EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Journalists Examine Teapot Tempests as Real Glaciers Melt
Curtis Brainard of CJR's Observatory blog (1/29/10) complains about the lack of coverage of what he calls "Glaciergate":
Almost two weeks ago, the Sunday Times, a British newspaper, "broke" the story that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had made significant errors in its 2007 report on the impacts of global warming....
The report stated that there was a very high likelihood that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035 if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Three days after the Times published its article, the IPCC essentially admitted that this was an error (while glaciers in the region are melting, they are unlikely to vanish that quickly) and apologized (pdf) for the "poorly substantiated" claim.
In the days after the story first broke, the New York Times and the Washington Post each ran one print article about the Himalayan glaciers error. The Christian Science Monitor, now published online, produced one piece, and the Associated Press and Bloomberg sent a couple of articles over the wire.
Unfortunately, that's about it. Meanwhile, outlets in the U.K., India and Australia have been eating the American media's lunch, churning out reams of commentary and analysis. Journalists in the U.S. should take immediate steps to redress that oversight.
But the New York Times never reported the IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 before publishing the debunking article. The Washington Post mentioned it in a story (11/22/09) that focused on the Indian environmental minister's rejection of the claim. The Christian Science Monitor had one piece (11/5/99) on melting Himalayan glaciers that quoted a source saying "the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high"--but this was not a quote from the IPCC report, which wouldn't appear for another eight years, but from the International Commission on Snow and Ice, which was part of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences.
None of these papers, then, thought that the IPCC's statement that the Himalayan glaciers would likely melt by 2035 was in itself worth mentioning, let alone basing a story around. So how much effort should the same papers spend reporting on the withdrawal of this claim? That depends on whether you think melting glaciers, or scientific misstatements about melting glaciers, are the bigger threat to humanity.
You see the same emphasis on science process trivia over the actual phenomena scientists are studying in a British Guardian story headlined "Leaked Climate Change Emails Scientist 'Hid' Data Flaws" (2/1/10), which is no doubt getting a lot of U.S. traffic today via a link from Drudge. In the fifth paragraph, the story reveals that contrary to the implication of the headline and subhead ("Key study by East Anglia professor Phil Jones was based on suspect figures"), the story actually has no bearing on the reality of climate change:
The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.
And how do they do that, exactly?
Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.
So essentially this story reveals that before a scientist was cleared of suspicions of scientific wrongdoing, he was suspected of scientific wrongdoing. Stop the presses!
That a respectable paper like the Guardian would trumpet this as an important scoop--and that a media watchdog like CJR would be calling for more in this vein--is a testimony to how deeply the "Climategate" hackers have distorted the discussion over the most important environmental issue of our lifetimes. See the brand-new issue of Extra!: "'Climategate' Overshadows Copenhagen: Media Regress to the Bad Old Days of False Balance" (2/10) by Julie Hollar.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show AllAnd what if, in actuality, another ice age is coming?
there's no 'if' about it. Is there some other point to your post?
That ice age is expected to occur; 20 thousand years from now.
When more polar ice melts. Enough fresh water from the ice will cause the circulation of ocean currents to cease. This will cut off the Gulf Stream. Unfortunately, it can happen quickly.
When I begin to agonize over the self-inflicted extinction of manunkind, and all the collateral damage it has inflicted along the way, I reflect that once the extinction is accomplished, the inane practice of affixing "-gate" to every possible occasion of scandal or controversy will also be extinct.
This soothes me.
· Yr Obd't Servant
They'll be talking about Earth's 'extinction-gate' scandal on Alpha Centauri for generations.
What soothes me is your clever posts, Obedient.
Please keep them coming. I don't laugh near as much as I should this century. Hopefully this will change after the Republicrats go the way of the dodo bird.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
So typical of those scientists to try to scare the public with their doom and gloom over GW.
BTW, and I know this is a little off topic, but have they come up with a new name for 'Glacier National Park' yet? 'Brown Hills National Park'? 'Naked National Park'? Just wondering.
Going-To-The-Sun would seem the obvious choice.
Indeed and how ironic.
I think they've narrowed it down to "Frost-Free National Park®", "National Park Free®", or a name that is unpronounceable and must be represented by a unique symbol.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Ten comments. We care of course, just stop bringing it up.
