NOVA premiered a two-hour special, "Decoding the Weather Machine," last week that was a thorough look at the scientific understanding of extreme weather and climate change, going back to the earliest experiments in understanding the earth’s atmosphere to modeling of future scenarios of the impact of climate change without intervention or mitigation.
You may be surprised to hear that climate change is one of those topics that get people animated.
Tom Hickie from New Brunswick, Canada wrote:
“I watched the program about climate change on Nova and while I believe that our climate is changing and I am all for reducing emissions I though the program was fake news. We have not been studying global warming for two hundred years and the graphs they used were skewed to look alarming…the show was meant to be alarming and the information was exaggerated. These types of programs just feed the critics of climate change. I have noticed this on many of the programs on PBS which is sad. The shows have a moral message and everything is twisted to support the message. Keep well.
Meanwhile John Ingram from New York, N.Y., says:
“I am a climate activist in NYC and I just finished watching NOVA’s 'Decoding the Weather Machine.' The Nova program is a clear presentation of the irrefutable science behind climate change, and it continues to build important understanding of the more currently relevant issue of weather/climate relations…But towards the end of the program I became increasingly disturbed as NOVA explains what the options are, and what can be done in the short time we have to do anything of impact…Nova maps out an apolitical, and optimistic cover for the future of the Fossil Fuel industry…Was it a surprise at the end to see that the David Koch foundation for Science funded this program?...Your program describes the cause and the urgency of our predicament well. To fudge in the conclusion the political and economic choices we must make look suspiciously like a service to a major PBS funder and their as usual business.”
There is much to unpack here.
I thought that the show was a worthy addition to the journalistic work on climate change. It very clearly and methodically laid out the science behind the work that has led to the general consensus about climate change amongst the scientific community today.
I’m old enough to remember when there was not this overwhelming consensus and we reported on climate that way. Today there is such a consensus.
Critics often challenge this consensus by saying that the earth has gone through cycles of cold and warmth and we are currently going through a period of warmth.
I think what the show did very clearly was to articulate this cyclical fact of the planet’s climate, but the difference we are experiencing now is that the warming has been accelerated by man-made activity, leading to warming at an alarming rate. This is happening at a time in human history when 7 billion people inhabit the planet, the majority of them in coastal areas and thus the implications are important.
To Mr. Hickie I would say that the term "fake news" is a term that has lost all meaning, and is used more as an epithet. It’s not a term I like to use in discourse and distracts from serious criticism and complaint.
To Mr. Ingram I would say, firstly, I thought that show did not conclude as an optimistic cover for the fossil fuel industry. What it did, responsibly I might add, is lay out all the options that must be considered, particularly at this time of sharp political divides, to lower carbon emissions. Carbon sequestration, no-till farming and recycling carbon are all interesting responses, particularly at a time when there are political obstacles to getting other things such as reducing fossil fuel emissions enacted or “changing the entire energy system is not going to happen overnight.” In my mind it made the show even more valuable in educating the audience on all the issues that are on the table.
On the question of David Koch, this is a topic I come back to repeatedly. Mr. Ingram failed to mention the other two major funders of this special, The Kendeda Fund and the Ives Family Fund.
As someone who has been a working journalist in the public media system I am used to seeing the kneejerk reaction to notification about funders, none more so than Mr. Koch. I wrote about his support of Ken Burns’ "Vietnam" here. My argument still holds for the case of NOVA, that objections seem to be the fact of funding by Mr. Koch and his foundation, without identifying specific examples of undue influence.
While I understand why objections may be raised about Mr. Koch, why not about the other supporters of this show?
As I’ve said before, I do not believe in a litmus test for funding and actually applaud diverse funding sources for public media programming. A litmus test implies funders’ interests are more important than the editorial project itself.
Just as I don’t believe that the cancer researchers at the various cancer research institutes supported by Mr. Koch are taking their marching orders from him, I don’t believe that the journalists at NOVA are either.
CIVILIZATIONS
Many of you are still dismayed about the PBS version of the documentary series "Civilizations," a co-production with the BBC, which has reduced the role of British presenters, including Professor Mary Beard, for the American viewers. I wrote about this last week, but some of you are still not satisfied.
