Andy Revkin, of the NY Times’ dotEarth blog, has once again proved to all of us, like me, who think we finally have figured out where he’s coming from that we’re really wrong. This time around, it’s a dE post, On Harvard Misconduct, Climate Research and Trust, that doesn’t have me shaking my head, but banging it on the nearest hard surface.
I was all set to gear up say something about Revkin’s piece, but luckily, Steve Easterbrook not only beat me to the punch but did a better job than I would have. I simply cannot recommend Steve’s post, When did ignorance become a badge of honour for journalists?, and Revkin’s original, obviously, highly enough (the strikeout plus the italics for emphasis are from the original):
Here’s an appalling article by Andy Revkin on dotEarth which epitomizes everything that is wrong with media coverage of climate change. Far from using his position to educate and influence the public by seeking the truth, journalists like Revkin now seem to have taken to just
making shit up,reporting what he reads in blogs as the truth, rather than investigating for himself what scientists actually do.Revkin kicks off by citing a Harvard cognitive scientist found guilty of academic misconduct, and connecting it with “assertions that climate research suffered far too much from group think, protective tribalism and willingness to spin findings to suit an environmental agenda”. Note the juxtaposition. On the one hand, a story of a lone scientist who turned out to be corrupt (which is rare, but does happen from time to time). On the other hand, a set of insinuations about thousands of climate scientists, with no evidence whatsoever. Groupthink? Tribalism? Spin? Can Revkin substantiate these allegations? Does he even try? Of course not. He just repeats a lot of gossip from a bunch of politically motivated blogs, and demonstrates his own total ignorance of how scientists work.
That’s just the opening salvo, and it gets much uglier for Revkin from that point onward. Considering the seriousness of the matter at hand, Steve uses Appropriately Adult Words, so anyone offended by AAWs should consider him/herself duly warned. I expect Joe Romm to comment on Revkin’s post soon enough, and he will likely be even more pyrotechnic; consider Steve’s response the warm-up act.
Rather than merely toss this incident over the wall to you as a “Yeah! What Steve said!!!” post, let me use it as a springboard to talk about something I was already planning to mention today or tomorrow.
You probably noticed the lack of posts this week. I spent the last three days near one of New York’s glorious Finger Lakes, drinking wine, eating the insanely good garlic knots from Jerlando’s in Watkins Glen, and, most important of all, talking with my college sweetheart about several deep topics. The outcome of said discussions was interesting, to say the least. I’ll skip over all the angst and navel introspection and give you the bullet-point version:
- It is clearer than ever to me that no one is telling the mainstream public what they desperately need to hear about our overall sustainability situation, including climate change, energy, water, food, biodiversity, ocean acidification, etc. There are many people doing excellent work in individual portions of that spectrum, but I’ve yet to see anyone write The Book That Needs To Be Written. I had hoped that a new edition of Limits to Growth (as the authors promised in the last update) would be that book, but one of the authors tells me that they aren’t writing it. (And it likely would have been too reserved had they written it.) I had also hoped that Bill McKibben’s Eaarth would be that book, but it turned out to be yet another example of an excellent but far too mild book in this arena. (I’ve never met Bill, but based on his writing and interviews, and the videos of his speeches I’ve encountered, I think he’s easily one of the most decent human beings in the field. That’s a very serious and nearly impossible to overcome handicap.) Many other books of late by people like Hansen, Pooley, Oreskes, et [many] al. are each, in their own ways, terrific additions to the sustainability literature that we all should read and promote. But none of them is TBTNTBW.
- The mainstreamers need to be shocked shitless by the indisputable facts as we know them and the consensus view of where we’re headed plus the technology and policy needed to avoid one hell of a collapse in the next century. As I put it to my wife during our lakeside retreat, we need the message to feel like being grabbed by the neck and repeatedly punched in the face. People have to be so desperate to stop it that they seriously examine what they and everyone else is doing, and then start to make the needed changes. The situation is so urgent, and the forces against change, including the fossil fuel companies and greedy, myopic, opportunistic right wing politicians, so determined to stop us from acting in our own best interest that nothing less will do the trick.
- You can’t be nice and repeatedly punch someone in the face. You have to be willing to piss off people, to not care if you’re seen as “too extreme” or “alarmist” or “striking the wrong tone”, even though you’re sticking to the facts. This is not a trade off we should make grudgingly (as I was until the last few days, in fact, much to my embarrassment), but one we should eagerly embrace because it will greatly increase our odds of success against the deniers and liars.
- The obvious conclusion is that I should pursue writing TBTNTBW and make whatever sacrifices that dictates in my other work. Fewer blog posts here and fewer comments on other blogs seem like a virtual certainty, for example. I am also considering killing this blog entirely and launching a new one. I plan to withdraw from much of the ridiculous back and forth over clowns like Monckton, except when I feel like ridiculing someone; there are so many people on “our side” dealing with the worst of the deniers and the infinite mysteries like Revkin that my lack of contribution there won’t be noticed, let alone missed. There is at least one very significant alternative use of my time, as detailed above.
- This is a very radical shift for me. I’ve been writing this blog, in one incarnation or another, for seven years, and during that time I’ve told myself countless times to “be nice” and “keep my emotions in check” and “don’t let myself look like an alarmist”, etc. What a colossal mistake and fucking waste of time. If ever there were an issue that deserved the most accurate, honest, and complete treatment, the tangled mess known of our sustainability challenge is it. “Being nice” is nothing less than unilateral disarmament, and at a time when we’re facing extremely well funded protectors of the business as usual path that leads directly to billions of lost lives and soul twisting levels of human suffering.