>>>Meanwhile, outlets in the U.K., India and Australia have been eating the American media's lunch, churning out reams of commentary and analysis.
So, my hunch was right then - that it smelled like a co-ordinated attempt to make it into a controversy, to push the IPCC on the defensive. Meanwhile, the real scandal of sabotaging the most important outcome of Copenhagen - that of adopting a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol (expires in 2012) - went largely unnoticed. That this was a scandal can be seen from the absence of much mention about Kyoto from all the stories that came out just before, during and after Copenhagen.
>>>That a respectable paper like the Guardian would trumpet this as an important scoop--and that a media watchdog like CJR would be calling for more in this vein--is a testimony to how deeply the "Climategate" hackers have distorted the discussion over the most important environmental issue of our lifetimes.
I guess that's what happens when you try to do business in the middle of tabloids and the dirt that passes for journalism.
I keep thinking: the people who scream "fraud" by the scientists over this Himalayan glaciers story - did they even know where the Himalayas are and what rivers depend on these glaciers and how many people depend on these rivers? Does it really matter to them beyond this story?
Sioux Rose
ALCYON: As for why The Guardian didn't show honest coverage (or balance, as Fox likes to say)... is that most media is in the hands of those who bow down before the god of profit; and as such, anything that will rock the fiscal boat (granted, if they had vision they could see the money to be made from employing people to green their own societies) is undermined. Hence, as George Lakoff skillfully relates, use the framing of language to put the "good guys" on the defensive. Given that Wall St and the banks for all their clever devices (and theft in the light of day with the leaders' blessings) are still rocking and rolling, those with an interest in retaining the profits they're accustomed to resist any change whatsoever. Many people with lots of $ or those born to old money tend to be conservative. That is, they will conserve what they claim as their own, while spending prodigious sums of the public's money.
One of my neighbors is a rabid right wing conservative but you should see him argue for his son's unemployment money being extended. And he has his hand out for every benefit from "the government," the same big government he rails against in his political statements. The hypocrisy is mind boggling to me.
Sioux Rose, what you say about media seems to be true in general. But still, some of us try to find a flicker of hope somewhere - somebody or some newspaper that has not sold out as much, and that still stands out in covering the issues with some responsibility. There are radical blogs and such - but I'm talking about the mainstream media. I do check out such papers regularly - and Guardian seemed somewhat balanced, when compared to 'The Telegraph', 'The Independent', for example, among the papers coming out of Britain. But I just have to remind myself - how many times over the years I had looked up to some particular newspaper or a particular news anchor, thinking they were somehow more reliable than the others, just because some of their views happened to match my own. This was when my world view was being formed - I guess there was still a bit of naiveté - because there was a tendency to trust anyone who attacked the establishment. But years later, when you look at the same news sources or the same characters, it's clear that appearing "anti-establishment" at a particular point in time alone is not enough to trust someone. We learn that we can never fully agree or totally oppose someone. There may be points of convergence on some issues. It becomes easier to discern when our own world view becomes more universal and simpler. For example, sustainability is a simple concept, but most people would rather dance around that simple idea.
My dilemma is that we cannot really ignore these newspapers - because, over the years, they have built up a large reader base, and are in a position to shape opinion. Also, not having any sources that are even remotely reliable is a scary thought. Among British journalists and authors, I learned quite a bit, by reading Mark Curtis and John Pilger (originally Australian?). There is something authentic about people like these guys, and people like Howard Zinn, Chomsky,...when they are not afraid to criticize their own countries for their various sins at home and abroad, and yet, motivated by nothing more than a desire for a better society.
Anyway, a rambling reply...more like thinking aloud...
P.S. I also check out the readers comments on various sites - just to see what people think What I see worries me. It's almost shocking sometimes, because it seems like the denial industry has been much more effective than many of us realize.
When some of us are ready to heed the warnings of the scientists, it's because there are so many of them from so many different countries, and they are all saying essentially the same thing. They may differ on particular estimates of something. We have some scientific training and some idea about the motives of the fossil fuel industry. And, thanks to people like Geroge Monbiot, we know how the denial industry works. So it's not so difficult to decide who I would *rather* place my trust on.
