Who Am I?
Apsmith over at Daily Kos has tried to unravel how Michael Tobis got himself top billing on a recent Glenn Beck show.
Because I pop up (somewhat mysteriously–“who is Keith Kloor?”) as one of the culpable parties, I feel it’s important to correct some of his misleading inferences. I wanted to leave a comment on his post but because I’m not registered at the site, it would take 24 hours for the comment to be approved.
First, since many readers of this blog are just becoming familiar with me, well, who am I?
I’m a magazine journalist who has focused largely on environmental and archaeological topics. (A full representation of my work, including links, will soon be available on this blog.)
From 2000 to 2008 I was an editor at Audubon Magazine. It’s a small staff and I’m proud of my work there. Great people too. In addition to my editing responsibilities, I also wrote numerous stories for the magazine. During this period, as well as before I was at Audubon, I have written for various publications, ranging from Smithsonian to Science.
My favorite environmental magazine (partially because I love the Southwest) is High Country News, and I’m honored to now write for them as well.
I’m also an adjunct professor at New York University, where for the last four years I have taught magazine writing to both undergraduates and graduates in the journalism program.
Currently, I’m spending an academic year at the University of Colorado, Boulder, as one of five Ted Scripps Fellows at the Center for Environmental Journalism. My project is on drought and prehistoric cultures in the Southwest.
Now, as to some of the sinister connections inferred by apsmith:
It’s true that Roger Pielke Jr. is a political scientist at the the University of Colorado, where I’m a Fellow. But until two weeks ago I had never met Roger or had any exchanges with him. I did, however, attend a AAAS panel four or five years ago, where Roger gave a climate change-related presentation.
My criticism of alarmist, over-the-top rhetoric by environmentalists made its first appearance in this blog several weeks ago, when I started taking potshots at Joe Romm. (See here and here.) Soon after that, Michael Tobis uttered his unfortunate comments during an exchange with Roger Pielke, Jr, on his blog, which I noted here.
What’s been interesting to me is that the majority of blog comments I’ve received in the wake of all this controversy have related to Roger Pielke Jr. Nearly all of them have come from environmentalists who have cast aspersions on Roger’s motives and characater.
Roger has a well-established record of engaging his critics on blogs, so it’s no surprise that Roger has tried to answer the many criticisms leveled at him on this blog. I give him a lot of credit for doing so.
Because I’m deeply interested in the relationship between drought and how it has affected prehistoric societies, I’m also interested in climate change. As it happens, archaeologist Brian Fagan has recently published a nice book called The Great Warming, examining the role of drought in the collapse of ancient civilizations. I recommend it for anyone interested in the topic.
I mention this because any future societal impacts resulting form anthropogenic climate change are currently uncertain. We can speculate on all sorts of worst-case scenarios, and that’s legitimate. I happen to believe that if we continue on our present course of greenhouse gas buildup, we increase the likelihood of experiencing extreme weather events. That will undoubtedly lead to great human tragedies and increased geopolitical instability.
There should be a vigorous debate on all this. But I object to the over-heated and hypberbolic rehetoric that has dominated the discouse (from both sides of the political spectrum) these last two weeks.
> we increase the likelihood of experiencing extreme weather
Are you saying — by omission — that you don’t believe that increasing greenhouse gases will cause an increase in the overall average temperature (“climate sensitivity” is the usual term), but only extreme weather? It sounds like you’re saying you have no reason to believe climate sensitivity is other than zero.
I don’t think that could be what you mean, but can you be clearer?
Perhaps compare the arguments brought up here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903050025
Arthur Smith’s post is remarkable for its distortions. He neglects to write about Tobis’ apology to me and withdrawal of his original assertion, pretending that it never existed.
Smith asserts of me, “He claims to be an “Honest Broker” in the climate debates” — the reality is that in my book by that title I assert that individuals are not well suited to this role, diverse groups of people are (such as expert advisory committees and organizations). So this is a made straw man. I am no more honest broker than any one else. So this is a lie.
Smith writes, “Tobis didn’t mind that Pielke spotted some problem with Gore’s presentation and helped him fix it.”
This also is a lie, as Michael apologized for the original assertion that he made about me.
The more amazing thing is that Smith condemns me to obscurity after writing 4,000 words about me at Daily Kos . . .
