Two weeks ago, WCAX-TV producer Alexei Rubenstein invited Vermont climatologist Alan Betts to appear on the station’s daily interview program, “The :30.” In an email, Rubenstein asked the National Science Foundation-funded researcher “to talk about [his] climate change work and Vermont and New England implications.”
Betts agreed.
But on Wednesday, just hours before Betts was slated to appear, Rubenstein canceled. In an email, the producer explained that station “higher ups” had spiked the interview due to a lack of “opposing views.” In a separate phone call, Betts says, Rubenstein “said it’s because management is afraid of the hostile reactions they get.”
Here’s Rubenstein’s email:
Alan,
We have to cancel today. I’ve been informed by higher ups that we need to have “opposing views” as part of the segment. I do not agree with this, but that’s the way it is. I apologize for all the trouble. If you are interested in appearing in the future with someone who has an “alternative viewpoint” maybe that would work. Please call me if you have any questions.
Alexei
Betts was shocked. For 30 years, the Pittsford scientist has studied climate trends in Vermont and throughout the world. He’s delivered more than 100 talks around the state and penned commentaries for the Rutland Herald, Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and Vermont Public Radio.
Never once, he says, has a news outlet demanded an “alternative viewpoint” to a phenomenon almost universally agreed upon by mainstream scientists.
“The impression I get is that WCAX is afraid of [criticism] and, therefore, it’s impacting the freedom of the press,” Betts says. “And it’s impacting the public’s ability to understand and deal with the problem. If we can’t discuss on the media what’s happening in Vermont, that’s a large segment of the public that isn’t going to be informed.”
WCAX news director Anson Tebbetts sees it differently. He says the station simply found itself understaffed and unprepared to deliver a broader presentation on the subject of climate change.
“We were overwhelmed with material yesterday and wanted to do something more thoughtful and have a bigger discussion with those involved,” he says. “I guess [Betts] may have interpreted that we don’t want to have him on — and that’s not the case. We’d love to have him on if he’d still like to come on.”
Tebbetts says the station wasn’t necessarily looking to match Betts with a climate change denier. Rather, he’d like his audience to hear from representatives of the sugar and ski industries, and others affected by climate change.
“Part of our job is to educate,” he says. “It’s to be fair. And it’s to have as many viewpoints as we possibly can. Whether it’s always clean-cut, 50-50, this person gets two minutes, that person gets two minutes — that’s just not possible. We can’t do that.”
So WCAX wasn’t simply trying to squelch a discussion about climate change?
“Not at all,” Tebbetts says. “The idea that we somehow want to squelch any of this is not accurate at all. We want to have more discussions on the topic. In the end, it came down to: We overextended what we thought we could do on that particular day. That’s what happened. And we probably could have done a better job communicating with Mr. Betts.”
Disclosure: WCAX and Seven Days are media partners. Paul Heintz and other Seven Days reporters regularly appear on “The :30.” And Heintz is an occasional, paid political analyst for WCAX.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Why all the theory and generalization, Mr Science? Where are the data showing that 8% less fossil fuel is being burned in the Midwest because of wind?
Deric’s latest critique gets us right back to square one. Like Annette Smith, Deric doesn’t understand how scientific reasoning works.
“Komanoff extrapolates from a few selectively interpreted theoretical statements. He does not use data of actual fossil fuel use.” First, he actually DOES use data from the mid-Atlantic grid operator. Second, he creates a general model to EXPLAIN in some detail HOW and WHY the backup power necessitated by intermittency consumes FAR less fuel than actually producing power from fossil sources. That’s exactly what a scientific model SHOULD do.
Without the generalization, each instance stands or falls on its own. Newton’s contribution to physics was not noticing that things fall when dropped: people had observed that for millennia. It was putting the phenomenon in the context of a rigorous model which allowed a critical set of generalizations, which could then be used to produce new hypotheses, and new knowledge. Komanoff’s model allows us to estimate how much fossil fuel is displaced by ANY wind installation on the grid, which is a powerful generalization.
Deric still prefers to simply ignore all the other data sources I cited (not to mention the dozens I did NOT bother citing), and he still hasn’t presented a scintilla of evidence to support his arguments.
As to Deric’s parting shot, it’s as baseless as everything else he writes: “it doesn’t take much to weigh against wind’s negligible – even in theory – benefit.” Wind’s benefit is directly proportional to the amount of wind turbines installed and their relative contribution to the demand for electricity. In New England where wind supplies around 1% of the electricity consumed, wind’s benefit is, following the Komanoff equations, about .88-.96%. In other words, since wind produces a negligible proportion of New England energy (so far), its contribution is similarly negligible.
In the Midwest, where it supplies over 10% and growing, the benefit is also over 8% and growing. In other words, the benefit is directly proportional to the amount of fossil fuels displaced and that, in turn, depends on the number and size of the projects built. How totally unsurprising.
@JohnGreenberg: Komanoff extrapolates from a few selectively interpreted theoretical statements. He does not use data of actual fossil fuel use.
As to wind’s carbon emissions, they also continue, with maintenance, oil and coolant changes, parts replacement, groundskeeping, etc. No, it’s nowhere near as bad as nuclear, but it doesn’t take much to weigh against wind’s negligible – even in theory – benefit.