PBS Repeats Miserably Bad Pro-GW Documentary

[Pangloss]

The show originally ran about a year ago, and was repeated last week. The entire episode may be viewed online:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/

 

I'm a huge fan of Frontline, so I was sorry to see this. There were some parts of it that were interesting and well done, but the episode centered around an approach that ALL sides of the GW debate here at SFN have agreed are flawed. They tout Kyoto, for example, completely ignoring its flaws (but the points about how it was like "flipping a bird at our allies" is one that most here have agreed on at various times).

 

The real problem is that numerous examples of current events are touted as examples of proof of global warming -- specifically Hurricane Katrina, for example. There's a whole long passage talking about Texas farmers dealing with locusts and "putting facts together on their own and concluding that global warming must be real".

 

Just read this first line from the show: "Climate Change became a national issue for Americans in 1988 because they could feel it.... Even the Amazon was on fire." Yeesh. This isn't a science piece, it's a promotional video. A total agenda job.

 

Mine you, Frontline is not a science show, it's a politics show, and so they can be expected to focus on politics and opinions and public awareness rather than the science. I don't expect details in a show like this, but I do expect accuracy and I sure as shootin' expect them to avoid deception.

[CDarwin]

Just read this first line from the show: "Climate Change became a national issue for Americans in 1988 because they could feel it.... Even the Amazon was on fire." Yeesh. This isn't a science piece, it's a promotional video. A total agenda job.

 

Politically it's not bad analysis, though. One of the main reasons the Australians just tossed out John Howard was the drought that's hit the country. The drought's not due to global warming, but it makes people feel what they imagine its consequences would be, and Howard's denialism rubbed them the wrong way.

[iNow]

That's all well and good, Pangloss, but when are you going to come down from the fence and tell us all what you think about the show?... what is your reaction to it? These objective nonjudgmental posts of yours are getting rather bland and tiresome.

[Aardvark]

That's all well and good, Pangloss, but when are you going to come down from the fence and tell us all what you think about the show?... what is your reaction to it? These objective nonjudgmental posts of yours are getting rather bland and tiresome.

 

Calling something a 'miserably Bad Pro-GW Documentary' seems a pretty clear statement of opinion.

[Pangloss]

He's just making a joke, Aardvark. And a funny one, too.

 

Politically it's not bad analysis, though. One of the main reasons the Australians just tossed out John Howard was the drought that's hit the country. The drought's not due to global warming, but it makes people feel what they imagine its consequences would be, and Howard's denialism rubbed them the wrong way.

 

Yes, I agree, people are getting behind Global Warming because of current weather events. But that's a fickle beast that can easily cause more harm than good. We should change the way we produce energy in this world because it's the correct course of action on logical, scientific grounds, not because of false premises and poor reasoning.

 

They actually touched on this, saying that the public didn't jump on climate change in the 1990s was because of Mount Pinatubo's 1991 eruption causing a dampening in the warm-up. I don't know how accurate the science is behind that, but either way they missed their own lesson, or simply don't care when the fickle public is motivated in the correct direction, and will go right back to complaining when another Pinatubo happens and some governor asks for another dozen coal plants to heat people's homes. But what the hey, at least they'll be able to sell ME (through PBS) anther documentary about how wrong and evil I am. Weee.

 

It takes two sides to play political games, but the carbon count and the temperature couldn't care less who's in office.

[swansont]

It's not that surprising, IMO. There are always going to be people who are convinced for the wrong reason, in both directions. One danger is if such a person becomes a spokesperson — it's like the video Penn did when he interviewed a bunch of environmental activists, and found that none of them (the ones whose footage was aired, anyway) could make a cogent argument abut the science.

[Rev Blair]

I saw that episode of Frontline...the first time around, I think...and I thought it was a pretty decent analysis. It's not an analysis of the science though, it's a look at the politics around the issue and the implications of that.

 

Expecting politics to be factual, scientific, or based in reality in any significant way is like expecting your dog to become a physicist...ain't gonna happen. I wish Frontline would do a show about that.

 

Pangloss is right, it does take two sides to play politics. Being from outside the US, I'd say that it takes four or five sides to make it interesting.

 

Science isn't even in the game though.

