Charlie Rose

R_R_Rice  05/27/2010 12:47 PM Report

Having done some research and having watched Charlie's interview with Michael Crichton and others on Global Warming, it is clear to me that he is, and has been very biased in his presentation of Global Warming. He almost didn't let Crichton finish his sentences. He is apparently unwilling to have a balanced discussion, despite the fact he told Crichton he wanted to invite a "very good scientist" on with Crichton to disprove his belief that global warming is not that big of a deal (implication: any scientist, including Crichton, who disagrees with the popular opinion is not very good).

For example, in the McKibben interview, he shows a clip from Freeman J. Dyson, who disagrees with the popular opinion. He is easy to deflect as a "retired, TV expert scientist" who admitted he wasn't an expert on Global Warming. It would have been far more informative to show the clip with Crichton and let McKibben respond to that. It is sad, but convenient for Charlie that his friend has passed away and isn't here to see him use Dyson as a foil for McKibben instead of him. Here are some of Crichton's comments from the (2/19/07) interview:

- He disagrees with the conclusion this is a potential catastrophe (although he thinks man-made Carbon Dioxide, and many other things are contributing to Global Warming).

- While he likes Al Gore, he thinks Al is wrong in many of his points in the movie (he is making arguments for which there is no data; that he probably hasn't looked at the data).

- Many scientists don't agree with the Global Warming position which Charlie says is almost unanimously agreed (said less than 10% strongly agreed in a survey, doesn't think most have looked at the data).

- Most people "love a catastrophe," thus the rapid gravitation to the concept (even though it may not be valid or proven).

- "Consensus science is not science. This consensus stuff is about politics."

- History will show that many scientists have made a significant, major mistake and that Science will have been enormously injured, because we moved away from verified data.

- The media feeds the "unanimous agreement" agenda through its biased reporting. (While Charlie claimed to be balanced, clearly, arguing with Crichton then and now by pitting Dyson against McKibben rather than Crichton, he is sending a strong message that he is not such. In fact, he is making Crichton's case on this point.)

Clearly, he is making it easy for McKibben to push his point (letting him play not even slow pitch softball, but tee ball rather than hard ball) ... far from a unbiased presentation.

One loss in this is the chance to disprove the skeptics if they are wrong. Invite them on with other scientists and let them debate the merits of the data. By not doing so, you inadvertently support the skeptics cause, at least for critical thinkers who want to see real science, not "consensus politics." If the skeptics are so wrong, why not let them state their case and dispatch them with data? The longer you delay this, the weaker the popular position appears to be, especially given Crichton's comments about Gore. It makes one wonder what you are afraid of ... that maybe the case isn't sound after all.

But the most significant loss for me is Charlie's credibility. If he is biased on this topic (which I have learned something about, and can see what he is leaving out), what about other topics for which I haven't the time to learn very much? Historically, I watched the show (religiously, since I discovered it in September 2008) and forwarded links for many interviews. I had thought it was a way to be informed; that I was getting an unbiased viewpoint. I'm no longer convinced that is the case. So, if I'm not being informed, I have to ask, is it worth spending my time watching, simply to be entertained? Unfortunately, the answer is no. So you are losing an avid fan and supporter over this issue.

If I am misinterpreting Charlie's Global Warming position, please correct my misunderstanding and point me to shows that demonstrate that isn't the case (where he stops saying there is a consensus and presents the opposite point of view). I would much prefer to be an enthusiastic fan than not.

BTW, I now watch online because I no longer get my local PBS station since the digital TV conversion. I contributed regularly to that station, and indicated, on my last check: "Because I watch Charlie Rose." I guess in the future I won't be contributing to that station OR watching Charlie online. :-(

EPatrickMosman  05/21/2010 05:48 PM Report

At different times during 2008, Mr. Rose interviewed Michael Crichton and Jeffrey Sachs on global warming,now climate change, instead of having a debate on the science of earth's climate history. The following email was sent to Mr. Rose proposing a debate which is no longer possible as Mr.Crichton passed away in the meantime.

