicked Witch of the West upon poking a toe in the ocean. Sheesh, who the heck is fact checking over there? And speaking of which:
Say Goodbye to Lobster Dinners. Lobsters thrive in the chilly waters of New England, but recent numbers show that as those waters have warmed up, "the big-clawed American lobster -- prized for its delicate, sweet flesh -- has been withering at an alarming rate from New York state to Massachusetts." [Bangor Times]
Ummmm... I've lived in Bangor. There is no Bangor Times. Be careful about those sources.
Okay, so they did get some potential impacts of global warming correct, but what was their intention with the tone of ridiculous list now widely circulating the internet? These alarmist predictions either scare folks into holing up for impending apocalypse or shrugging off the crazy alarmists pushing a partisan agenda. I'm terribly disappointed because this kind of shoddy framing only succeeds in setting us back. For PZ's sake, the next time CAP publishes something on climate, I hope they'll check the details, nix scare tactics, and work with someone who understands the importance of incorporating the best science available.
- Log in to post comments
Not that wish to nit-pick your nit-picking *grin*, but it might be worth pointing out that there is more than one Bangor (e.g. the one in Northern Ireland that the one in Maine is named for, or the one in Wales) in the world.
Not to say that this means that there is a Bangor Times, but it does suggest that your having lived there isn't entirely relevant evidence in your claim that there isn't (unless you have lived in all of them) and would fall under the heading of hasty generalisation.
s/wish/I wish/
Checked the link, seems they misquoted the source, the one they link to is an AP article printed by the Bangor Daily News and reposted to a mailing list.
Even pardoning the mixed measures (both cubic miles and cubic km are used), at this "alarming" rate, it would take 11,000 years for all of Greenland to melt.
Yes, it's definitely Bangor, Maine. I checked. And then asked a friend in the Augusta State House if such a publication exists even though I have not heard of it. He confirmed it doesn't.
I applaud you for taking on the alarmist inaccuracies of
CAP. There is so much out there to worry about, and I can worry, that a proper perspective on truth is appreciated.
Thanks, Sheril.
It's time for those of us who have concluded that AGW is a serious issue to call for a policy debate based on the IPCC reports, which provide not only a consensus but also a set of scenarios (and associated uncertainties) that need to be addressed.
This is not a left-right political issue, but those who view it in that way abuse the science by their tone if not by the facts they cite. That gives us denialists on the right and alarmists on the left.
For those of us in the middle, the facts are compelling. Global warming may have consequences that trump every other issue for our future.
We see Al Gore's approach as a bit too strident but mainly on the mark. He's guilty of a few overstatements and misstatements, such as one I blogged about a few months ago (click my name), but overall, he has been sounding an important warning that has kept this important issue on the national agenda.
So let's fight for the middle and let the slings and arrows come our way from both sides!
To Chris: I had my suspicions when I read RWOS, and now I'm convinced because you strategically brought on Sheril. You are a genius.
To Sheril: Thank PZ someone is speaking up intelligently and not guided by allegiance to a side, but rather pursuit of truth.
You two are bringing integrity back to science.
True...If the rate doesn't increase any more. You have some reason to believe that as it gets warmer it won't lose ice faster? Don't neglect that as the 'ice box' gets smaller, its ability to retard more warming is diminished. There is a positive feedback here. As Greenland warms it loses more ice, which lets it warm faster (less ice means more absorbed sunlight), which makes it lose even more ice.
What is alarming is that the rate is already much higher than predicted for the current amount of warming because the ice sheet is dynamically losing ice rather than just passively melting in place.
People who are in denial over global warming frequently point to uncertainties as a reason to do nothing. What they forget is that uncertainties don't mean that if our projections are wrong that it will necessarily be better: It can also be worse.
The recent history of climate projections have pretty consistently errored on the optimistic side. In almost every case, the reality has been substantially worse than the predictions.
I am a professor of many ambitious and intelligent undergraduates who want to make a difference. I was shocked and appalled last week when a number of my young students began forwarding me this list jumping on board with the nonsense of this argument. So much so that Monday I gave a lecture addressing the problems CAP has presented. I am now assuredly a lot less likely to point to them for answers. I look instead to the Union of Concerned Scientists who do a trmendous job of supplying credible information. As well, apparently as this blog, which I expect to be visiting regularly.
