The Climate Narrative
There are two guys who’d sooner be waterboarded than admit the other was right about something. But Marc Morano and Joe Romm would certainly agree on one thing: the importance of a compelling narrative.
Marc Morano. Take a look at the stories that dominate Climate Depot lately. It’s IPCC, round the clock. Notice the familiarity of the phrasing in the headlines (ruse–hoax–scam–collapse–hype–shame, and so on). Morano has fashioned this narrative that the whole edifice of man-made climate change is crumbling daily under the weight of mounting miscues. Nothing could be further from the truth. But Morano has been disciplined in staying with this frame. If you’re following the trench warfare in the blogosphere, you can see that many skeptics are echoing this jig-is-up frame.
And because climate scientists are on the defensive, Morano is able to stay on offense with his message. Say what you will about him, but he’s very good at what he does. He saw an opening to create a narrative and he’s not looking back.
Joe Romm. He’s so frustrated at the turn of events. On the one hand, he blames team Obama for shoddy messaging:
The failure to advance a narrative (frame or extended metaphor) has been a disaster.
They haven’t been able to counter what Romm calls
the self-destructive demagoguing and obstinacy of anti-science, pro-polluter ideologues.
Conveniently, Romm, who is a major player in the climate debate, isn’t discussing the merits of his own frame, and whether that has helped or hindered his cause. Romm is surely right that a better narrative will be needed to sway a fickle public and recalcitrant blue dog democrats. I’m looking forward to seeing what he comes up with.
Romm’s story line is in trouble when even the NYT is willing to print a story about the debate. Even though their coverge is still fairly heavily biased.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=2&ref=instapundit
As for Morano, I consider him to be one step above Huffington. He doesn’t make the news, he just collects it. The word used to be “muckraker”. But even muckrakers have their uses. Romm’s problem is that there’s so MUCH of “news” for Morano to collect. And so MUCH of it is unanswerable except via ad hominem attacks. And there are some (like me) who operate on facts/reality and are impervious to ad hominem.
[…] of Rosenthal’s story was to highlight how the IPCC’s recent troubles is reinforcing Morano’s manufactured narrative, then Monkton is your man. But if the point is to suss out the legitimate criticism of the IPCC […]
Oso,
Morano selectively “collects” information to advance an agenda. Of course, so does Drudge and the Huffington Post, too.
No argument. BUT – if 20% of what he collects is true, the AGW contingent is less honest, less accurate, less scientific than they’re portrayed to be by the media.
How about that peer review process?
Oso,
You’re missing the point. It’s not the truthfulness of what he collects that matters. It’s the impression that’s given with his headlines and choice of stories/blog posts that he links to.
At one point, when the material he covered was broader, I argued that he served a useful purpose in in that he unintentionally introduced the skeptic audience to some thoughtful voices, such as Michael Tobis.
But in recent months, in the wake of climate gate and the IPCC controversies, it’s become clear that Morano is shaping a very particular narrative. Inconvenient information, such as prominent intelligence and military personnel testifying to their belief that climate change is real and necessary to consider in national security planning, is simply ignored. Why? That’s off-message; it’s not helpful to Morano’s narrative.
Ah, but your expectation is misplaced. Morano has always been anti-AGW.
For me, if not for anyone else, the truthfulness of what he or anyone else presents is of paramount importance. If he started presenting informaton that was actually largely false I wouldn’t go there. Not that I go there all that often in any case. Remember that my introduction to the AGW dogma was the contention that the MWP never happened. You have no idea how deeply that offended me. To deny the lessons of history and archaeology was not, and is not, something I’m willing to accept without massive, solid proof. And so far, that proof does not exist. Not that history isn’t variable, but the elimination of the MWP was an obvious fraud.
McIntyre’s destruction of the hockey stick was a vindication of my view. And Mann’s continued attempts at dishonesty still tar the whole AGW hypothesis.
Why do the views of prominent intelligence and military personnel carry more weight than those of John Christy or Pat Michaels? I have no problem with “planning” for climate change”, but what KIND of climate change? If they plan only for warming, then they’re not doing their job. Climate also cools. And by any measure, cooling would be far worse than warming.
I suspect you might not like it, but have you read the NRO article? Morano’s story line can’t match that outlined by the NRO article. Trouble is that I spent 50 years watching the development of this article, so it resonates with me.
http://article.nationalreview.com/424508/climate-gtterdmmerung/the-editors
BTW, I haven’ t found Tobis to be all that thougtful. Dedicated, yes. Somewhat arrogant, closed minded even. But thoughtful? But then, I don’t know him well and probably never will.
“Inconvenient information, such as prominent intelligence and military personnel testifying to their belief that climate change is real..”
What? That’s not incovenient. It is irrelevant! A fundamental problem here is that too much has been based on people’s belief, rather than on what can actually be demonstrated.