"Mr. Rose,

Your interviews with Messrs. Crichton and Sachs presented a vivid contrast, not only in style and behavior, but also in scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth's history of climate change and the futility of predicting the future. Mr. Crichton was calm, cool, collected, well informed scientifically and like King Canute was well aware that mankind does not control or have a significant influence on the earth's cyclical climate. On the other hand, Mr. Sachs was his usual hyper, cock sure, fast talking epitome of a street corner hustler or used car salesman trying to relieve the world's taxpayers, essentially American taxpayers, of billions to save themselves from a soon to arrive disaster predicted by computer simulations. Mr. Crichton reasoned scientifically, like Galileo and Copernicus, while Mr. Sachs preached 'consensus science', like the 'earthcentric' consensus belief of the Middle Ages. Mr. Crichton is prepared to debate 'global warming' advocates on your program, Mr. Sachs announced that the discussion is over, CO2 is the culprit, and now is the time for another liberal "Great Society' style program to save the earth, led of course by Mr. Sachs. Perhaps you can arrange for a debate between Mr. Crichton and Mr. Sachs."

Unfortunately just the word 'debate' has the same frightening effect on Al Gore and AGW alarmists as garlic and the cross have on a vampire.

R_R_Rice  05/21/2010 07:08 AM Report

Brian Sussman, a Bay Area meteorologist, has written a book: "Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam."

I was skeptical, but open minded about Climate Change. After watching "An Inconvenient Truth" and reading "Hot, Flat and Crowded," I became a believer and began forwarding e-mails that supported that position. But, I noticed that Friedman lamented that the TV meteorologists haven't started delivering the message about Climate Change. I wondered whether they might not believe it. Well, one certainly doesn't.

Sussman includes a temperature chart presented by the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change in 1990 that clearly shows a Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and a Little Ice Age (LIA). He indicates these events are not disputed in the scientific community. He also includes the Gore signature "Hockey Stick" chart that erases the MWP and LIA and depicts a sharp temperature rise late in the 1990's. We have learned this chart was created from erroneous, massaged data, as EPatrickMosman indicates.

Sussman presents alternative explanations for several events that Gore attributes to Global Warming. One example is the allegation that Lake Chad in Africa is drying up due to Global Warming. He indicates:

- Lake Chad is really only a "giant puddle" that is only 23 feet deep, even during wet years

- It has dried up six times in the last 1000 years

- Ninety percent of the water is fed by the Chari River, the water of which is now consumed by a population that has gone from 100,000 to 750,000 since 1960

Sussman also provides alternative explanations that contradict numerous other theories that Gore presents.

It is interesting to note that Sussman's book was in final publication when the leaked e-mails surfaced. These indicate collusion and the need to eliminate the MWP because its existence didn't support the position. Did anyone notice how these were only briefly reported and immediately dropped from coverage?

Maybe Sussman is cherry picking his data as he suggests that Gore has done. But, at a minimum, he deserves a hearing. Better would be a roundtable discussion with Sussman, other non-believers (if such are willing to risk being blacklisted or de-funded) and some Climate Change proponents from the scientific community.

This is disturbing on several levels:

- We could be making major global policy decisions based on a hoax

- The scientific process is apparently corrupted (like the Enron Auditors ... who is left that you trust?)

- These events are supported, even ignored / covered up by the national media

Come on, Charlie, are you ready to give this a fair hearing, or are you going to continue to present, unchallenged, the suspicious, unverified data?

I'm a big fan, but think you are WAY off base / biased on this issue. This emperor may have no clothes!

charlizecourriers  05/20/2010 08:22 PM Report

Imagine you went to your doctor and were told you have a fatal disease;your doctor tells you that every thing has to be done. You ask your doctor what will be the consequences of doing everthing; but the doctor slyly evades answering the question. But doctor, you say, what will happen if I do this or that? Again the doctor says we have to do everything or, evading again your question, says engineers will soon have the answer. QUESTION: Do you pay the doctor's bill before he answers your original question? Remenber, fellow viewers, this wasn't a therapy session.