Smith’s retelling is indeed not a perfect history.
My interest in Roger started off by me trying to defend him from what I took to be an unnecessary sideswipe by Brad Johnson. I think the outcome speaks for itself. I am, consequently, not inclined to do Roger any special favors in the future, but I will try to set the record straight on DKos.
I am grateful to Smith for understanding what I was trying to say and why I was saying it that way, and doing a good job of expanding on the words in question in the spirit in which they were intended. I cannot think of a benign motive for spinning it into a position far more extreme than I actually intended to take, as I believe Keith and Roger have done. At best, they chose not to read very carefully.
I would much prefer to hear from Roger that he regrets quoting half my argument in such a way that it would be likely to be picked up with such force by Morano and thence the right wing press. I would also like to hear from both Roger and Keith that they understand that my actual comments at issue are <a href=”http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/03/for-second-day-in-row.html”>nowhere near as extreme as they have been portrayed</a>. As I said here, before I had any idea this was going to change my life, I think you have read me wrong.
Roger complains that people are constantly assuming and saying bad things about him. He should consider that the present episode began with me trying to give him a fair hearing. If that is the sort of thing he wants, he might want to refrain from punishing such an effort so effectively.
I will distinguish between an apology and an expression of regret. I have expressed my regret to the University of Texas that they were dragged into the mud along with me, but I haven’t apologized, since it was really none of my doing.
I’d like an apology from Keith and form Roger, but I would have at least expected an expression of regret by now.
“But I object to the over-heated and hypberbolic rehetoric that has dominated the discouse (from both sides of the political spectrum) these last two weeks.”
Oh, you object do you? And you object without being clear, is that the case? And more so, are you now or have you ever been a member of the climate skeptic party? Have you no craven capitulation to either extreme of the argument, sir? Have you at long last no craven capitulation?
Michael-
For the record, even after our exchanges I still don’t know what your point was or how you think it was misrepresented by Keith or by me. If you would like a forum on our blog to present your views in such a way as you think clarifies them, I’d be welcome to post them. I am happy to accept your explanation that your views are not as extreme as they appeared to be.
Having read your original post and the comments that it motivated, including yours in response to my substantive engagement there, I did not see it as a “fair hearing”. So apologies if I missed that signal.
And of course no one wants to see their views spun and mischaracterized (trust me, I know a bit about this), so of course I regret that you feel that this has happened to you. The best antidote to such things is to set the record straight. So I will repeat, if you’d like a forum on our blog to set the record straight, you have it.
Keith, your use of some fairly nasty terminology regarding Michael is still fresh enough that your objection to its use by others rings hollow.
Roger, you can’t define “honest broker,” rattle on about how various parties aren’t behaving like one, and then complain when you get accused of hypocrisy for not so behaving. Or is it that there’s a new category of “meta-honest brokerage” that you haven’t deigned to tell the rest of us about?
Steve, how do I define “honest broker”?
“.an honest broker works to expand (or at least clarify) the scope of choice available to decision makers. I have contrasted this with the issue advocate who works to reduce the scope of choice available to decision makers.”
which, as Eli points out is not what a broker does. A broker is an expert, who uses his understanding of the market to match buyers and sellers. Brokers narrow choices to reasonable ones. Roger is, however, what he describes as an issue advocate, and part of his job, as he practices it, and we have all seen, is to knock everyone else down.
Oh yeah, Keith, maybe you should ask Roger who provided the background information for the Zimmerman telegram.
I wrote 4000 words? Must make you proud.
Roger, your errant claim about Tobis is still up there where you baldly stated “one climate scientist suggests that my calling out Al Gore for misrepresenting the science of disasters and climate change […] to be morally comparable to killing 1,000 people. I kid you not.”
Tobis’ moral comparison, tentative as it was (and important to make as it was – that is exactly the grounds on which we should be basing decisions about our actions), was most certainly not about your “calling out Al Gore”. It was about comparing Al Gore’s minor issue with George Will’s massively erroneous column in such a way as to confuse the public, in a very public forum like the print edition of the NY Times.
This is not a subtle distinction. Nobody else made this error when reading Tobis’ comments, until you posted that, although Keith here came close with his Gore cult business. Even Glenn Beck stated Tobis’ complaint mostly correctly – before echoing your distortion of it.