- I don’t know exactly how this will unfold in the coming weeks and months. I expect to be even more surprised than you by what happens.
Full support, Lou!
“no one is telling the mainstream public what they desperately need to hear” Agreed, 100%.
I don’t know what I should be saying about this. I definitely don’t want to discourage you from writing it but one problems I see is that the mainstream public may not be very interested in reading a book on this topic. Plus there are a million other books out there saying that we don’t need to worry about Global Warming or that we can drill our way out of any Peak Oil Problem. I very much look forward to reading this book though. You are obviously extremely knowledgeable on these topics and have an excellent way with words! Good luck!!! Paul
Somehow I knew BlackSun would be one of the bright points in my day.
stoner: You perfectly described the thought process that I used to talk myself out of doing a book project the last 3 or 4 trips around this carousel. This time, the choice isn’t between doing the book and doing the blog, it’s between doing the book and quitting entirely. A lot of uncomfortable moments went into this decision, including forcing myself to look objectively at some issues and reach conclusions I definitely didn’t like.
Full support, Lout! (ok, I was trying to be funny – but I actually mean it too)
I can imagine that it would be a tough choice. Sounds like you’ve done some soul searching. The other way of looking at it is when Peak Oil really does start to hit us (perhaps with the undulating plateau or stagflation or something) then a LOT of people are going to be doing a lot of reading on energy issues! (Maybe even some journalists)
Good luck again.
Paul
I don’t know if “just a book”–even a great one–is enough. You need to engage all the senses! In between punching the readers in the nose…dunk ‘em in a major flood and drag em through a couple raging wildfires…
But perhaps it is a good place to start. You can sell the movie rights and “banned in Disneyland” Grinzo-coaster-ride later.
Go for it Lou, I’ll be one of the first buyes. You don’t want to go 15 years and look back and have a serious regret, especially on this issue.
My personal opinion on Revkin (been this way for a long time) is that he is intellectually compromised (for whatever reason) and is actually more dangerous than a full blown flat earther (who would be ignored by the majority of the population). Revkin sits at the NYT and then nearly always spins things in a way that conveys FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) about climate change and whether we need to do something now (or yesterday) in what appears to be a reasonable manner (unless you dig some) – from the star left leaning paper in the US.
I would not be surprised if we find out in 20 years that he was on the payroll of some front organization funded by the Koch brothers, Exxon etc. or some other fossil fuel / libertarian interest.
‘“Being nice” is nothing less than unilateral disarmament
Derrick Jensen made a similar point in Endgame a few years back.
Good luck, Lou, we need someone with your clarity of thought and way with words to tell it as it is.
I mean full support Lou! not Lout.
Add my full support, Lou. I have learned and laughed and been doubled over in fear by what I have read from your postings on The Cost of Energy. I would imagine it will be hard, or hard(squared) to quit the daily grind which must go into your work, which by the way has been invaluable to myself and by proxy, to my friends (the ones who will listen, anyway.)
I know that a lot of people recognize the nexus of problems which seem to be converging at about the same time, and at least in the same universal way. Not just Climate Change and Peak Oil, but economic chaos, water scarcity and widespread human suffering coming from the resulting impacts of these and other problems. I hope your dogmatic style will allow you to explain these to the great unwashed masses, and will wait to see. (What will happen to them if they don’t wake up until water scarcity has overtaken us? Scary thought to those of us who have well functioning olfactory systems!)
I thank you for what you have done, and dread a world where I will have to find a like minded “guru” to follow, so write the book and do it now. That way, we can follow you on the book signing tour.
You are well versed in the facts which need to be conveyed and have a nice style which is easy to read. I like your commentary and hope that you will be taken seriously from the outset. At least you will have some followers who know your credibility, so keep us updated. Sometimes the right words don’t flow except in fits and starts, but make it happen.
I wish you good luck, and remind you that Tom Landry said repeatedly that you make your own luck.
Chuck
I had to say one more thing, it seems as a country – we are sliding back towards putting more of those people firmly opposed to action on climate change (and all about deregulation of all kinds) into power again (amazing, it was only 2 years ago we got them out after almost a decade) – with several predictors saying the Republicans with take the House this fall.
There seems to be certain powerful and well funded groups on the right (libertarian leanings via the Koch brothers actually) that have made it their job to eliminate moderates from Republican ranks (ousting them in Republican primaries – Olympia Snowe of Main has been publicly targeted already) and they have been very successful. Fox and other associated interest of Rupert Murdoch seem to dovetail with the Koch brother’s political side of manipulation in guiding their viewership to a new more extreme right (libertarian ideals actually). The general population of the Republican party are being guided away from moderation in any way at this point (from the political and the media avenues) and that doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon. It could be a very tough decade (politically, regarding climate change) the way things are lining up.
We’re going to need all the sign posts (books etc.) that lay things out (no softening) that can be authored. Go for it.
Sasparilla:
I’ll be stunned if we don’t see the dramatic shift in US politics you describe. Corporations can spend all the money they want on elections, and virtually all of that money is pushing in the same direction. I expect Obama to face two years of gridlock, and then lose the next election, which will set the stage for backtracking on almost everything he’s accomplished on energy and climate. The fossil fuel and nuclear companies are set for a financial windfall, thanks to incentives, relaxed regulation, etc.