Wonk Room » The New York Times Attacks Gore For Trusting The New York Times

The New York Times Attacks Gore For Trusting The New York Times

By Brad Johnson on Feb 25th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

The New York Times Attacks Gore For Trusting The New York Times

In a “news analysis” column, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin lumps together global warming denier George Will, Vice President Al Gore, and President Barack Obama for engaging in “hyperbole,” “inaccuracies,” “overstatements,” and “hype.” Gore and Will are “two leaders of their tribes waving the tribal flag,” said David Ropeik, a “consultant on risk communication who teaches at Harvard University.” Communications professor Matthew Nisbet complained that criticism of George Will “only serves to draw attention to his claims” and “reinforces the false narrative” that “the mainstream press are seeking to censor rival scientific evidence and views.”

Revkin’s article, “In Climate Debate, Exaggeration Is a Pitfall,” fails on several fronts:

Revkin Is Attacking Gore For Trusting The New York Times. In a February appearance before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Vice President Al Gore included a chart displaying a catastrophic rise in weather-related disasters. Andrew Revkin accused Gore of misrepresenting the data and of “inaccuracies and overstatements.” The chart was constructed in 2008 by New York Times visual op-ed columnist Charles M. Blow, who blamed manmade global warming for the rise. [NYT, 5/31/08] [AAAS, 2/15/09]

David Ropeik Is A Public-Relations Expert For The Bush Administration And Top Corporate Polluters. Revkin quotes David Ropeik, a “consultant on risk communication who teaches at Harvard University,” to paint Al Gore and George Will as equivalently “polarizing figures.” Ropeik is in fact a former television reporter whose public relations company’s website promotes “media training” and “risk communication” for clients like the Bush White House, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Entergy Power Corporation, the Edison Electric Institute,and Foundation Coal Company. Although he used to work at the Exxon-funded Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Ropeik’s current association with Harvard University is limited to a position at the Harvard Extension School. [Ropeik & Associates: Background, Services, Clients]

Revkin Cites A Paper’s Argument Without Disclosing The Paper Cites Revkin. Revkin writes, “In a paper being published in the March-April edition of the journal Environment, Matthew C. Nisbet, a professor of communications at American University, said Mr. Gore’s approach, focusing on language of crisis and catastrophe, could actually be serving the other side in the fight.” Revkin fails to disclose that Nisbet’s paper relies on Revkin himself to support that argument: “Andrew Revkin, who has covered climate change for nearly 20 years for the New York Times, argues these claims are effectively countered by critics, such as Inhofe, as liberal ‘alarmism,’ since the error bars of uncertainty for each of the climate impacts are much wider than the general link between human activities and global warming.” [Environment, 3/09]

Andrew Revkin genuinely believes that discussion of the real and present danger of climate-related catastrophes is counterproductive to combating global warming. Unfortunately, motivated by that belief, he presented misleading, distorted attacks on political leaders that were backed by commentary from people like David Ropeik, a consultant to the Bush administration and top corporate polluters, and Roger Pielke, Jr., who has testified at the request of Republicans about the politicization of science, written for the Cato Institute, and whose attacks on climate scientists have been repeatedly cited by Marc Morano’s right-wing climate denial machine.

Revkin’s piece on the reality of climate science fails to quote a single climate scientist. Fortunately, he put email correspondence from climate scientist Richard C. J. Somerville in the comment section of his blog. Somerville is scathing, saying that Revkin’s depiction of Gore and Will as equally “guilty” misleaders “doesn’t square with the facts“:

It’s a false dichotomy, and I doubt you could find well-regarded climate scientists who would agree with your framing. Gore is imperfect here and there. Will is just 100% plain dead wrong throughout. There’s a huge qualitative difference between them, and your readers deserve to hear that from you.

Andrew Revkin can be reached at arevkin@nytimes.com, public editor Clark Hoyt at public@nytimes.com, and national editor Suzanne Daley at national@nytimes.com.

Update At ClimateProgress, Joe Romm writes:

Indeed, if we were to apply his analysis to his own work, then it would be fair to say that there is no difference between Andy Revkin and George Will — especially since Revkin altered a key word in a major report -- he exaggerated -- to make his case against Gore stronger.

Update Meanwhile, the reality of global boiling continues, as found elsewhere in the New York Times: Worst Drought in Half Century Shrivels the Wheat Belt of China -- due to overuse and changes in the climate.

Drought Adds To Hardships In California -- due to "the snowpack in the Sierra" being "at 61 percent of normal" and "no meaningful precipitation since last March."