When I see people leaving comments on various newspaper sites, I can clearly see the talking points emanating from the denial industry. These talking points have obviously been internalized by the readers. So, on a column on biofuels, for example, some guy agrees with Monbiot that they are a bad idea, but goes on to advise Monbiot to use the same type of logic and common sense to denounce warnings on climate change. So, clearly they are making a choice here: they agree that biofuels are a bad idea, but insist that man-made climate change is not happening. How did they come to that conclusion?
I know someone could ask *me* the same question. Well, my answer would be that, if I'm going to trust some people, it would be those from the scientific community, and not those who want to maintain the status quo - including the fossil fuel-based capitalist system. I can see it's unsustainable, even without climate change happening. But the people who oppose limits on carbon emissions are essentially arguing in favor of the status quo. They may say they support green technologies, but essentially they are not ready to make changes. I have seen such a defensive reaction whenever the topic of vegetarian diet comes up. Those who say climate change is junk science essentially want some "science" that would confirm their world view, and there is not much sign that they have any intention of changing their views.
It's like the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process". It's always going to be a "process" unless both parties clearly want peace. When one of them clearly has a different agenda, you'll only have a "process" but no peace. I don't know if it's all related, deep down - a reluctance to make fundamental changes. That would suit the corporations just fine.
bligh4
I've no problem with the facts of global warming. I don't have a problem with the facts of mankind's contribution to global warming.
What I have a problem with is having global warming become a new "religion" where all contrary evidence is histrionically attacked as if the the doubters were somehow apostates to this religion.
There was a reason why there were hundreds of "ice ages" in the past. There was a reason why the age of the dinosaurs was much warmer than today.
The science of climate is incredibly complicated, and we shouldn't pretend that anything is "Gospel" .
Money has corrupted both the believers (billions of dollars in research grants) and the non-believers (billions in additional costs to producers).
How about some real science that we can count on, and an open mind.
So you seriously believe that the scientists are in this for the money alone - and that too, billions of dollars in research grants? And their monetary considerations just about equal those of Exxon, et al.?
What's your idea of "real science"? I suppose the current bunch of scientists will have to go, then? Including people like James Hansen? I hope you can recognize real science when you see it.
bligh4
I didn't say that scientists are in it only for the money. Baring that,
anyone that would deny that Billions of dollars in grants, or millions for that matter, would not color research is being willfully blind.
Both of my brothers are research scientists, and they see it every day.
I haven't seen Climate Denier bligh around for some time. How are you Captain?
Your "fair and balanced" faux news argument is invalid since science research grants are not even one percent of the profits of carbon spewing industries. Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Auto, Global Transnationals are each netting trillions in sharp contrast to the paltry amount spent researching Global Warming.
No doubt, your brothers are in the employ of one of those industries?
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Well, it sounds like you've made an honest appeal to open inquiry. Keep in mind that AGW was first proposed by Svant Arrhenius in 1908 (he of the 'Arrhenius Law' in chemistry: that chemical reactions will double in speed for every 10 C rise in temperature). So, the 'radical new idea' behind AGW is actually 100 years old...
That the primary forcing agent behind GW is the 'greenhouse effect', first proposed in 1820, and largely accepted by the scientific community by 1880.
That every reasonable prediction of manmade GW: 1)that CO2 would increase in the 20th century by about 30%, 2) that GW-induced temperature changes would be about 1 C in the 20th century, and that 3) doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the global temperature by about 3.5 C,
turned out to be true, even though those predictions were made in 1952.
There comes a time where acceptance of AGW doesn't constitute a 'religion', but acceptance of a scientific fact. I have no problem believing that that fact could be wrong, but as a practical matter, I just advised my local community to start saving money for a levee system, to surround their entire community against sea-level rise: otherwise they risk losing their collected real-estate value.
They don't have to believe in AGW: they can believe that God hates them, for all I care. They DO need to build a levee system, or they will feel 'Gods wrath' sooner rather than later.