[CDarwin]

Yes, I agree, people are getting behind Global Warming because of current weather events. But that's a fickle beast that can easily cause more harm than good. We should change the way we produce energy in this world because it's the correct course of action on logical, scientific grounds, not because of false premises and poor reasoning.

 

I didn't say it was a good thing.

 

Bjørn Lomborg has said something similiar to that. When people are spurred to action by hysteria rather than reason they quickly lose interest. Does anyone remember SARS? Or even bird flu? They never stopped being dangerous; people just stopped caring.

[Pangloss]

Oh yeah, definitely -- who's talking about AIDS anymore? But there is, IMO, unfortunately, an aspect of the pro-GW lobby that believes that the best way to spur action is to (metaphorically speaking) incite the public to riot. From where they sit it's just an ugly kind of math: If you want X% reduction in greenhouse gases you need to incite Y million people to vote Z. I can understand the cynicism, but the problem is that that sort of thing is almost always a losing battle, and even when you win what have you accomplished for the long term?

 

One thing that I think should be recognized is that tremendous progress has happened already in the arena of public perception. The public has either changed, or is in the process of changing, its mind on this issue, and IS pressuring leadership for change in emissions practices. The engineering/practical-science community is responding with better technology, the business world is paying more attention (even to the extent of trying to stay out in front of potential regulation with actual change rather than lobbying for resistance), and BOTH political parties are stating platforms of change (of course the current administration promised mandatory reductions and we saw where that went, huh?).

 

Two steps forward is progress even if it is occassionally met with one step back. That's how a free society advances, and we are making progress. We don't have to solve this problem overnight, and we don't have to trash our economy either. I read a quote somewhere (I think on these boards) from someone saying "well we know how to rebuild an economy, we just don't know how to rebuild the Earth" -- that kind of negative thinking will simply not solve the problem in a free society. And I for one don't think a free society is worth sacrificing regardless of the cost (yes, regardless of the cost -- DEATH is better than the loss of freedom). Of course that's just my opinion.

[JohnB]

One of the main reasons the Australians just tossed out John Howard was the drought that's hit the country. The drought's not due to global warming, but it makes people feel what they imagine its consequences would be, and Howard's denialism rubbed them the wrong way.

Um, no. A very long, intensive and expensive campaign by the union movement had far more to do with it. I would add that the Australian Greens were almost wiped out as a political party in the last elections, both at State and Federal levels so "Green Politics" had little to do with the outcome.

We should change the way we produce energy in this world because it's the correct course of action on logical, scientific grounds, not because of false premises and poor reasoning.

Hear him, hear him. (I'm feeling old fashioned today.)

 

The energy we have stored in the ground is our capital for the future, we need to invest it wisely.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need to invest far more in mid to long term scientific research. A major target should be a reasonably priced room temperature superconductor. Just by cutting the resistance losses in the power grids we could effectively double or triple our power available to consumers. Or put another way, we could service our current (pardon the pun;)) demand with less than half the power stations.

 

With new stations costing $300M+, I can't see why governments don't hand over $150M to researchers and say "You've got the cash, hire the people and find the answer. Come back if you need more money." Simplistic, I know, but it is how Ford got the V8 engine designed.

[iNow]

Didn't his dismissal have something to do with the fact that he sniffed a chair in which a female staffer was sitting after she departed the room?

[CDarwin]

Um, no. A very long, intensive and expensive campaign by the union movement had far more to do with it. I would add that the Australian Greens were almost wiped out as a political party in the last elections, both at State and Federal levels so "Green Politics" had little to do with the outcome.

 

My mistake. It's what I get for going off non-Australian news, I suppose.

[Rev Blair]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need to invest far more in mid to long term scientific research. A major target should be a reasonably priced room temperature superconductor. Just by cutting the resistance losses in the power grids we could effectively double or triple our power available to consumers. Or put another way, we could service our current (pardon the pun) demand with less than half the power stations.

 

With new stations costing $300M+, I can't see why governments don't hand over $150M to researchers and say "You've got the cash, hire the people and find the answer. Come back if you need more money." Simplistic, I know, but it is how Ford got the V8 engine designed.

 

Ah, the Ford V-8. Not what I would call a good example of anything, unless you really enjoy the smell of half-burnt oil and the high cost of repairs. I hear if you take the pistons out and run a chain through the cylinders, they make decent boat anchors though.