That is the real issue here. Language matters. Roger, you clearly and it is hard to doubt deliberately distorted Michael Tobis’ words, and did so in a considerably more public manner than anything he did.
But I have no question on any of that, your actions speak far louder than anything you could say in your own defense. Here are my actual questions for you:
(1) Did you or your associates communicate with Andy Revkin about your criticism of Gore in any way before his story on Gore and Will was printed, and if so, did you (or associates) ever mention both Will and Gore in the same message?
(2) Did you or your associates communicate with Marc Morano about your Tobis post in any way before Morano’s email blast against Tobis, echoing your post, went out?
(3) Have you previously had reason to believe that either Andy Revkin or Marc Morano monitor your posts in a regular fashion such that the above communications might not have been necessary?
The above 3 questions concern your own actions, but I did have some questions about actual policy issues in the original article which Roger perhaps missed. Here they are again:
The biggest obstacle is “those who try to enforce singular thinking”? Who is Pielke blaming here – Jim Hansen who favors nuclear power and wants all coal plants shut down ASAP? Al Gore, who rarely says much about specific mitigation policies at all, hoping instead for a nonlinear change in the realm of the “politically possible”, though he likes carbon offsets and is on record favoring a carbon tax rather? Joe Romm, who is largely responsible for the dismissal of the mirage of hydrogen from the policy picture, who hates carbon offsets and opposes nuclear power as too expensive? Really, Pielke thinks they are the obstacle to solutions because their disparate views constitute “enforcement of singular thinking”? Or if not these people, who?
And they are getting us nowhere? With renewable energy production growing by leaps and bounds, with a new administration that has actually included revenue from CO2 permits in its budget projections? With the latest IPCC report from 2007 and work on a new climate treaty underway? Nowhere? Am I the only one who finds the “honest broker’s” policy claims confusing and incoherent?
Of course now I realize Roger says he has never been an “honest broker”. But aside from that, the specific questions are:
(1) Who do you believe is, as you claim, enforcing “singular thinking” in policy choices, as the principle candidates clearly disagree with one another on policy?
(2) Why do you believe we are getting nowhere, when there are signs of significant progress all around?
Michael:
I am trying hard to find the kernel of truth in your original comments about Andrew Revkin, but I cannot get past the use of the word “evil.” Perhaps this is because of my own history as a Jew growing up with survivors of the Holocaust. I just don’t use that word as lightly as some others do, and it bothers me when I see it thrown around so lightly. Truly evil things include things like murder, genocide, and racism, not mistakes in articles by journalists who generally strive to get things right.
I want to ascribe noble motives to the points you were trying to make about Revkin, but I keep tripping up on that word, and it prevents me from finding that kernel of truth. Do you understand how some people, like myself, would find the use of that word offensive?
For the record, I believe Revkin made a mistake in his news analysis by giving equal weight to George Will’s column, which was untrue in both its details and overall thrust, and a presentation by Al Gore, which exaggerates the link between natural disasters and global warming but in other respects is a truly admirable exercise in synthesis, founded on solid scientific evidence. Moreover, the differences between Will and Gore are clear for the world to see: Will continues to dissemble and lie, whereas Gore replaced the offending slide. I would say that he still exaggerates what science knows about the link between global warming and natural catastrophes like hurricanes. But here we have a case of something inaccurate in one significant detail but substantively true overall. Whereas with Will we have something that is both factually inaccurate AND substantially false overall.
Revkin made a mistake, but in the context of his career covering this issue, it has been blown way out of proportion, in my opinion. So Michael, I would ask that you acknowledge that what Revkin did was not “evil.” We should help this word retain its power by reserving it for the likes of people who truly do this world harm. For all his faults, and even the error in this one story, Andy has done more to repair the world than most people. So that word just does not fit. Your use of it may play well among those who are already inclined to your point of view, but it is a stumbling block for others, including the very people you presumably would like to reach.
Michael’s point was that
1. there are large, dangerous risks associated with climate change
2. dangerous climate change tomorrow is driven by choices we make today, so we are ethically bound to avoid those risks
4. avoiding those risks necessarily involves taking serious mitigating actions immediately
5. that not doing so will almost certainly result in major losses of life and property
6. anyone who perceives the threat is morally obligated to act to meet it or acknowledge that they are accepting major losses of life and property.
