MNN.COM > Earth Matters > Politics

Media Mayhem: Our media columnist's first annual 'Hot' or 'Not' list

What do Michael Pollan, Marc Morano, Lisa P. Jackson, nuclear energy and the climate have in common?
By Ken Edelstein
Mon, Jan 11 2010 at 7:35 AM EST
Read more: GLOBAL WARMING, MEDIA MAYHEM, SEVERE WEATHER, SKEPTICISM

Illustration: ildogesto/iStockPhoto
We know global temperatures are rising, and we know that the global belief in global warming is diving. As we start 2010, here’s my best sense of the pop-culture trajectory for other environmental issues, organizations, and personalities.
 
Michael Pollan has been on a roll since the 2006 publication of his bestselling The Omnivore’s Dilemma. A University of California journalism professor who’s muckraked his way through America’s agricultural-industrial complex, Pollan epitomizes how one can be an advocate for change and at the same time a responsible, fact-based journalist. Last May, his follow-up book, In Defense of Food, won his second James Beard Award for food writing. Now, he’s peddling a pocket guide called Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual. Given his celebrity status, its publication earned him a friendly seat as a guest the other night on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It’s hard to imagine how Pollan could get any hotter in 2010, but you never know what’ll happen when you become the leader of a movement. HOT
 
Van Jones also kicked off 2009 at the top of his game. The up-by-his-bootstraps Yale-educated lawyer is an inspirational speaker who can draw enthusiasm and consensus from minorities, environmentalists and business people. Jones had founded three successful advocacy groups, authored a bestseller (The Green Collar Economy) and been cited by Time as an “environmental hero.” In March, President Obama named him to a tailor-made White House position: special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation. He seemed cut out for the moment. Then, the right-wing blogosphere discovered that Jones had said a few impolitic things as recently as early 2009; he’d praised Marx (Karl, not Groucho), signed a conspiracy-minded petition on the Sept. 11 attacks, and profanely mocked Republican politicians. A McCarthy-esque witch hunt, led by Fox’s Glenn Beck, ensued; Jones resigned in September. Since then, he’s seldom been heard from. He’s too smart, young and dynamic to stay below the radar forever. For now, though, Jones’ temperature has dropped toward freezing. NOT
 
Marc Morano can be imagined as the love child of Matt Drudge and Karl Rove. To most folks, that's scary. But Morano would be honored by the analogy. A former staff provocateur for U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Denial), Morano left Capitol Hill last spring and founded ClimateDepot.com. Morano’s sensationalist site doesn’t feature much original content. But it has become a credulous clearinghouse for all manner of climate change denial, rumor mongering and character assassination. Most importantly, it serves as a conduit to popularize error-strewn stories before they move on to Fox News or talk radio for amplification. Often, Morano even serves as a climate change “expert” guest on the mainstream media — even though he’s not a scientist and isn’t exactly known for honesty. ClimateDepot features regular boasts of the frequent attention Morano gets in the mainstream media — most notably a December Newsweek profile that dubbed him “king of the skeptics.” That attention has only escalated with the arrival of “Climategate,” the Copenhagen climate conference, and this winter’s cold weather. HOT
 
Climate scientists saw their warnings about climate change affirmed by study after study in 2009 (if anything, it looks as if change is coming faster than earlier projected). In the court of popular culture, however, climate scientists may have had the worst year for any group of scientists since the Scopes Monkey Trial. Let’s say you’ve excelled in your highly competitive scientific field all your life. Then a bunch of other scientists who can’t seem to get their work published join up with a self-interested gang of political operatives to savage you in the press and on the political stage. Those same conspirators get a hold of years of correspondence between you and other colleagues; they find two or three e-mails that can be taken out of context to imply that you’re all a bunch of frauds. In the controversy-driven media, that’s all it takes to get a large portion of the public to disbelieve you — and to swallow unquestionably the disinformation of climate change “skeptics.” It’ll be interesting to see if the disconnect between what scientists have learned and what the public believes will narrow in 2010, or if the scientists will continue to be schooled in public relations by the political operatives and publicists driving the denial bus. NOT
 