I am sure they had good intentions, but you know what they say it paves the way to.. I have no doubt CAP has no idea of the tremendous diservice to all of us they have done with this peice. And I suspect it was written by those in a field other than science.
Thank you Sheril.
Benjamin,
Calm down - I am not denying nor waving the uncertainty banner. You are completely correct - I was too brief in my earlier comment and should have made clear that I am not doubting that ice melting rates would accelerate, nor that we will see effects with just a fraction of the Greenland ice sheet melting. I was attempting to point out that, taken to its logical conclusion, the supposedly "alarming" fact wasn't all that alarming - and CAP had done nothing to guard against irresponsible calculations by not providing a frame of reference for their statement. Both my post and the CAP report itself should have pointed out that there is more to the story - including feedbacks, the potential for a "tipping point" or other unanticipated change, etc.
Thank you.
I hope they pull the page.
Best possible example they could give of real American progress would be developing a routine and cheerful ability to say "We screwed up.
I thought that the reference to "The Bangor Times" was weird, I'd never heard of it either. The only newspaper bearing Bangor's name that I know of is The Bangor Daily News. Which I still think is better than the Press Herald despite being a native Portlandite. ;)
Since some have claimed I represent the "dark side" here at the Intersection I will quote the emperor,
"All too easy."
It is interesting to hear Fred claim to be in the "middle" between "deniers" and "alarmists" and then follow by saying, "Global warming may have consequences that trump every other issue for our future."
Nothing alarmist about that statement.
After examining all the pertinent facts reasonable people may come to the conclusion that there isn't much to get excited about.
The link labelled "Bangor Times" actually leads to an article from the Bangor Daily News. Probably a typo.
You're right, one of the links in the 100 compiled news stories was mistakenly credited to the "Bangor Times." (It was actually an AP story reprinted in the "Bangor Daily News.")We've successfully changed the link citation for the story quote to the AP. Whew - thanks for helping us shake and bake!
Nice try Christy, but Hank Roberts is right:
The link is the least of the problems with this poor excuse for journalism. I doubt Sheril has lived in enough other cities to pick up on additional papers cited inaccurately.
Nice Will Ferrell reference though. He pretended to be involved in the news once to.
Sadie said
"You two are bringing integrity back to science."
Maybe you two ought to bring integrity back to the White House.
Mooney-Kirshenbaum 2016
Lance abbreviated my statement:
"For those of us in the middle, the facts are compelling. Global warming may have consequences that trump every other issue for our future."
Key phrase in first sentence: the facts are compelling.
Key word in second sentence: may
In other words, I think the facts and the scenarios give us reason for concern.
One person's necessary warning is another's needless alarm. That's an argument we've had before, but this is as far as I intend to go with it in this thread.
For more of my thinking on this subject, you can read the old blog entry attached to my name.
OT: My latest blog entry invites people to share "Sputnik memories."
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/sputnik-plus-fifty-share-your-memories-1…
Christy Harvey,
While it's good you've corrected the source, that's not quite the principle concern I have about this widely circulated list. CAP has a strong following as a progressive think tank and must be careful about what's published. The written word is powerful.
Many bright, passionate students I know are repeating and forwarding these 'impacts' which the science doesn't necessarily support. I do understand the intent was to wake folks up to global warming, but please be aware this kind of unfounded alarmism is dangerous rocket fuel for denialists.
Gosh, it's sort of hard to believe this one passed through even a little internal scrutiny. Thanks for pointing this out. As already said, it would be great for them and for all if they simply retracted and said that they screwed up, producing a better document in its stead. Let's hope.
Cheers,
-cvj
CAP isn't going away, nor (hopefully) is their radio service. Given that the people who run the site aren't climate change experts even on a lay level (which is really what it would have taken to do an accurate job of knocking all that material down into soundbites), and given that we don't want them to stop covering the issue, and finally given that they're reading this thread, how do we suggest that they proceed in the future? IOW let's be constructive. A quick question for Sheril: Have you had a look at the rest of their climate change material so that this piece can be considered in context?