And if you feel a need to attack my advocacy as 'religion', go ahead and do so, if it makes you feel better. I'll stand with Arrhenius...
ubrew12,good point about Arrhenius - I thought I had read that his first paper on the greenhouse effect was sometime in the 1890's - doesn't matter - it's still over a 100 years ago that someone published not only the possibility of the Earth's temperature rising due to CO2 specifically, he had also made some preliminary calculations, I believe. Also, at that time, Arrhenius supposedly believed that a little bit of warming could be a good thing - being a European and all. He obviously did not expect the orders of magnitude increase in fossil fuel burning in the 20th century. Yes, as you mention, the work of Arrhenius was partly influenced by an earlier work by Fourier - in the 1820's on the greenhouse effect, though it was not called by that name. If people really cared for science, I don't think the denial industry's lies would have had so much traction. And they would know in an instant that the climate change issue did not begin with Al Gore. People generally tend to accept or reject something based on their own little preferences, bias, and yes, addictions, too.
Sioux Rose
UBREW: Great post!
bligh4
advocacy is not a "religion". Blind acceptance of a "truth" that has not been proved, attacks on those seeking further proof, and dismissing evidence that does not support a hypothesis smacks of one.
You are correct. Whether the sea rises because of the sun, the orbit of the earth, or by the actions of man-the sea still rises.
Build your levee, and good luck to you.
Thanks. The problem is that many in the community think that I'm corrupted by a religion, and am therefore worthy of scorn. My 'religious' position seems to solidify their opinion that no levee should be built, and hence it is unlikely that any shall be. Low-lying, this area has a swamp above town that flooded the town center a few years back. Presented with distinct evidence of their risk, the town leaders built a levee against the swamp. But, I find it likely they won't extend that levee system against the ocean proper, until, once again, the evidence is laid out clearly before them. Either way, we shall see.
We are creatures both tragic and comical. Thanks for your response.
You're an idiot.
If you want to understand the science then read the science, stop trolling internet message boards. The fact that you think "global warming science" is not "real" is a testament to your ignorance and your laziness. It's people like you that perpetuate this problem and that will forestall action even further.
Shame on you and all the ignorant loudmouths like you.
"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow"
bligh4
Pandonodrim,
Thank You. I could not have proved my point any better than with your post.
Some minds really are closed-and they will bitterly attack anyone that suggests they keep it open.
Thanks again
Hey Bligh, I think your religion comment is naive and intentionally misleading. Science is not a religion, not at all. Religion is based on faith that something that is not observable - God - exists. Science is only a methodology for explaining our world. Science is about observation and testing hypotheses, nothing more. It is a rational and methodological framework for delving into the mysteries of the world, nothing more.
It appears that your real motivation for trying to denegrate science by calling it a religion is to sway the opinions of others. Well that might work with a few easily swayed people for a little while. But, science is still the best tool we have for understanding how things work on our planet.
It looks more like the climate change deniers are making a religion of their views. They deny climate change in the face of repeated and mounting evidence to the contrary because they see science as a threat to their religion.
This is similar to the odd, so called debate about "Creationism". Some people feel that the idea of evolution is an attack on their faith. This is in the face of mountains of evidence from such genetics and the fossil record, botany, chemistry, etc. Too me it looks as i their faith isn't very strong, not when it is so inflexible and so threatened by all of the evidence as to how the world actually works.
bligh4
Mountainbear,
I never said that science was a religion. Science is supposed to be a search for the truth. What I said, or meant to say, was that some people have seized on this particular issue as "closed"-with any new additions, scientific or otherwise, that do not agree with the current closed position being dismissed or attacked.
Science is a methodology, and an evolving one. I'm old enough to remember in the 70's climate scientists had damned well "proven" that we were heading into a man made ice age. 150 years ago the scientific consensus was that typhus was caused by "night vapors". People should be open to the evolution of science.
I happen to agree with the idea that the earth is warming, and that man is doing his part to facilitate it.
I also think that people like the knucklehead above, or scientists that suppress any evidence that threatens their funding, are doing a grave disservice to their cause. What is so threatening about honestly answering critics with your evidence? Why the bitter personal attacks? Why the secrecy?
Is open debate dead?
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't it religion that had the Sun revolving around the Earth and that if you sailed in one direction for too long you would fall off the edge of this flat world?
Then there were those three heretics, Copernicus, Galileo and Da Vinci. I think I'll take my chances with science. We need more science in the classroom not prayers!