Update Kalee Kreider, Gore's spokesperson, responds on Revkin's blog:

I am deeply troubled by this article, which contains a number of problems. First and foremost, it conflates and misrepresents Mr. Gore’s tweaking of a particular slide in his 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. . . Finally, Mr. Revkin fails to quote a climate scientist—such as the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or Dr. Robert Corell, who chaired the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, or the scientists at Realclimate.org who reviewed the film, or any number of other experts such as the chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science--all of whom could have put this entire issue into context. It is unfortunate that he did not.

Update At the request of Mr. Ropeik and Mr. Pielke, we've modified a line in the post describing their activities.

Comments
13

13 Responses to “The New York Times Attacks Gore For Trusting The New York Times”

SteveL Says:

You are confusing the father (Roger Pielke Sr.), who in referenced in your link, with the son, Roger Pielke Jr.

I suggest you review and post a correction.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Brad Says:

Actually, both Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr. appear in the Morano list. Thanks for checking, though.
February 25th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
SteveL Says:

My mistake, Pielke Jr. is also noted at the link.

While I have my own criticisms of him, I don’t believe your assertion of ties to corporate America are substantiated in the link, and assertions of ties to right-wing America seem overblown.
February 25th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

Brad Johnson contacted me to do an interview to clarify some of my views. Yet, when I responded, he decided not to run it, instead, deciding to smear me on this post by referring to his enemies list.

Here is the interview in full:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/interview-with-brad-johnson-center-for-american-progress-4991
February 25th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
jae Says:

I’m so sick of the lame references to “industry connnections” and “right-wing” leanings. These references are very weak attempts at discrediting people, and they only hold sway for naieve folks that don’t realize that these connections are not any more important than “government grant connections” and “left-wing” zealots. And those types of folks don’t see two sides of anything and therefore don’t need any more convincing.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Mark Bahner Says:

What are Roger Pielke Jr.’s ties to “corporate, right-wing America”?

P.S. As you can probably tell, I love a good ad hominem argument!
February 25th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Matthew C. Nisbet Says:

A recent book chapter by Revkin is among several sources cited in my paper that argue that framing climate change in terms of catastrophe–what past communication research would classify as a fear appeal–is unlikely to be effective.

Past research shows that fears appeals are commonly rejected by audiences (think of the “This is your brain on drugs” campaign). Second, even if the risk is accepted, if people are not told what they can do about the risk, their reaction is often one of fatalism. Third, if the claimed risk is effectively challenged with counter-evidence, it easily results in distrust of the source.

See these citations in the paper to journal articles from the social science literature. Also see the link below to a study just out evaluating the effectiveness of climate change-specific fear appeals:

E. W. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, and A. Leiserowitz, “Communication and Marketing as Climate Change Intervention Assets: A Public Health Perspective,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, no. 5 (2008): 488–500

S. Moser and L. Dilling, “Making Climate Hot: Communicating the Urgency and Challenge of Global Climate Change,” Environment 46, no. 10 (2004): 32–46

http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/3/355

Science Communication, Vol. 30, No. 3, 355-379 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547008329201

“Fear Won’t Do It”
Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations
Saffron O’Neill

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Sophie Nicholson-Cole

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Fear-inducing representations of climate change are widely employed in the public domain. However, there is a lack of clarity in the literature about the impacts that fearful messages in climate change communications have on people’s senses of engagement with the issue and associated implications for public engagement strategies. Some literature suggests that using fearful representations of climate change may be counterproductive. The authors explore this assertion in the context of two empirical studies that investigated the role of visual, and iconic, representations of climate change for public engagement respectively. Results demonstrate that although such representations have much potential for attracting people’s attention to climate change, fear is generally an ineffective tool for motivating genuine personal engagement. Nonthreatening imagery and icons that link to individuals’ everyday emotions and concerns in the context of this macro-environmental issue tend to be the most engaging. Recommendations for constructively engaging individuals with climate change are given.
February 26th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Blake Stacey Says:

Past research shows that fears appeals are commonly rejected by audiences (think of the “This is your brain on drugs” campaign).

Or the buildup to the Iraq War. . . ?
February 26th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Tom Yulsman Says:

Andrew Revkin is one of the finest journalists in the United States, and he has probably done more than any other reporter to advance public understanding of climate change. Demonizing him seems like cutting your nose to spite your face.

Has he made mistakes over the course of his career? Of course he has. Haven’t you? Haven’t we all? But your attack is way out of proportion to whatever problem there may have been in his story.

