Log in | Jump |

CEJournal

News & Perspective from the Center for Environmental Journalism
This item was posted on February 27, 2009, and it was categorized as Andrew Revkin, Climate, Climate Change, Global Warming, Global warming skeptics, Journalism, blogging.
You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and trackbacks are closed.

Update 11:50 a.m.: See this terrific blog posting from John Fleck.

 

Following withering critiques on one of his articles (here and here), New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin shows today why he is a pro. In his Dot Earth blog today, he meticulously takes apart George Will’s claims about climate change.

Will first showed his mastery of cherry picking and falsehood in a column on February 15 that has been widely debunked. In a second column, he claims — falsely (see here and here) — that only one of his assertions in the original column has been challenged. He also repeats many of the same inaccuracies, and engages in what Revkin documents as “irrelevant parsing” of the current state of Arctic sea ice. “Mr. Will’s overarching premise about sea ice and messages it holds related to human-caused climate change, was wrong,” Revkin writes, citing his interviews with scientific experts. 

Meanwhile, climate change activists and bloggers went to considerable lengths yesterday to attack Revkin’s original news analysis on Will’s first column and Al Gore’s speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. And in a comment on Revkin’s Dot Earth blog, Kalee Kreider, an aide to Al Gore, said she was “deeply troubled” by the article, saying it “conflates and missrepresents Mr. Gore’s tweaking of a particular slide in a 400+ slide presentation with someone who ignores wholesale the vast consensus that the climate crisis is real, it is caused by humans, and it will get worse unless we solve it.”

Kreider is right, in my opinion, that Revkin should not have given equal weight to George Will and Al Gore in his news analysis. But she is glossing over continuing exaggerations in Gore’s presentations. The idea that losses from hurricanes and other weather-related catastrophes are increasing because of global warming seems to be central to his argument — as the hurricane emerging from the smokestack on both the book and DVD of “An Inconvenient Truth” demonstrate. The problem is that scientists still have not been able to establish a conclusive link.

This was reaffirmed recently in a report from Munich Re— the very group Gore now relies on to make his case that global warming is linked to increasing natural catastrophes. The report concludes that socio-economic changes are largely to blame for increasing losses due to hurricanes in the U.S., “and weather-related natural catastrophes in general, the main reasons for this being increased wealth and greater settlement of exposed areas (cf. IPCC, 2007), as confirmed by our results.” The report goes on to say that studies “confirm the consensus reached in May 2006 at the international workshop in Hohenkammer attended by leading experts on climate change and natural catastrophe losses…”

Here was that consensus: “Societal change and economic development are mainly responsible for increasing losses in recent decades (Hoppe and Pielke 2006), as convincingly shown in analyses of long-term records of losses.”

So while there is no comparison between George Will’s absurd columns and Al Gore’s detailed presentation, the former vice president still appears to exaggerate to advance his case. My guess is that he continues to do it because he knows that natural catastrophes connect viscerally with the public, whereas melting sea ice and thawing ice sheets in remote polar regions do not. That’s fine, he’s a politician. But a reporter like Andrew Revkin is also quite right to point out the errors. 

That’s his job, and he does it better than anyone else on this beat.

Share
This item was posted by .


You can follow comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and trackbacks are closed.

This thing has 5 Comments

  1. Posted February 28, 2009 at 3:09 am | Permalink

    good POST, WELL SAID, HEAR HEAR,,,,REVKIN IS VERY VERY GOOD.

    POLAR cities coming in 2500?

  2. Posted February 28, 2009 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Another good post. Since you wrote this, Washington Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander has finally acknowledged Will’s misinterpretation of the 1979 ice cover data. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/27/ST2009022702494.html)

    He’s also noticed a trend in the fallout: “There is a disturbing if-you-don’t-agree-with-me-you’re-an-idiot tone to much of the global warming debate.”

    I agree. Also, I think we’re getting too mired overall in arguments about climate change. I think it’s a distraction from the solution-oriented work that could be happening instead. I’ve been feeling a bit Pollyanna-ish, going around reminding people on feisty climate change blogs (via comments) to drive less, eat less red meat and plant trees. But now I feel vindicated, because Andy Revkin is pleading for the same sort of thing (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/expers-big-flaw-in-wills-ice-assertions/):

    So my suggestion, if you’re serious in your concerns about a human-disrupted climate, is to stop posting when there’s an occasional — and unavoidable — piece here about the political side, and to send my posts on the solutions side to everyone you know, expanding this Dot Earth space and getting more people involved. Deal?

  3. Posted March 2, 2009 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

    “So while there is no comparison between George Will’s absurd columns and Al Gore’s detailed presentation, the former vice president still appears to exaggerate to advance his case. My guess is that he continues to do it because he knows that natural catastrophes connect viscerally with the public, whereas melting sea ice and thawing ice sheets in remote polar regions do not. That’s fine, he’s a politician. But a reporter like Andrew Revkin is also quite right to point out the errors.”

    While Romm may disagree with the above, I don’t.

    What I think is wrong, not just incorrect but unethical, is this. You acknowldge that there is no comparison between Will and Gore, and presumably Revkin knows it. Yet he presents them as not just comparable but as very closely parallel. What possible justification could that have?

  4. Posted March 2, 2009 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Is every reporter who has made the mistake of false balance evil?

    Am I evil too, Mike?

  5. Posted March 3, 2009 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    It’s “Michael”, not “Mike”, thanks.

    Um, I am not saying Revkin is evil.

    If I didn’t feel that I had been handed the torch to flame him as he deserves for this episode, I think we’d get along fine if we met.

    I am saying his behavior in the case of the Will/Gore column was unethical. Evil if you like. And consequentially so; it’s nothing I feel able to dismiss lightly. I think that his ethical course is to provide us with some reflection and something like a retraction.

    This doesn’t dismiss all the valuable service he has done in the past and will do in the future. On the other hand, if he doesn’t see fit to recognize the problem, especially since he’s likely to repeat it, that leaves me in a position where I can’t say I’m comfortable with his contribution as a whole.

This thing has 2 Trackbacks

  1. Posted March 4, 2009 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    [...] Tom Yulsman, Center for Environmental Journalism, [...]

  2. Posted March 5, 2009 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    [...] The NYT’s Andrew Revkin shows why he’s a top climate change reporter [...]

Comments are currently closed