7. given what we know scientifically, anyone who adopts the ostrich position, or thinks that God will provide is ignoring the problem and issue which puts them in moral or intellectual jeopardy
Eli has always disliked the moral calculus so he won’t put numbers up there, but Weitzmann and now Tol and Yohe have. They are grim. Very close to Stern’s numbers.
You might try and disagree with each of those propositions (at best, the argument between Pielke and Romm is #4) but mt has always been clear. His basic position has not changed for a decade. It is disengenuous to pretend otherwise.
I suppose by usenet tradition I win the argument but I’ll proceed anyway.
If Tom will accept everything I say except the word “evil”, then what word may I substitute? “Unethical”? “Immoral”? If either word will do let us consider the deal done. I would much rather agree with Tom than disagree.
I really wasn’t aiming my comments at a broad audience. I forgot my own advice that the broad audience is always present. I spoke too casually.
Make no mistake, though. I think the ethical implications of our environmental problems really are staggering.
See The Holocaust Analogy for more, wherein I take up Jim Hansen’s violation of Godwin, and my own view as (coincidentally also) a child of holocaust survivors, about Hansen’s shocking comparison between coal trains and death trains.
Michael,
Tom Yulsman’s earlier comment pretty well captured my thinking on this matter.
I too had a hard time getting past “palpably evil.” As to the moral calculus you offered later on in your exchange with Roger Pielke Jr., that was no philosophy seminar thought experiment. That was you speculating on the possible consequences resulting from one news analysis (and Will’s column).
Now I really want to feel bad for you, because nobody who believes that climate change is a pressing concern should be dragged through the mud–not Andy Revkin, not Roger Pielke Jr., and not Michael Tobis.
Yet you continue to justify your moral equation. If I understand you correctly, you merely regret that you used imprecise language. A perfect example is your response (15) to Yulsman:
“If Tom will accept everything I say except the word “evil” then what word may I substitute? Unethical? Immoral? If either word will do, let us consider the deal done.”
I’m not going to speak for Tom (though I suspect he’ll agree with me here), but no: neither word will do, because they don’t fit the so-called crime. What Andy Revkin did was neither “unethical” nor “immoral.” As Tom put it, Andy “made a mistake.”
By blowing that way out of proportion, as you and others have done (and I believe a contagion spread there, which perhaps struck you), your subsequent wounds were self-afflicted.
Lastly, I believe that I accurately summarized your meaning with my selective quotations in my blog post. I do think long and hard about such things. Even still, I made sure to tell readers that what they were reading was an excerpt.
I’m not responsible for how your comments were portrayed. You are. By implying that I am, you’re blaming the messenger. Your blog is public. Presumably you write to influence the discourse on clmate change. Well, you did exactly that last week.
Michael:
I never viewed this as an argument to be “won.” I tried to get past your use of language to understand what you might really be saying, and I hoped that you would try to understand my point of view. It doesn’t seem to have worked out that way. So I concede. You win.
Finding common ground here would have been a true “win.” But it seems that you would rather continue characterizing a mistake by someone who has dedicated himself to public understanding of environmental issues as “evil,” or now “immoral” or “unethical.” So now I realize that this IS what you were really saying. No more, no less. I get it now.
Lastly, I made no comparison whatsoever involving Nazis or Hitler. I simply spoke from the heart about how my own experience growing up shapes my perspective on issues of good and evil. I thought sharing that experience would move the conversation forward, but it didn’t work out that way. Too bad. Time to move on.
Good luck in all of your efforts to convince the world of the dangers of climate change. I’m sure accusing them of being “evil” for not seeing things exactly the way you do is going to be a winning strategy.
Keith – your original post on Michael Tobis, which excerpted his comments, was not a distortion, although it was, I believe, naive. Your subsequent post, which accused him of being a member of the “Church of Al Gore”, was much more unjustified. However, you still didn’t claim that Michael was equating any criticism of Gore with mass murder. That was Roger Pielke Jr.’s distortion.
However, you are distorting things further here by calling Michael’s comments a “moral equation”. He deliberately phrased it in a very tentative manner, with many qualifications (almost all of which you dropped in your original post – so there was already some distortion by selective quote there). Michael doesn’t have precise numbers or analysis of this, he’s not pretending to.
