"24 Hours of Abysmal Let-Down"

[this is an article I wrote for class, which was going to go un-published until I realized that I have you, dear blog, to use as an outlet for my rantings. my coffee beans and i stayed awake for as much of the webcast as possible (24 hours, people) in writing this review]

“24 Hours of Reality” - the world was watching with high hopes.

The webcast was a project by Al Gore under the auspices of his organization, the Climate Reality Project. “24 Hours of Reality” was a live broadcast from 24 global locations, one in each of the 24 global time zones. The production logged approximately 8.6 million views.

Unlike An Inconvenient Truth, which was wildly popular and ultimately helped earn Gore a joint Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, “24 Hours of Reality” failed to capitalize on the local expertise of its 24 unique presenters in every corner of the world. In fact, the same presentation was given in each location with the very same set of slides, photos, and footage -- give or take a few.

“It was a let-down of abysmal proportions,” I concluded to myself in writing this article.

The webcast felt like a D.A.R.E. campaign, targeted at keeping viewers off CO2 and off the GOP. Viewers were inundated with combat tactics for arguing evil-doer climate change skeptics, who often resort to using “ridicule in the face of facts,” said many a presenter in many a language -- because, as I mentioned earlier, all the presentations were all the same.

So, what are these combat methods for confronting skeptics, you ask?

“Act now. Speak up. Win the Conversation. Choose Reality.” Yes Watson, Gore and the Climate Reality Project might be onto something big here - elementary, you might say.

The GOP-bashing [though sporty to watch] made it clear that this webcast was timed with upcoming elections in mind. We saw the Republican Party’s finest, John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and others, speak out against the “climate change theory.”

Boehner earned himself the limelight for a handful of daft comments in pre-recorded footage. “Look at a volcanic eruption; I’ve seen science reveal that this could be 50 or 1000 times man’s involvement in terms of creating CO2,” he said.

“I like the 50 to 1000 year range, I’d like to get away with that,” followed Evan Williams, the environmental economist who hosted the UK’s presentation from London. Naturally, Gore’s slides showed that the CO2 admitted from a volcanic eruption was a mere pittance to what humans emit.

In a moment of chivalry during Gore’s wrap-up presentation in New York City, he acknowledged his sentiment that Boehner does not intend to deceive people. Rather, Boehner is fueled with foul science from “carbon polluters” -- a mafia-like bunch we heard oodles about. Not coincidentally, “the carbon polluters are the biggest source of campaign money”, said Gore.

That said, “24 Hours of Reality” was not completely bereft of brilliant science and compelling evidence in the case for climate change.

“Being a climatologist, people always ask if I believe in global warming,” said Stanford University assistant professor Noah Diffenbaugh at one of the panel discussions. “If you believe in thermometers, you have to believe in global warming. It’s a matter of observation.”

A hefty amount of the presentation’s data corroborated what most of us already know. Positively common-sensical. Earth’s weather cycle is getting stronger and contributing to the severe natural disasters that are increasingly being called “the new normal.” The weather is so wonky because humans have been emitting an excess of CO2 gas that is trapping heat in our atmosphere, heat that is moving water around in ways never seen before. Check. Check. Check.

It is unclear who the target audience of the webcast was. For those who have been with Gore since he first became a “climate guy,” most of the webcast’s information lacked a novel “wow” factor. It was also painfully repetitive, and -- yes -- an abysmal let-down.

For viewers [somehow] relatively new to climate change, the webcast was a beacon of LED-kosher light. “I logged on hoping for extra credit in Science. I’m leaving with information I wish I knew sooner,” commented Rayleen Paret, presumably in a high school somewhere where the climate change unit hasn’t penetrated the classroom.

Despite political undertones, excessive repitition of the same facts, and bizarre tactics for converting skeptical bullies, if Gore’s effort made a difference in educating even a handful of people, it was entirely worth it.

Forbes did a good job summing up my sentiments on the webcast by writing,

"In “24 Hours of Climate Reality,” first airing Wednesday at 8:00 pm Eastern Time, Gore presented an hour-long sequel to his disastrous “An Inconvenient Truth,” followed by 23 hours of semi-reruns of essentially the same presentation. By hour three, it felt like being stuck in the Twilight Zone forced to watch 24 straight hours of the same Family Matters/Urkel rerun on the WB – only worse. At least Urkel is annoying and mildly amusing on purpose; Al is these things by accident."

For the record, I loathe Forbes for it's right-wing bias in it's media. It's a huge problem that Americans choose publications that affirm their personal beliefs (e.g. I love reading Grist, and my [few] GOP friends put stock in Fox News). Is there any longer a market of news consumers who want the truth? Sometimes I wonder.