User:BluefieldWV/Times

Mr. Gore in the balance March 2, 1994 Section: A Page: A16 Editorial

In the summer of 1992, the New Republic published an article reproving then-Sen. Albert Gore for inviting journalists to ignore scientific findings that undermined his warnings of impending environmental doom. Encouraging that kind of "self-censorship," wrote Gregg Easterbrook, is dangerous ground for liberals, who are supposed to be champions of skeptical debate. Besides, he said, "the desire to be exempt from confronting the arguments against one's position traditionally is seen wh en a movement fears it is about to be discredited." Apparently Mr. Gore's fears have worsened. Now vice president, he is taking time off from reinventing government to reinvent smear tactics, personally attempting to put scientists skeptical of the sort of apocalyptic outlook one finds in Mr. Gore's "Earth in the Balance" on a media blacklist. Unfortunately for Mr. Gore, "Nightline" anchor Ted Koppel wasn't much more receptive to that kind of debate than Mr. Easterbrook.

Last Thursday Mr. Koppel explained to viewers that he and Mr. Gore had first discussed climate change some years back during a chance airport meeting. He went on to say that "a few weeks ago" Mr. Gore called him to suggest that "Nightline" devote a show to the controversy. Only instead of focusing on the science, Mr. Gore urged that the program examine the connections between scientific skeptics and assorted politically incorrect business, religious and other groups. Mr. Koppel respond ed that "Nightline" would consider any material the vice president's staff sent along and, if newsworthy, the program would also explain were the material came from.

So "Nightline" examined the material and found that "in a manner of speaking" there were links between the scientists and the groups. For example, Fred Singer, oft-published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (not to mention the Commentary pages of this newspaper) "is on the executive advisory board of . . . `The World and I,' which is funded by the Unification Church International." Mr. Koppel didn't mention that Mr. Gore's own boss, then-candidate Bill Clinton, has written for the magazine ("We need government that values families," November 1992). He did point out, however, that Mr. Singer has other noteworthy credentials as a former Environmental Protection Agency official, University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences and Department of Transportation scientist.

Patrick Michaels, an associate professor of Environmental Sciences at U.Va. and another regular contributor to this newspaper, receives funding from a consortium of coal companies to publish his "World Climate Review." But every major environmental group in the country receives industry funding of one sort or another.

Does it taint the findings of climate change skeptics? Apparently not. Three years ago on "Nightline" Mr. Singer predicted, correctly as it turned out, that the oil fires in Kuwait would have only limited environmental effects. Mr. Gore's fellow apocalyptic, Carl Sagan, wrongly predicted disaster.

Computer models apparently led Mr. Sagan astray, and Mr. Koppel pointed out computer models are the basis for Mr. Gore's predictions on so-called global warming. With that in mind, Mr. Koppel allowed scientists to debate the relative merits of climate models and proposed government remedies. And there was plenty of debate. If the program showed anything, it's that there clearly is no scientific consensus on the matter.

Showing that debate was itself a rebuke to Mr. Gore, who wants to stifle one side of it. But Mr. Koppel wasn't satisfied to leave the matter there. He concluded, "There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century, that he is resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. . . . The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That's the hard way to do it, but it's the only way that works."

To date, Mr. Gore has taken the easy way out. He's tried guilt by association. He's tried blacklisting scientific critics - using tax-paid staff, by the way. He's tried journalistic self-censorship. Such tactics prove nothing about the Earth's environment. They only put his integrity in the balance.

The Washington Times Offering two cheers for Koppel March 18, 1994 Section: A Edition: 2 Page: A23

Opposition research is a staple of today's political campaigns. Politicians who know the records of their political adversaries can control the agenda by focusing the debate on opponents' weaknesses. Media chin-strokers often look down at opposition research as the efforts of tawdry hit squads who focus campaigns on personal foibles or one-day mini-scandals at the expense of "the issues" - that is, the issues the media want to discuss. So it came as a surprise on the Feb. 24 "Nightline" that Ted Koppel announced an entirely new way of newsgathering at ABC. Mr. Koppel explained that Vice President Al Gore had presented him with some hit-squad, guilt-by-association research on the so-called "anti-environmental movement" and that the program would reveal ABC's investigation of the charges.

They included: (a) Global warming skeptic Fred Singer received money from the Unification Church; (b) his colleague Patrick Michaels receives grants from the coal industry, a conflict of interest; (c) author Roger Maduro is actually "not a scientist" and has been funded by Lyndon LaRouche. His work inspired books by Dixy Lee Ray, who in turn inspired Rush Limbaugh, who in turn has influenced millions with dubious, nonscientific data. Before we examine Mr. Koppel's story, let us ask: Who in the world does Al Gore think he is using his power to influence programming? To those who would say that it is perfectly acceptable for a vice president to call the anchor of "Nightline" and lobby him to attack conservatives, and then send over to ABC reams of opposition research prepared by his office, let us reverse the proposition. If, during the Rio Summit, Vice President Dan Quayle had called Mr. Koppel to urge him to expose the radical environmentalist movement, would Mr. Koppel have acquiesced, or would he have resisted a perceived strong-armed tactic, a deliberate political ploy? And what would have been the reaction of the left to Mr. Quayle's tactics? One can only imagine the outcry.

Mr. Koppel would surely deny any intimidation factor led him to do the story, but if that's so, another question arises: When has he, or any other network star for that matter, investigated the financial backing of any prominent liberal scholar, activist or lobbying group? There's never been an investigation on the source of Ralph Nader's funding, a question conservatives have been asking for years. No investigation has ever revealed that the Federation of American Scientists and the Union of Concerned Scientists don't require members to be scientists - just contributors. That their experts, like SDI critic John Pike, aren't scientists has never been a news story.

But something rather remarkable happened on "Nightline" that night, something Mr. Gore certainly didn't expect: Mr. Koppel didn't follow the script. He began by citing the efforts of Mr. Gore and his staff, and then addressed each charge by letting the targets defend themselves. And acquit themselves they did. On the charge of conflict of interest, Fred Singer responded: "No one has ever accused me of being a mouthpiece of industry or a shill, but if that were to happen, I would simply po int to the fact that every environmental organization I know of gets money from Exxon, Shell, Arco, Dow Chemical and so on. If it doesn't taint their science, it doesn't taint my science."

The program grew even more fascinating. Mr. Koppel, in a radical departure from conventional media coverage, actually explored the environmental debate. Global warming skeptics were given more air time in a half hour than they've gotten in years of network newscasts. He even aired footage of an old "Nightline" about the atmospheric effect of the Kuwaiti oil fires in 1991. Mr. Singer predicted the smoke would dissipate quickly; Carl Sagan predicted massive environmental damage. Mr. Koppel announced: "The record shows that in this instance Dr. Sagan was wrong and Dr. Singer was right." Mr. Koppel concluded the show: "There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the Whit e House in this century, is resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. ... The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth. That's the hard way to do it, but it's the only way that works."

No, this wasn't what Al Gore wanted, but it could have been worse. Mr. Koppel might have devoted more time to the financial connections of liberal environmental groups (or perhaps Mr. Gore's annual $20,000 payment from Occidental Petroleum for zinc leases on his Tennessee property); perhaps he could have settled for a man-to-man debate between Fred Singer and Al Gore. Then again, that wouldn't have worked: The "most scientifically literate" Mr. Gore has refused to debate Mr. Singer live on television, which says even more about Mr. Gore's less-than-idealistic way of playing politics. L.Brent Bozell III is chairman of the Media Research Center.