CNNs Global Warming Special Typifies Liberal Bias of Climate
Coverage
By Dan Gainor [1] and Amy Menefee
March 28, 2005
Its the end of the world as we know it
at least thats what CNN Presents and reporter Miles OBrien
would have us believe. CNN unveiled an hour-long, one-sided report
detailing the global warming terror that could mean a ruined
world.
On Sunday night, March 27, OBriens Melting Point:
Tracking the Global Warming Threat cited almost every one of the
left-wing environmental movements hot buttons about climate change:
claiming its already a fact; preaching an apocalyptic threat;
blaming mankind for temperature fluctuations; bemoaning the danger
to polar bears and even visiting the island of Tuvalu that is,
according to OBrien, flooding from the inside out.
He continued: But now the scientific debate is largely
over. There is overwhelming consensus that the threat is real, that
humans are at least part of the cause, and that something must be
done. He repeated this declaration throughout the program in
different ways. One of those was by choosing an overwhelming number
of experts who agreed with him. Out of at least 25 people quoted on
the show, only four expressed any skepticism about global warming
even though the science is far from settled. Thats a ratio of
nearly 6-to-1.
At one point, he addded: Where there is fossil fuel
smoke there is heat, if not fire. Here's the verdict from a United
Nations report signed by more than 2,000 scientists from around the
world. Most of the warming observed over the past 50 years is
attributable to human activity.
While OBrien dwelled on the numbers of the supporters
for global warming theory, he didnt mention that there are
thousands of opponents. Frederick Seitz, the past president of the
National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller
University, circulated a document in 1998, the Oregon Petition,
which gathered more than 17,000 names from scientists in various
fields. According to Seitz, This [Kyoto] treaty is, in our opinion,
based upon flawed ideas.
Even though Russia recently signed on to Kyoto, a
treaty designed to cut emissions that allegedly contribute to global
warming, it did so over the objections of its own academy of
sciences.
But OBrien didnt stop at claiming he had numbers on
his side. He worked to undermine anyone who disagreed. One of the
people he interviewed was former journalist Ross Gelbspan, an author
of two books on climate change. OBrien elaborated: His latest,
Boiling Point, documents coal and oil companies bankrolling some
scientists he calls greenhouse skeptics. At least Gelbspan was
honest about his own agenda: I sort of moved from being a
journalist to an advocate to an activist.
OBrien quoted Gelbspan claiming that the fossil fuel
lobby spent huge amounts of money on a very pervasive campaign of
deception and disinformation, which was designed to persuade the
public and policy makers that this issue was stuck on uncertainty.
The story didnt include any background on Gelbspan.
But a Web site devoted to one of his books describes him as follows:
As special projects editor of The Boston Globe, he
conceived, directed, and edited a series of articles that won a
Pulitzer Prize in 1984. That sounds great, but apparently the Globe
didnt think so. The Pulitzer award for that year lists seven names
from the Globe all for that one story, but Gelbspan isnt one of
them.
OBrien followed up that interview with a few quotes
from Pat Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the
Cato Institute, professor of environmental sciences at the
University of Virginia, and author of a recent book on global
warming called Meltdown. Rather than let Michaels make his points,
OBrien undermined him with an introduction as one of the
researchers who has received funding from the fossil fuel industry,
more than $150,000 worth. He added the half statement/half
question: That has to taint everything you say, doesn't it?
None of the roughly two dozen other people on the
program had the sources of their funding questioned, including
journalist-turned-activist Gelbspan. OBrien didnt even mention
Michaels recent book, though he did so for Gelbspan.
After Michaels was done, OBrien decided to undermine him one more time: Michaels position is in the minority. The consensus is the scientific debate is all but over. He then turned to Gus Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, who continued the criticism. According to Speth, In many cases, the same personalities have been the critics for this almost 30 years now. What Speth left out is that roughly 30 years ago, many in the scientific community were arguing the earth was in the midst of an ice age.
That was just one of many things omitted from the story, Michaels told the Business & Media Institute. He said OBrien ignored an entire body of scientific evidence.
When human warming starts, it continues at a constant rate, and that rate is very modest, Michaels said. That argument has never been defeated. Michaels book, Meltdown, is subtitled The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
Had I still been writing the book, this show would have been a chapter, Michaels said.
OBrien also included some discussion of
how environmentalists claim to predict the weather for the next 100
years. After describing predictive climate modeling in a highly
positive fashion, he spoke with MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen,
who reminded him that people understand that forecasting weather is
inaccurate beyond two or three days.
The story found little time to go into the criticisms
of the analysis of temperature readings that have appeared in The
Wall Street Journal recently. One graph, nicknamed the hockey
stick because of its shape, has been used for years to claim that
temperatures rose suddenly in the 20th century. However, some of
that data was analyzed and found faulty. The statistical technique
was biased and tended to draw hockey-stick forms. Even its creator,
Dr. Michael Mann from the University of Virginia, admitted this
according to the Journal. Hes also corrected the other problems,
but claims they didnt impact the overall result and wont release
all of the data so his work can be checked.
CNNs Melting Point repeated several other ongoing
flaws in media coverage of this environmental debate that were
detailed in a November 2004 Business & Media Institute (BMI) study. That
analysis, Destroying America to Save the World, explained how the
media skew the debate by claiming the science of Kyoto is settled
when it isnt.
OBriens story relied overwhelmingly on experts who
believe in global warming and didnt include an opposing view until
nearly a half-hour into the program. This followed the media trend.
According to the study, Broadcast news programs presented the
claims of liberal environmentalists that global warming is a given,
that mankind is to blame for it, or both, 55 percent of the time (77
stories). OBrien only had one program, so he said it as often as
he could.
In addition, he made several other typical errors
covered in the BMI study, including:
-
Blaming President Bush OBrien said: President
Bush opposes Kyoto and implied Bush is to blame for the U.S.
not being part of the treaty. He never mentioned that the
Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto. While OBrien interviewed
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), he didnt mention McCain voted for
the resolution that opposed Kyoto along with liberal Sens.
John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.).
-
The Cost of Kyoto: The story gave the projected U.S.
cost of signing Kyoto as more than $400 billion each year with a
possible loss of 4.9 million jobs. However, it relied on a quote
from President Bush that gave the impression it was his opinion.
Its actually the result of a U.S. Energy Information
Administration analysis. OBrien did fail to compare the numbers
he cited for costs of Kyoto with the costs from a global warming
scenario. His numbers for warming over the next 100 years: UN
estimates somewhere between $20 and $150 billion in property
damage in the U.S. alone. Using his highest estimate and
comparing it to the lowest figure from the Energy Department, the
cost of signing the treaty would still be about 133 times more.
-
Polar Bears Threatened: But the bears are in trouble,
big trouble, said OBrien, claiming they could be wiped out. For
them, its a matter of survival. The networks trot out polar
bears any time they want to tug at the heartstrings for global
warming and Sunday nights broadcast was no different. In Pat
Michaels book Meltdown, he explained how the left-wing
environmental movement takes advantage of cute and furry
creatures to win the warming debate. NGOs [Non-governmental
organizations] know the value of a marquee species. Algae wont
do. Polar bears will, he stated.
At the end of the program, the voiceover described CNN Presents
as separating fact from fiction. It didnt.
For additional information on how the media skew the global warming debate, go to the Business & Media Institute study: Destroying America To Save The World. [2]