EPatrickMosman  05/18/2010 04:02 PM Report

Mr.McKibben's role as an AGW alarmist and mini-me Al Gore imitator has grown stale as more and more evidence appears of that the IPCC,the British CRU and American 'scientists', such as Mann, Hansen, Willis et al have provided suspect massaged and corrected data and colluded to insure that scientists with opposing views were censored and silenced, a modern replay of the treatment afforded Galileo and Copernicus. Why do these AGW authors receive kid glove treatment in interviews even when they are spreading unverifiable propaganda, ie, the earth is not warming as global temperatures have been stable or cooling since 1998, the Indian glaciers are not melting, the Antarctica ice cap is growing and the Arctic ice recovered significantly this past winter? And yet they are never challenged by asking then to explain the past history of the earth's many extreme climate changes before man and that evil gas,CO2, were present. A few examples, the first from Smithsonian Magazine:

"Uncovering Secrets of the Sphinx

"The Sahara has not always been a wilderness of sand dunes. German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, analyzing the radiocarbon dates of archaeological sites, recently concluded that the region’s prevailing climate pattern changed around 8,500 B.C., with the monsoon rains that covered the tropics moving north. The desert sands sprouted rolling grasslands punctuated by verdant valleys, prompting people to begin settling the region in 7,000 B.C. Kuper and Kröpelin say this green Sahara came to an end between 3,500 B.C. and 1,500 B.C., when the monsoon belt returned to the tropics and the desert reemerged. That date range is 500 years later than prevailing theories had suggested.

Further studies led by Kröpelin revealed that the return to a desert climate was a gradual process spanning centuries. This transitional period was characterized by cycles of ever-decreasing rains and extended dry spells. Support for this theory can be found in recent research conducted by Judith Bunbury, a geologist at the University of Cambridge. After studying sediment samples in the Nile Valley, she concluded that climate change in the Giza region began early in the Old Kingdom, with desert sands arriving in force late in the era."

As for re-engineering the earth's climate, what is or was the ideal climate for the earth? Who will make that decision? How will the unintended consequences (what is good for the Northern hemisphere may be disastrous for the Southern hemisphere) be determined and evaluated?

For just the last 1000 years there was the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age of the Middle Ages, the Dust Bowl of 1930s’ warm period, the cold period of the 1940,-70s and what were the myriad of variables and their individual and cumulative effects that resulted in these cyclical changes? The earth’s climate is effected by its atmospheric H2O content, cloud cover, distance, tilt and wobble as it orbits the sun, the sun’s solar activity period and perhaps variables unknown at this time also. How are these natural occuring variables going to treated since man like King Canute does not control them. The only difference is that King Canute was a wise man and knew he did not control the tides, for that he was exiled.

JMM  05/18/2010 03:53 PM Report

REMant, I love to read your comments. Sometimes I save them. I agree with you, as I do think it's wise to put thought into any fixes. For instance, would anyone want to follow a hydrogen car up a hill in icy winter, when that car releases something like water? Would those cars be helpful to use in drought areas? And knowing our bodies are electromagnetic, would riding in electric cars - or living by them - cause effects worse than cell phones or transformer lines?

While listening to the conversation, however, I was struck by the irony that the last global warming conference was in Iceland, and there the earth now speaks. Googling that, I can see I'm not the first to associate the two. It's interesting to see that some think the volcano's eruptions will help cool the earth. I thought it would put more carbon into the atmosphere and have the opposite effect.

REMant  05/18/2010 03:02 PM Report

I've no doubt there will be a lot of things changing with the climate, and while I'd just as soon a lot of what has happened in my lifetime was reversed, at the moment the trees and plants around here are growing like crazy and with them the animal population, so I think it might be sensible to spend at least a little time thinking about the way the earth seems to have of maintaining its own equilibrium before embarking on poorly conceived measures that could possibly make things worse.