I have to run right now, but I'll just say for the moment that while the piece had some definite problems, overall I didn't have that bad of a reaction to it. Meaningless, inadvertent errors like the Times reference, which did after all link to the correct place, are inevitable in deadline journalism and IMHO should be ignored by the principaled. Of course just a few days ago there was some sharp disagreement about an AP story that I thought was perfect and Sheril thought was alarmist, so opinions will vary.
Saaaay... I seem to recall that there's a journalist associated with this site. Maybe he even has an opinion about this.
Steve Bloom,
I agree that a constructive approach is good, but on the other hand, if they don't have a staff scientist who's up on these things, that's not entirely a strong defense in these times when good scientists who can and will comment for free are readily available by simply going to (for example) scienceblogs.
Access to scientists for even a brief consultation on an issue is right there for the taking. Most of them will even do it for free, because we think the issues are important. Organizations should be encouraged to engage more with them. I hope that posts such as this one of Sheril's might actually help encourage such engagement.
Cheers,
-cvj
I've been following the "framing debate," such as it, is for a short time and it seems to me to be a distraction and a misallocation of energy. It's like hearing people talk about talking about something, but never get around to the something.
Now, talk about alarmist, frame this.
Incidentally, the video advertised on the left, "Crude Impact," is excellent and I highly recommend it.
Eric the Leaf, a very wise man, wrote:
"I've been following the "framing debate," such as it, is for a short time and it seems to me to be a distraction and a misallocation of energy. It's like hearing people talk about talking about something, but never get around to the something."
I call him wise, because I agree, of course! :)
I have been saying all along that "framing" as it has been described is nothing more than a technique to communicate effectively by paying attention to your audience and selecting your information and matching your tone to the audience's needs.
Nothing new about that. I do it all the time in writing for kids or in reviewing books for newspapers.
Now if I were communicating to persuade someone about an ideology or to sell something, then framing might be called "spin." That gives a good term ("framing ones argument well") a bad aroma ("spinning the facts").
Vader said that, not the Emperor.
***
Let's have no more talk about "the middle", eh? Being in the middle doesn't mean you're a moderate; being a moderate doesn't mean you're correct; being in the middle doesn't mean you're correct. It is an entirely pointless property.
Well, they do have the in-house expertise, e.g. Joe Romm and Kit Batten, plus three non-PhDs they identify as knowing about climate change, so there shouldn't be any problem with fact-checking. I imagine the person who put the piece together figured that the details weren't very important since the contents are just quick little sound bites. I agree that our side does need to be more careful with the facts, so hopefully the CAP folks will be more careful next time.
I suppose the underlying problem here is that we want climate change to be on everybody's lips, but to the extent we get our wish the complexity of climate science will mean that a lot of what's on those lips will be exaggerated or just plain wrong.
Caledonian,
I stand corrected. May the force be with you.
I want to applaud Sheril for having the kind of integrity needed to bring this up. It shows she isn't worried about the backlash of honestly critizing her 'allies.' In fact, the fact she chose to engage in such a debate shows the respect she has for them. She's challenged them to remain rational, effective and credible.
If anything, they should heed her mild criticisms and admit they could've done it better. It would behoove CAP to release a statement admitting the screw-up, calm the story down and re-release a useful document for those who don't necessarily respond to extremism. Preaching to the choir doesn't get much 'progress' accomplished, no?
> If anything
I hope you mean "at the minimum"
Look, we all screw up. Science isn't about doing it exactly right the first time. Doing science or writing about it is about getting it better incrementally and helping people find the updated info themselves, and check the facts.
Here's an example:
Started by me screwing up -- I tried to answer someone's question, gave a pointer to a _bad_answer.
Gavin, who'd written that answer, noticed my mistake, fixed the pointer, _said_he'd_gotten_it_wrong, and pointed to someone else's better answer.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/uncertainty-in-po…
That is how it should be done.
Fix the damn mistakes with pointers to better information, don't leave it there and hope it gets buried by newer posts and forgotten about.
Nitpicking is a basic primate social grace. Get good at it.
Ah, to correct myself -- that link above was my _second_ mistake in that thread, that Gavin corrected.
The one I described in the previous post actually happened a bit earlier:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/uncertainty-in-po…
_______________________
"For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar" http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhoistw.html