 

I agree about the scientific research. It needs way more funding. We also need to step up education...there's nothing wrong with being a ditch digger, or even a corporate shill in a suit, I guess, but we're into the third decade of it being cool to be stupid and it's hurting us pretty badly.

 

We aren't like to start cutting line resistance, building more efficient houses, or making cars that last more than 10 years if we depend on the corporate model though. There is no profit in it.

 

Electrical companies exist to sell power. They have the line loss figured into their models and projections. They don't have the R&D to reduce line loss figured in though, or the likely drop in prices from more abundant electricity being available. They certainly don't want their customers to begin conserving energy.

[ParanoiA]

And I for one don't think a free society is worth sacrificing regardless of the cost (yes, regardless[/i'] of the cost -- DEATH is better than the loss of freedom).

 

Now, that's the quote of the week. I'm going to drink an extra beer in its honor.

 

I agree about the scientific research. It needs way more funding. We also need to step up education...there's nothing wrong with being a ditch digger, or even a corporate shill in a suit, I guess, but we're into the third decade of it being cool to be stupid and it's hurting us pretty badly.

 

Amen to that. I'm amazed everyday that my son still thinks it's cool enough to try to be smart, particularly in science, when everyone around him is clearly on a different mission.

 

We aren't like to start cutting line resistance' date=' building more efficient houses, or making cars that last more than 10 years if we depend on the corporate model though. There is no profit in it.

 

Electrical companies exist to sell power. They have the line loss figured into their models and projections. They don't have the R&D to reduce line loss figured in though, or the likely drop in prices from more abundant electricity being available. They certainly don't want their customers to begin conserving energy.[/quote']

 

I tell you, I sit here frustrated in the free market. I hate the electric and gas company. I want solar so bad. Why so expensive, still? Hydrogen automobiles. Where the hell are they? Why have we been asleep for the past hundred years, milking oil from the earth with no apparent inclination to mosey any further?

[Rev Blair]

I tell you, I sit here frustrated in the free market. I hate the electric and gas company. I want solar so bad. Why so expensive, still? Hydrogen automobiles. Where the hell are they? Why have we been asleep for the past hundred years, milking oil from the earth with no apparent inclination to mosey any further?

 

First of all, the free market has nothing to do with freedom. The way large corporations act, you'd think they were hell bent on proving Karl Marx right (read Marx's predictions about corporate behaviour).

 

Second of all, it isn't just the free market. I live in Manitoba. Our electricity is supplied by a crown corporation...a government monopoly. It's fairly clean and relatively environmentally responsible since it's hydro-generated (note the qualifiers). My provincial government is likely the greenest in Canada.

 

The thing is that while Premier Doer really plays that up, he's missing the boat on a lot of other things.

 

Small scale wind in rural areas would work well here, but there is no government plan to encourage it. Suburban solar would also work well here, but again there is no government plan. Same with run of the river personal hydro. Those three things together could create a kind of energy internet.

 

Since every watt of power we produce in excess of local consumption here gets sold south to replace coal-generated electricity, a workable program to promote small-scale electrical production would seem to make sense. The problem is that the crown likes having all Manitobans as its customers, so they actively discourage that kind of production.

 

There are also consumption issues that go along with that. It's only in the last couple of years that Manitoba Hydro has begun encouraging conservation. Electricity is cheap here, since we make so much of it, so we tend to waste it. If we'd save it instead, we'd reduce GHG production in the US because we'd have more to sell, and we'd make more money here because what we export sells for more than the domestic market pays.

 

That's just electricity too. We're also missing the boat on a host of other things. We have all cheap electricity, but we use diesel buses instead of electric trolleys. We don't have much public transit either. We have massive suburban sprawl. We have bylaws that keep people on five acre lots from using goats, sheep and cattle to keep the grass mowed.

 

One interestingly stupid bylaw we have: Homeowners are required to keep up the boulevards in front of their houses. A man in the North End...a poor area of town...decided that instead of mowing the grass, he'd plant veggies. It was a nice, neat garden. The city ripped it up, sodded it, and sent this guy the bill. Seems that the requirement to keep up the boulevard is restricted to planting grass.

 

So it's not just the free market, it's the entire system and the backwards thinking of even our most progressive leaders.