But words are not empty, they have an impact on the real world. If they didn’t we could just close down all the blogs and newspapers and be happy, since the world would be unchanged. To the extent any given collection of words causes people to change the actions they take, it has a real impact, that will, with a terrible frequency, include loss of life (or, more hopefully, lives saved). To every such collection of words a number can be attributed: net lives shortened, or lengthened, through actions following from that piece of communication. To pretend that that number is always zero is preposterous.
To a large degree that number is unknowable, fortunately for us. But in some special circumstances we can get a glimpse of what that number might be. Michael’s argument is that, on the global warming “debate”, we have just such a case because the science is very clear that any delays in dealing with the problem will lead to much greater loss of life in future. Perhaps Michael is wrong on that, or his numbers are way off. That would be legitimate grounds for debate. But to dismiss the argument completely as if “words never hurt anyone” is infantile.
Regarding “mistakes”, I made a mistake. I expressed my true beliefs in such a way that the consequences, given enough shallow and sensationalist attention, could be and probably were net negative for the world and surely were for me. My intentions, however, were to heal the world, not to tie it up in knots. So it was a mistake and not an unethical act.
What were Revkin’s intentions in his article?
Consider these quotes:
===
“Both men, experts said afterward, were guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements.”
“The events illustrate the fine line that advocates on all sides walk”
“”Gore and Will will rally their supporters and entrench their opponents, and we will be no closer to progress,” Mr. Ropeik said. “They are merely two leaders of their tribes waving the tribal flag.” ”
“A variety of surveys show that roughly 20 percent of Americans are in Mr. Gore’s camp and another 20 percent in Mr. Will’s, rejecting the idea that humans could dangerously alter global climate.”
===
Oops, I accidentally presented Gore and Will as equivalent? This was clearly a deliberate act. Hard to call a “mistake”.
Then the question is what the origins of the act were. I can;t think of any that aren’t unethical. Perhaps you make a distinction between “unethical” and “evil”; if so perhaps this doesn’t rise to the level of “evil”. OK. But presuming Revkin has not got multiple personalities, he cannot possibly believe that the two are equivalent in credibility.
He must therefore have made a conscious decision to ignore credibility in the article. That is a decision with ethical implications, and I have yet to see an ethical argument that could support it.
Not to say there isn’t one. I just can’t think of it.
Further, if it was a ‘mistake” Revkin should take ownership and do what he can to correct it. Otherwise, doesn’t it become an ethical issue in retrospect?
Like Gore, I am not an extremist by nature. Rather, like him, I see an extreme situation in which people are reacting as if it were a matter of bad taste to assert that the situation is extreme.
Sorry, but I find that weird.
Journalists do this by treating the center of discourse as the place where the population is, not where the evidence is. In doing so they at best provide zero service to public discourse.
Michael, Arthur–
We’re spinning our wheels here. It’s clear to me that Michael still feels that Andy did a very, very, very bad thing by giving equal weight to Gore and Will. Michael, you just feel that you should have phrased it differently.
This is the fundamental disagreement between us. Yes, I believe Andy made an error in not providing greater context for his news analysis, so that that it was obvious to readers who had greater credibility on climate science.
But to characterize Andy’s action as “evil” or “immoral” or “unethical” is beyond the pale, to borrow from you.
Now, as to Michael’s tortured speculation extrapolating how many deaths one news article might cause, sorry, I don’t see this as part of some larger thought experiment on the impact of words. Sure, we can talk about how people’s actions flow from an aggregate of news stories, blogs, water cooler conversations, and what not, but Michael was very clear in assigning a particular impact from this one news story–as if the story were some tipping point in the public debate. It wasn’t.
Your error lies in blowing the so-called transgression way out of proportion. The unfortunate comments you made flowed from this perspective. Becaues you’re not seeing that your take on Andy’s article was faulty, you can’t see how how it led you astray.
I will, however, concede, that I shouldn’t have used you as fodder for my flip Church of Gore thesis. It was just too convenient. I should have examined your larger record. Besides, you’re a Cronon fan, as you pointed out, so I have hope for you yet. Just kidding.
Now, assuming that none one of us has failed to convince the other, why don’t we just move on. I believe we’ve exhausted this argument.