Lloyd McDaniel from Tallahassee, Fla., says:
“Re: Mary Beard/presenters: sort of smacks of ‘alternate facts’. I somehow doubt that the ancient civilizations are divergent FOR one set of views or the other. This is one of my issues, even though a life-long Anglophile, with SO MUCH content coming from the Beeb. If it was good enough for them, it ought to be good enough for us without ADDING expense. Or are we just employing staff?
Mary Riedel of Toluca Lake concurs:
“…We’re all intelligent, cosmopolitan viewers and two versions is unnecessary and, in my opinion, an insult.”
Mary Hughes of Los Angeles, Calif., goes further:
“…I want and expect intelligent programming from PBS, not sanitized versions of non-US based programming. I will not be watching the US version of Civilisations.”
Discussions about the rights to showing the BBC version of the series in the U.S. are ongoing. I will update as I learn more.
BROOKS AND SHIELDS
A few weeks ago I addressed the issue of the Brooks and Shields segment on the NewsHour. The pair has been a part of the program for 17 years and I questioned the segment and more broadly what is the appropriate kind of punditry needed in our current political times.
Viewers are still sharing their thoughts on the segment.
Brent Johnson from Sebring, Ohio, writes:
“Good Day! Just wanted to mention how refreshing the Friday segment with Shields and Salam was! I though Mr. Shields was more on his mark than before. He seemed awake and alert. He even appeared rested!...Would be nice to rotate Shields with Brooks every other week and probably the same for their counterparts. Kudos and thanks to those who made this change happen.”
Diana Moses from Arlington, Mass., comments:
“…for me the main issue is the extent to which the Shields and Brooks segment comes across as a discussion between members of a social club which viewers are allowed to overhear, rather than as, for example, a principled discussion between insightful individuals produced for the benefit of the audience.”
Mr. Brooks and Mr. Shields still have their supporters among the audience, including:
Susan Spengler from Palatine, Ill., who writes:
“The fact that they often agree is comforting in some ways. They seem to respect one another’s views and talk in very civil manners, unlike some commentators, much appreciated in this day of encouraged divisions.”
And Jack Watson from State College, Pa., adds:
“As a self described 'moderate' who has voted for both sides of the aisle I found the conversation refreshing. Thank you for putting these very rational and helpful discussions together for your viewers!”
BILL NYE: SCIENCE GUY
Finally, a few of you were offended or insulted by the most recent film on POV, "Bill Nye: Science Guy." The film follows Mr. Nye, who came to fame as host of a kids’ program on PBS that made science accessible to generations of children, on his “quest to stop the spread of anti-scientific thinking.”
Brenda Bullard from Houston, Texas, was one of those viewers:
“The producers of this show and Bill Nye himself were very condescending of believers in Creationism. Very obvious they believe we are stupid, brainwashed, as they said, and because we do not believe in the Theory of Evolution or man made global warming\climate change that we do not believe in science at all, which is absurd.”
Randall Lott of Midland, Ga., writes:
“I am very disappointed that your organization has decided to present Bill Nye as a scientist. Bill Nye is not a “science guy” at all. He is a little more than a pathetic comedian whose shtick is science.”
POV is, of course, a point of view and what we were seeing was Bill Nye’s world view which had some interesting and enlightening moments but actually ended up being a rather odd film.
Even though the film addressed a very interesting storyline of Nye trying to continue the work of Carl Sagan and the solar sail project, the biggest takeaway for me was the amount of time spent on Nye’s battle with creationist Ken Ham. Both Ham and Nye have a shtick, and their televised debates and meetings had all the authenticity of a WWE bout. Neither was ever going to change the other’s mind, and as a viewer I felt that their feud as depicted was about satisfying some sort of self-serving larger interest that didn’t enlighten either’s cause.
The launching of the solar sail project was to me the more interesting science story and I wish I had learned more about that. To critics of the show, while I don’t agree with your particular critiques I do think that the film disappointed.
Posted on April 26, 2018 at 1:40 p.m.
