The climate change debate. Tsk tsk Bill Carol

(Originally written November 5th 2006)

I’ve been a talk radio fan for years. I usually work with the computer tuned into a “news and views” station either from Toronto, London or wherehaveyou instead of streaming through my 30 gigs of MP3s. Some musician I am.

Well the other day I happened to be tuned into CFRB and caught the Bill Carol show. Bill (and I do enjoy listening to him), in typical rabid-conservative fashion was frothing at the mouth about a story out of Bangor Maine, where WVII and WVFZ (ABC and Fox TV local TV affiliates, respectively) general manager Michael Palmer memoed his staff advising them to IGNORE all stories about global warming until “Bar Harbor is underwater”.

Completely expecting Carol’s ferocious diatribe to be focused into -- what one would hope from any self respecting broadcaster – an anti-censorship sermon; I was gob-smacked to hear Bill rage against environmentalists, and blame their “the sky is falling” tactics for this completely irresponsible and blatantly partisan editorial decision on the part of Palmer.

Woe’s me.

It seems that there are still many card carrying members of the flat earth society stumbling and bumbling about our ever burdened planet, and some sadly have audiences and use their media pulpits to further obfuscate and confuse an already complicated science, and more ridiculously try to paint some of our planet’s greatest defenders as “media manipulative societal burdens”.

Now in all fairness, Bill didn’t reject out right the concept of climate change; his rant was against environmentalists (those green little anti-capitalists devils) for reportedly supplying the media with manipulative images and apocryphal stories regarding climate change.

Now, I’ve been an environmental television director for decades, I’ve traveled the planet twice over, I’ve produced three documentaries on climate change, and was present in Kyoto in 97 when the historical protocol was created. If I’ve learned anything at all, it is that respected environmentalists -- although they ARE great for soundbites -- are usually a little more reserved and cautious than most give them credit for. It is usually the media that hypes up their campaigns and or gets the facts completely wrong.

Certainly, “eco-crusaders” warn that the world is warming (0.7 degrees Celsius and climbing – this is scientific fact, and not environmental conjecture) and that this warming will in fact cause a series of environmental problems around this globe (the scientific debate splits here in terms of the gravity of these effects).

However, for some reason, environmentalists are always blamed when and if the media gets its facts wrong.

The hurricane season of 2005 is now seen as one of those “ah-ha we gotcha” knee-jerk reactions from the legions of naysayer in the flat Earth Society. However, as they rage and spew bile citing that environmentalists blamed the hurricane season on climate change, few are actually honest about where the error occurred. I know quite well what the environmental movement was saying about the 2005 hurricane season, and NO WHERE did any respected or well known environmental organization draw a simple straight line from climate change to Katrina.

What Environmentalists were actually saying (corroborated by scientists) was that hurricane seasons such as 2005 CAN be a symptom of climate change although it is not conclusive, and a warming of the oceans can be ONE added ingredient in the production of hurricanes and or tropical storms. The Atlantic Ocean is in fact 0.5 degrees WARMER than it was decades ago. As well, scientifically, over the last 30 years (and remember we need to think in long term modeling to truly understand trends) the INTENSITY of hurricanes has increased.

Although you would have been hard pressed to find an environmentalist make a direct correlation between the hurricanes of 2005 and climate change, the media had no problems what so ever in making the case.

Sadly for the typically ill informed flat earth society spokesperson, they’ll look to 2006 and note that there where in fact fewer hurricanes, and so THIS, is IN FACT, PROOF, that the environmental movement, the millions of scientists the world over, and NASA (where in fact they do have ROCKET SCIENTISTS working for them) were all wrong.

Before tuning into CFRB, I had read the BBC’s website. I was looking for Sir Nicholas Stern’s widely anticipated report on the possible “economic” costs of Climate change for us as a planet. For those who are unaware, Sir Stern is a respected former economist from the World Bank. His report, in blatant and alarming language, urges all developed nations to reduce their carbon burden by upwards of 60% to avoid catastrophic economic hardship in the future. His report was launched by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Listening to Bill and a few callers rant about environmentalists and global warming conspiracy theories; I was curious as to whether Bill had actually known that this report was being tabled on the very same day he would lash out at the “greenies”. Minutes into his rant someone handed Mr. Carol a bulletin and immediately, and in a boorish “oh my gawd what´s this trite” tone read off the synopsis of the Stern report on the air.

After what appeared to me as an “oh-oh, place foot in mouth” pregnant pause he recovered and grunted “this is what I mean”. Apparently the apocalyptic language of Stern’s economic analysis (and it is a very scary read) was proof that “environmentalists” go too far in their attempts to alarm the public. Huh?

If you consider a World Bank economist and the Prime Minister of one of the wealthiest nations on earth as “eco crusaders” screaming “chicken little conspiracy theories” then, it is not environmentalists to blame for “irresponsible” discussions on climate change; its those reporting on the issues getting their facts wrong and using argumentative fallacies to take attention away from the science, the much needed debate and what I truly believe, urgent action.