If you are a member of the climate concerned community, you are likely distressed by the recent turn of events. One of your best known warriors has badly blundered, resulting in an important (if temporary) PR victory for your opponents. The fallout has been worsened by some of your most zealous allies, who have either…Continue Reading…
The Peter Gleick shocker is dominating conversation in many science circles this week. That’s understandable. It’s as if he emptied a can of lighter fluid on an already flammable climate debate. To make matters worse, the most partisan and shrillest voices are fanning the flames in spectacular fashion, as they downplay/justify/praise Gleick’s action. It’s tribalism…Continue Reading…
Last week, the Los Angeles Times wrote that the Heartland Institute “found itself duped out of several confidential fundraising documents that were then distributed widely over the Internet, offering a glimpse of its priorities.” This was true. The LA Times, noting that the Heartland Institute “pilloried climate scientists whose stolen emails were released in 2009 as part…Continue Reading…
Several weeks ago, I wrote that the climate discourse was “trapped in a negative feedback loop.” The two extremes on the spectrum, I said, reinforced each other via their “separate echo chambers.” A strong characteristic of this dynamic, which many have lamented (and just as many have dismissed) is tribalism. The reaction to the Heartland disclosures/leak/theft/fabrication…Continue Reading…
The New York Times covers the developing Heartland Institute story: Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming a part of the nation’s culture wars. It’ll be interesting to see where this particular…Continue Reading…
The partisan climate debate seems to surprise those who don’t normally swim in its treacherous waters. Joe Nocera, a NYT business columnist, appears taken aback by his experience this week, which he discusses today: Here’s the question on the table today: Can a person support the Keystone XL oil pipeline and still believe that global warming poses…Continue Reading…
Do you want to know who really influences public opinion on climate change? It’s not famous climate scientists (or climate bloggers) or Exxon Mobil, or even the media (well, just a little). It’s politicians. They drive the debate (for better and worse). Don’t believe me? Read this recently published study, which I discuss in a…Continue Reading…
They monopolize the debate. And now we’re stuck in a negative feedback loop, I argue at the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media.
If only their views weren’t so influential, in schools, universities, in the media, in the corridors of power, the global economy wouldn’t be nearly in the mess it’s in today. There are many chestnuts in this Delingpole screed, but that one was news to me. I’m going to rewrite the first sentence of his column:…Continue Reading…
Remember the Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)? To some, it justified the arms race between the U.S. and the old USSR. As Wikipedia explains: The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side; and that either side, if attacked for any…Continue Reading…