New York Times and a middle ground on global warming

Russ Steele

It seem that Revkin has been in the “science is settled camp” from past articles, could this be a welcome change in position?  A fresh start on the New Year?

Middle Stance Emerges in Debate Over Climate
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: January 1, 2007

Amid the shouting lately about whether global warming is a human-caused catastrophe or a hoax, some usually staid climate scientists in the usually invisible middle are speaking up. 

The discourse over the issue has been feverish since Hurricane Katrina. Seizing the moment, many environmental campaigners, former Vice President Al Gore and some scientists have portrayed the growing human influence on the climate as an unfolding disaster that is already measurably strengthening hurricanes, spreading diseases and amplifying recent droughts and deluges.

Conservative politicians and a few scientists, many with ties to energy companies, have variously countered that human-driven warming is inconsequential, unproved or a manufactured crisis.

Thomas Barnett gives some insightful global perspective to Revkin's article on his blog today. Perhaps the middle ground will find it's voice and speak to the extremes. Let's hope using some valid science and statistical analysis in defining the middle ground.

I hope the folks at NCTV in developing their global warming series are listening, it time for rational analysis and not more Al Gore hysteria.

UPDATE:  More on this article at Climate Science, with an interview of Revkin, responding to a question on methods for communicating complex science:

I think journalism is going to shift more towards a bloggish presentation generally, and I think newspapers realize what people crave in a world of complexity and too much information is a descent place where they are presented with the shape of an idea and a trusted guide to an idea. What I would like to think the New York Times could be as it becomes increasingly a web thing is where you hitch on to my little ride as I go around examining the state of these ideas. It will be less then each story spun as if it is God’s truth because, in this 21st century world, journalism has to reflect more of the nuances and complexities and uncertainty about issues rather to try to imply in that very black and white way we do on the front of the newspaper every day, that this is the new reality.”