Lisa P. Jackson emerged in 2009 as the ascendant star of the Obama administration’s environmental team. While other administration officials were hammered for past comments or actions, no matter how inconsequential, the new Environmental Protection Agency chief worked steadily to restore credibility and morale at an agency rendered toothless during the Bush administration. To be sure, there were disappointments. Jackson’s EPA so far has stopped short of adequate safeguards for mountaintop-removal coal mining and coal ash dumps. And some EPA steps have been hampered by political will and budget limitations. But the agency has moved forward on a dizzying number of long neglected actions, ranging from toxic chemical standards, to an overhaul of Clean Water Act compliance, to this week’s push to rein in ozone smog. Of course, Jackson’s biggest step was the one announced on Dec. 7, the same day the Copenhagen climate conference opened: She signed an official finding that “the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases ... in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” That’s a necessary step toward regulating greenhouse gases. In one fell swoop, the new EPA director did more to restore American credibility on climate change than all the fiddling in Congress. HOT
 
Polar bears actually could be described as hot — too hot for comfort. The warming Arctic has made life more difficult for the largest of land predators. Very basically, they get exhausted swimming longer and longer distances between sea ice flows, at least according to government and university scientists, whose work has led to a finding that they should be listed as a threatened species. As with climate change itself, however, special interests — in this case, Inuit villagers who hunt polar bears and who also contend with them as dangerous pests — have hired their own scientists, who (surprise, surprise) say the bears are expanding their populations. That could be true in some regions (because my editor won’t fund my own expedition to the Great White North, we can’t know for sure). But the overall trend doesn’t look good. Despite this year’s cold weather, sea ice may virtually disappear by the end of the century. Without substantial action on climate change, the bears’ habitat will disappear far more quickly than it can adapt to the changes. NOT
 
Change.org and Care2.com are easily confused. Both are social media sites for do-gooders. Both mix news content with opportunities for action. Both help members act on environmental causes, along with a slew of other issues, by sending letters, starting petitions, signing petitions and tapping into other ways to get more deeply involved. Both have enjoyed astounding growth over the past year. Their business models are a bit different — Care2.com uses relationships with various nonprofit partners to hook members up with those nonprofits — but whatever the differences, the two social media/social entrepreneurship sites are robust tools. They, or websites like them, are likely to become indispensable tools for anyone who wants to build public support for a cause. HOT
 
The United Nations saw its limitations as the shepherd of international climate change agreements exposed in Copenhagen in December. U.N. rules, which require a consensus for any global agreement, allowed nations to develop an agreement based on the lowest common denominator. And even then the document wasn’t deemed fully enforceable because five out of 193 nation’s didn’t vote 'aye'. The current frontline on climate change turns out to run between China and the U.S. — the two countries with the largest emissions by far. Other significant battles inevitably pit the wealthiest nations and/or the biggest oil producers against the poorest countries most likely to be devastated by climate change. Copenhagen may not have been as big a failure as it’s been chalked up to be. For one thing, the United States re-established its involvement in the issue (though we still fell short on leadership). For another, Copenhagen went a long way toward clarifying that the most pressing issues on climate change are likely to be sorted out for now through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, and through the leadership of technological innovators. The sooner diplomats and the U.N. recognize that the cumbersome United Nations process will have to complement those efforts rather than solve all the problems, the better. NOT
 
Nuclear energy continues to split the environmental community. Traditionally opposed to nukes because of disposal, terrorism and other public safety issues, many environmentalists have switched sides or at least softened their opposition because reactors, unlike coal-fired or even natural gas plants, don’t emit greenhouse gases. The split, along with fossil fuel price hikes (and a lot of pressure from the nuclear industry), convinced Congress to make it easier in 2005 to build nuclear reactors by, among other things, approving $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. Even more significantly, some Democrats in Congress, including former nuke opponent Sen. John Kerry, are willing to offer streamlined permitting and other incentives for reactors in exchange for Republican support on climate change legislation. Fifty-three reactors are now under construction worldwide, none of those are in the United States, according to the World Nuclear Association. Of nearly 500 that are planned or proposed, however, at least 30 are in the United States. HOT
 