As for Roger Pielke, Jr., you libel him with the clear implication that he is working to advance corporate interests. You offer absolutely no evidence that this is true — because you cannot find any. It is a bald-faced lie. This is reckless disregard for the truth that results in actual harm to a person’s reputation.

Lying, making laughable assertions, and attacking a person who actually has done an enviable job to help advance public understanding of the very cause you champion is, in a word, bizarre.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Brad Says:

Mr. Yulsman: Since you describe my “attack” on your “dear friend” as “demonizing” and “way out of proportion to whatever problem there may have been in the story” it would be nice if you were a little more specific — in particular about the “demonizing” part, so that I may learn from your expertise.

You claim that I “libel” Mr. Pielke “with the clear implication that he is working to advance corporate interests.” While I do believe that his work *does* advance corporate interests — and would be happy to describe how his regular criticism of liberals, progressives, and scientists warning about the threat of global warming (and his muted criticism of naysayers or corporate interests) does so, I only stated that he has “ties to corporate, right-wing America.”

And he does, despite your assertion that I “cannot find any.”

Mr. Pielke has testified as a Republican witness in Congress. Mr. Pielke has been paid to write an article for the Cato Institute. Those are explicit ties to corporate, right-wing America.

Furthermore, as I have linked, he has engaged with Sen. Inhofe’s Marc Morano in the past. Mr. Pielke’s critiques of liberals are often trumpeted by the corporate, right-wing media. So far as I know, Pielke has never complained about that use of his words. Perhaps I’m wrong. Now, the combination of his record of action in the political sphere and his explicit ties to corporate, right-wing America may not be of issue to you or other readers. That is fine with me.

But it’s sad, in my perhaps jejune opinion, that an accomplished journalist such as yourself deems it appropriate to accuse me of “lying,” “libel,” and “reckless disregard for the truth.”

One might think that a prominent arbiter of the truth such as your self would have more concern about George F. Will’s columns than my own, considering his vast influence on the public sphere and my admittedly minor one. But you certainly know more about the field and role of scientific journalism than I. So I defer to your judgment.

The worst of what I wrote about your friend Andrew was that he “presented misleading, distorted attacks” — clearly a matter of opinion, and one that is shared by many others.

I am interested to see how you respond to Mr. Will’s accusation that Mr. Revkin engaged in “meretricious journalism.”
February 27th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Tom Yulsman Says:

Concerning Roger Pielke, Jr.:

Your argument here has echoes from the McCarthy era. You have no actual evidence to build your defamatory case, so you rest it entirely on guilt by association. It would be absurd if it weren’t so alarming.

* Yes, Pielke’s policy is that he will agree to ANY request from Congress to testify, from Republicans and Democrats. And guess what: Many liberals have testified at the request of Republicans. Does that mean they all have “ties to corporate right-wing America”? Or only the ones you don’t like?

* I’ll take your word for it that Pielke wrote something for the Cato Institute. If I’m not mistaken, so have other Democrats. (Yes, Pielke is a Democrat, and he supported Barack Obama during the campaign.) In fact, if the Cato Institute asked me to write something for them, I would consider it. I actually would value the opportunity to speak with an audience I usually don’t reach. Does this show that I have “ties to corporate right-wing America”?

* I’ll take your word for it that Pielke has “engaged with Sen. Inhofe’s Marc Morano in the past.” Guess what: So have I. My email inbox is filled with emails from him, including some pleasant back and forth, even though I vehemently disagree with him. Does that mean I have “ties to corporate right-wing America”?

* I am friends with conservatives. I have been known to drink beer with conservatives. And laugh with conservatives. And have fun with conservatives, including one or two who believe global warming is bunk. My goodness, I even listen to what some conservatives have to say about policy and politics. Even though I am a liberal. I guess that means I have “ties to corporate right-wing America.”

Deep down in my soul, I absolutely reject the “you’re either with us or against us” school of politics that is so evident in your comments here. It is the politics of gridlock and personal destruction.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Tom Yulsman Says:

Brad:

Why didn’t you publish your interview with Roger Pielke, Jr.? Was it because Pielke’s responses to your questions give the lie to your attempt to demonize and defame him?

For readers of Wonkroom who want to know who Roger Pielke, Jr. really is, without the filter of hyper-partisan politics, it is reprinted here at Prometheus, where Pielke blogs; http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/interview-with-brad-johnson-center-for-american-progress-4991
February 27th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Marion Delgado Says:

Tom Yulsman:

You posted “You have no actual evidence” right after being given detailed evidence of the specific claim you were raving about.

Hack.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:28 pm