Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceIn a talk last week at the environmentally-minded Bren School at UCSB, the nation’s best-known climate reporter said he had grown very sick of the anger and “the yelling” around the issue of global warming. After more than two decades at the New York Times as a science reporter, specializing in climate issues, two years ago Andrew Revkin announced his frustration with the partisan divide over the science of climate change.
“Professional partisans are having a field day right now,” he said. “People like Marc Morano at ClimateDepot.com put out stuff that says we don’t know anything about global warming, and that gets picked up by talk radio and amplified. It’s divisive and toxic.”
After years of attempting to factually referee these climate disputes, only to be attacked from both sides, Revkin gave up daily reporting to take a journalism teaching position at Pace University. He still oversees the Times’ Dot Earth blog, perhaps the leading blog for discussion of climate and sustainability issues, and hopes that the site can open doors to new solutions from people around the planet, and not just in the United States.
“What I have tried to do at Dot Earth is build something that says that this yelling is implicit,” he said. “It’s out there, there’s always going to be people trying to exploit those natural divisions. I’m not going to be able to solve that at Dot Earth, but at least I’m working to build a reality base.”
Revkin calls this concept “the Knowosphere,” and cited a number of innovative websites that are attempting to bring factuality to environmental issues. On the question of sea level rise, he spoke of a British site called Atlantic Rising, which embarked on a 28,000-mile circumnavigation of the Atlantic Ocean to encourage schoolkids in the UK to investigate the issue. On the question of “fracking,” he mentioned a cite called FrackTrack, which compiles public geospatial documents in Pennsylvania, allowing anyone with an interest to research hydraulic fracturing in the state or their neighborhood.
“In a post-media world, which is what we’re entering, it’s a great opportunity for institutions, or for individuals who understand these issues, to create a new space for scientific discussion,” he explained. “I think that’s the way forward.”
Comments
When I read worthy articles like this one (and others that detail either denial or the existence of Climate Change) I often fight the feeling of overwhelm and helplessness at the incredible amount of work to be done on so many fronts to ensure humanity's future on this Earth. And, there are times I have found myself tuning out - which I KNOW is not an useful or productive response. I resonate with what Revkin is saying here and I know a lot of work is both being done and is needed on this front his efforts address.
My sense is when I get to that place of overwhelm on this critical topic, I have an opportunity to center on the one thing is that I CAN do. This post begins to make the case that "The most basic opportunity to impact climate change is to evolve our inner response to the wide range of stimulus, challenge, and change we encounter."
After writing that post, I read an article by Bill Blackmore on how climate change represents an opportunity to "hug the monster." I think he and I have similar ideas, and I really appreciate how he expressed his take on it!
Wishing continued success to Revkin's work ... and here's to all of us hugging the monster - whether stemming from the changes we process every day - or the change that climate change calls for from humanity as a whole.
Bridge2Vision (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2012 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Two links that did not stick with that last comment:
The post: http://bridge2vision.blogspot.com/201...
Bill Blackmore's article: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technolog... 3
Bridge2Vision (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2012 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem with warming alarmists is that they want to ignore hard science. The kind that requires double blind studies, the kind according to the Scientific Method that requires that scientists form a hypothesis and then design a fool proof experiment to prove that hypothesis.
CO2 specific gravity (relative to air) is 152% heavier than air and thus can't rise into the atmosphere and stay there according to the very flawed computer model of the alarmists.
NASA recently revealed their long term satellite data and disproved warming caused by CO2 but you won't see that published in the far left wing media.
southernwriter57 (anonymous profile)
May 9, 2012 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)