The weather seems headed in the opposite direction from global warming, and Arctic storm fronts blasting across North America have prompted plenty of crowing on the part of climate change deniers. From Seoul to Miami, records are falling at the bottom end of the thermometer. Globally, will 2010 turn out to be a cold year? It’s too early to tell. But things certainly have gotten off to a cool start. COOL
 
The climate still is heading upward though. Despite anecdotal observations that the last couple of years have been relatively cool in North America, the overall climate continues to head very convincingly in one direction. According to the World Meteorological Organization, 2009 was the fifth hottest year on record and the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest decade. A couple of cool months in one hemisphere —or even one cooler year globally — won’t change that trend. HOT
 
Journalist Ken Edelstein writes the Media Mayhem column for the Mother Nature Network. From various coffee shops in Atlanta, he publishes an environmental news site at MyGreenATL.com.


CLOSE link:

Comments(14)

Sort by:
Posted By Chris BC - Sun, Jan 10 2010 at 9:17 PM EST

Out Of Context My Butt !!

Try reading a little further in the Climategate material to get the full context. The more context you have the worse it gets. And it goes far beyond the "hide the decline" "trick" that warmist greenies like you are trying to claim is a "technique". It's out and out fraud.

Global warming belief is diving because more and more people are getting information such as that in the Climategate material. Wake up and stop smoking the green wacky weed.

Posted By JeffM - Sun, Jan 10 2010 at 7:01 PM EST

Hot Air and Innuendo

Ken:

Marc Moreno is the skeptics' answer to Al Gore... and neither is a scientist. Unfortunately for the alarmists, Moreno has more credibility than Gore. Do we see crocodile tears?

Polar bears were on the way to the good life as a U.S. sponsored endagered species. The bear-hating Inuits (and many other groups) had to go and spoil a perfectly splendid alarmist political plank. Rats!

Van Jones is an outed Commie. Don't shed any tears for him. Instead, ask yourself how.... More

Posted By Steven Earl Salmony - Sun, Jan 10 2010 at 4:29 PM EST

Perhaps necessary change is in the offing....

The human family cannot keep recklessly overproducing unnecessary stuff, hyperconsuming and excessively hoarding limited resources, and overpopulating the planet as the leaders in our not-so-great generation are advocating so adamantly. Everyone in the human community appears to be implicated in the work at hand of finding a different way from the patently unsustainable "primrose path" set out by those who extol the virtue of greed and arrogantly proclaim that their greed-mongering is God's.... More

Posted By David - Sun, Jan 10 2010 at 7:41 AM EST

Really?

"We know global temperatures are rising".
To be perfectly honest - I did not know that. Seriously, I thought that we had reached a peak with the last decade being the warmest decade maybe in 100 years or more, and that there has been no further warming recorded for over ten years. I also thought there had been some slight cooling recently.
Is this information wrong? I should add, it is this - and also the exposed fraud at CRU and other climate study centres, and all that talk of.... More

Posted By Ken Edelstein - Thu, Jan 21 2010 at 9:07 AM EST

I'm afraid, David, there is no Santa Claus

Yes, David, to answer your question, the predominant evidence shows that it is continuing to get warmer. Simply follow that link to World Meteorological Organization for more info on that. It would be great if warming was somehow, magically reversing itself, but there's no evidence to indicate it's true. Claims that the climate is getting cooler unfortunately are based on cherry-picked data and/or anecdotal weather.

Posted By Bob Armstrong - Sat, Jan 09 2010 at 10:31 PM EST

Thumbs Down

Amazing to see the number of journalists putatively reporting science who display no ability to think analytically for themselves .