There are a number of theoretical models that journalists can use to make ethical decisions about their stories. Among them: “deontology” (stick strictly to the rules); “utilitarianism” (the greatest good for the greatest number); “Agape” (Judeo-Christian love); “veil of ignorance” (rectify injustice).
And then there is the “golden mean”: don’t stray too far towards one extreme or another. This one has had a great deal of influence in journalism. Of course now we know that when it comes to science, it may not always be the best model to use when making decisions about ethical coverage. Nonetheless, there is no denying that it is a valid and tried and true model that in many areas of coverage has served journalists quite well.
So Michael, you are essentially saying that Revkin was unethical for choosing this ethical model, and you do so because you claim to be able to read his mind. I can’t read minds. And so given Revkin’s long and salutary record as a journalist, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt (another kind of ethical orientation) when I argue that he was merely mistaken.
Tom, I believe you’re forgetting the “my editor made me do it” model. There’s also the “I’m so close to deadline that I don’t have time to do anything but mash this story into a standard template even though I know the two sides aren’t equal” model, but perhaps that’s a form of deontology. The former seems more possible in this case.
Brad, Tom,
I explicitly did not suggest that the story was a tipping point; I gave it a .000001 chance of being a tipping point and even that was intended only as a thought experiment.
(That in turn was really a crude proxy intended to be roughly indicative of a more difficult to state but more precise argument that formally requires differentials.)
My experience so far is that people who are comfortable with probability and statistics are vastly more amenable to the argument than people who aren’t.
I really think risk analysis should be a required topic for people writing in this sphere. My conclusion here is first, that you still don’t actually understand what was behind my argument. To me more interestingly, I am coming to understand that there are some technical skills required to understand my argument. And finally, that some people writing in this sphere haven’t really got a qualitiative grip on the relevant ideas.
So I’ve definitely learned something besides the obvious lesson. Unfortunately the obvious lesson is “STFU”, never say anything that would ever rub anybody the wrong way regardless of whether they understand what you are saying or not.
While I’m pretty much leaning toward Steve’s theories, I’m questioning what the golden mean actually is. Is it the mean as represented by the readership, or the mean as represented by the evidence?
In cases where journalism actually matters they are very different, by definition. Those are the places where the public has a need to learn something. Thus it is the evidence-based mean that has some value. As a scientist (which is after all a form of journalist) it is the only ethic which provides any reasonable guidance for me.
Thanks for listening. Sorry I can’t budge.
Revkin should explain himself on this matter. There should be no doubt to give him the benefit of. It is important, not because the article is a tipping point, but because the thing which is tipping is so weighty.
Any view of journalism which doesn’t revolve around an obligation to deliver evidence-based as opposed to politics-based reasoning is completely vapid and has a systematic bias toward whatever the opposite of social resilience is. Which indeed, explains a lot.
Michael,
I believe you’re addressing me and not “Brad.”
Well, if you won’t “budge” and I’m still not understanding what was behind your argument, then it seems we’ve come to a point where we’re talking past each other. So as far as I’m concerned, you can have the last word.
Steve:
Point well taken. Brings to mind one of my earliest experiences in journalism. I had two lunatic editors on my first global warming feature (in 1983!). One wanted me to say that it was going to be an absolute catastrophe. The other wanted me to emphasize that there might be some benefits. I was young, low on the totem pole, and got caught in between. So guess how the story came out?
I admire the patience of Michael Tobis. And at the same time I’m sorry for him that he is so nice to people who don’t deserve one tenth of it.
I wonder how long can we take the pretension of journalists and all manner of empty talkers, saying “both sides are doing it”.
Andy Revkin isn’t some young kid doing his first story. He is a professional in a very respected newspaper. He has researched and written about this for a long time. I’ve seen him discuss it. It’s his career. A democracy, a society, can not function if the press knowingly reports untruths. Time after time. Even the best of the best reporters. The graver the subject, the graver the consequences of untruth spreading are.
And here we have Roger “I don’t understand the word consequences” Pielke Jr.
We have Keith “Evil is a word that makes me ill so lets not talk about morals” Kloor.
We have Tom “The truth is always in the middle, ok not really, but at least as much as I as a journalist care” Yulsman.
Straight but harsh: trying to discuss with this crowd is a waste of time. Moral, truth, consequences and responsibility seem to be totally alien concepts.