It's obvious that Marc Morano's influence is not as a "clearinghouse for all manner of climate change denial, rumor mongering and character assassination" but as a link list of almost any posts concerning this eco-leninist fear mongering which has made the tactical mistake of choosing as its target the substance out of which , along with H2O , all life , including.... More

Posted By Gorebal Warming Denier - Sat, Jan 09 2010 at 7:49 PM EST

How's the kool-aid?

Wow Kwn, can I buy some of the grunge weed you have been smoking. This article is more of the same crapola Al Borewhore spreads. You should really get out and get some fresh air.

Posted By David Harrington - Sat, Jan 09 2010 at 6:18 PM EST

GISS Data

Hottest decade?

You should check the satellite records for the past few years but I guess you would prefer I look at the GISS surface station records as these much adjusted numbers match the required theory more closely.

Satellites actually measure global temperatures, land and sea, whereas the surface temperatures are largely from the continental USA. For the record CONUS constitues only 1.5% of the world's surface area and about 5.4% of the land mass area.

Being.... More

Posted By DocForesight - Sat, Jan 09 2010 at 5:52 PM EST

ClimateGate "Deniers"

Isn't it interesting how devotedly the alarmists "circle the wagons" when the cause du jour, which has had slavish media attention for nigh 25 years and billions of taxpayer money in grants and "studies", is finally getting a fair airing by respected scientists like Lindzen, Gray, Pielke, Spencer, Choi, Moerner (sp), et al?

Science doesn't operate on "consensus"; it operates on verifiable, repeatable, independently-tested and critiqued raw data and methods on a hypothesis and conclusion..... More

Posted By GlobalWamingIsAscam - Sat, Jan 09 2010 at 2:32 PM EST

Global Warming Scam

Oh, geez, more of the same!

Posted By Otter - Sat, Jan 09 2010 at 12:00 PM EST

You guys are Hysterical

No, really.

Your climate Hysterics are rapidly wearing thin as more and more people do their own research and see what the Honest Truth of the matter is. Also, more and more scientists around the globe are beginning to speak up against all the efforts that have been made to silence them.

I've been following this story for 30 years, and used to think ..... I was going to say 'like you,' but that would involve actual Thinking on your part.

Posted By Dave McK - Fri, Jan 08 2010 at 10:56 PM EST

Somebody didn't read all the emails.

" It’ll be interesting to see if the disconnect between what scientists have learned and what the public believes will narrow in 2010"

It’ll be interesting to see if the disconnect between what histrionic regurgitators of the apocalypse keep repeating with blind desperation and what the rational public has known forever will narrow in 2010.

It will be interesting to see the witchdoctors of apocalyptic doom switch to a new crisis that can only be averted by sacrifice.

Posted By Aaron - Fri, Jan 08 2010 at 8:14 PM EST

1/2 Right

"We know global temperatures are rising, and we know that the global belief in global warming is diving."

You got half of it, anyway. Fewer and fewer people are signing onto your AGW god and joining ranks with the Goremons.

Diminishing returns applies to more than just CO2, it appears.

Posted By Randy Paynter - Fri, Jan 08 2010 at 1:52 PM EST

Thank you from Care2!

Thanks Ken - You guys are pretty hot yourself! ;)

I believe Care2 added more than 3 million new members last year, which is the most since we started nearly 12 years ago, so it does feel like there's good momentum.

I think it has a lot to do with the changing attitudes among "the main stream". Most folks now recognize there are a lot of big challenges we need to deal with, and more people are realizing it's possible / their responsibility to do something to make a positive.... More

Add your comment

You can’t fool Mother Nature
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA

ADVERTISEMENT

SHEA'S RECENT POSTS

POLITICS, ENERGY, AND OUR EARTH'S RESOURCES
+ add this to my site

MNN ORIGINALS

Not sure which green way is best? Get answers from our experts.

We've got a new contest coming soon.

Government data you need to know, in a way you can understand.

Check out eco-photos of the week, top 10 lists and more.

Learn more about everything from acid rain to wildlife.