It’s great to see a journalist write a succinct, accurate column debunking climate change myths and explaining the climate change facts. Chris Mooney recently did just that.
His extremely clear voice for science was published March 21 in an op-ed column in the Washington Post, entitled “Climate Change Myths and Facts.” In it, he dismantles the arguments of political columnist George Will, who in a February 15 column in the same paper offered several misleading ideas — some of them 30 years old — as to why he thinks climate change is a hypothetical crisis.
Mooney deftly picks apart Will’s claims: Was the scientific community convinced in the 1970s that global cooling was about to occur? No — an American Meteorological Society study shows that greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature back then, too.
Mooney then explains why Will’s focus on global sea ice levels in 1979 compared to today is misleading and unimportant (even though Will did get his facts wrong). Why? “Will’s focus on “global” sea ice at two arbitrarily selected points of time is a distraction. Scientists pay heed to long-term trends in sea ice, not snapshots in a noisy system,” wrote Mooney.
He also shows how Will tried to twist the facts and portray the World Meteorological Association as a climate-skeptic group that supports the idea of recent global “cooling.” Actually, the opposite is true – -the WMO acknowledges that climate change is happening and supports the consensus that humans are driving it. Just because 1998 was the warmest year on record and hasn’t been beaten since doesn’t mean we’re in a cooling period. Look at the trend: Seven of the warmest 10 years on record have come in the 2000s.
Mooney truly is a clear voice for science. His final paragraph argues that journalists and readers should become more scientific when they weigh information about such issues. “Readers and commentators must learn to share some practices with scientists — following up on sources, taking scientific knowledge seriously rather than cherry-picking misleading bits of information, and applying critical thinking to the weighing of evidence. That, in the end, is all that good science really is. It’s also what good journalism and commentary alike must strive to be — now more than ever. ”
Here, here!
(By the way, Chris Mooney is a visiting associate at the Center for Collaborative History at Princeton University, and the author of three books, including ‘Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics and the Battle Over Global Warming,’ which I reviewed here in fall 2007. Mooney also co-authors The Intersection blog.)
This was not written by a journalist, but by Aviation Week & Space Technology several years ago. A satellite to monotor global warming said the temperature was Normal”. They(global warming activitist), said the method used was wrong and the way temperature was taken was not selective enough. My words, some idiot politican must have been listening because a new satellite was ordered with a new methods and techniques to take temperature of the world. This new method must have cost $Millions. When the satellite was launched, calibrated, & on line, it read the temperature was normal! It is funny yet ironic that the news media never carries stories like this one.
Just what is Collaborative History? Is that like consensus on global warming? Is Hansen a member? He rewites historical data on occasions to make it fit the theory.
How ludicrous to say that ice levels in 1979 are unimportant. The whole shebang is based on short term data from satellites which only started measuring then. It is well documented that the Arctic has been warmer than the present and the NW passage was negotiated by Amundsen in 1906. There has been more ice, there has been less ice. Recently the satellite sensors gave up the ghost so they are guessing at averages to fill in the gaps. That’s Real Science for you.
Dan,
You mentioned three books but named only two. The third book written by Mooney was “The Republican War on Science,” a rather political and conspiracy filled indictment on Republicans being wholly against science. I find it difficult to accept anything a journalist writes as being entirely objective when they drape their message with political banners as Mooney has done.
What causes me to cringe is when science looses objectivity and takes on a pack mentality with politics the lead dog. It demonstrates that science is loosing its entrepreneurial roots and many scientists must now stand and clap for the political party that offers to feed them. Some will find Mooney’s indictments to their taste but many more conservative proponents of science will be disenfranchised by it. I feel the success of his first two books has tempted him to cross the line of objective reporting to favor political banner waving.
Hank,
It has come full circle. Special Interest groups since 1985 have been circling both parties in Washington. Mostly corporate sponcered groups. I agree with you over-all assesment but it is really a chicken and egg problem.
I am constantly amused at the global warming theory, sorry, global climate change theory. Obviously global warming is occurring, we recently emerged from an Ice Age, so thank goodness for global warming. The balance of nature is pretty hard to tip. CO2, just .03% of our atmosphere (relatively small part), plants would prefer 14% for optimum growth. The whole argument is designed to redistribute wealth from rich countries to poor countries. That our hollywooe elite endorse the argument tells me it must be absurd. Last, even scientists are human, and enjoy every opportunity to validate their paycheck and existence. PS, in the early 80′s Al Gore wrote the forword to a book about the “impending” population explosion, and stated it was the worst problem facing mankind. Which is it Al? (reply to JTLavery@aol.com)
Hank — The only book I mentioned was ‘Storm World,’ which is an excellent piece of reporting about hurricane science and some of the debates among hurricane and climate scientists this decade. I highly recommend it.
I haven’t read his ‘Republican War on Science’ book, but let’s put that aside for a moment. In the case I’m writing about, Mooney critiques George Will’s column. Read both and tell me which one of them is more objective about the science. Will only mentions facts that support his belief, his opinion that global warming is not a crisis. Mooney cites a recent study to address the alleged 1970s “cooling” movement, discusses how climate science has evolved over the last 30 years, explains a bit about how scientists look at ice around the world, and shares the truth about the World Meteorological Organization.
In contrast, Will willfully misleads. He twists WMO data to fit his own interpretation and he speaks in generalities — he won’t tell you what the average temps since 1998 have been or that seven of the 10 warmest years on record have come in the 2000s.
When it comes to the “global sea ice,” Will talks about how since September we’ve seen “the fastest change” since 1979 — but he fails to quantify it. What does he mean by fast? That more ice has returned in a shorter period of time? Where? How much? How fast? Will doesn’t share specific facts or data.
Here’s what he doesn’t mention: In 2007, Arctic sea ice shrank to its smallest extent since 1979, when record-keeping began. In 2008, it melted to its second-lowest level. As of March 3, the Arctic sea ice was approaching its maximum extent, but was below the average for the 1979-2000 time period. See http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
When it comes to Mooney and Will, there’s no comparison. Mooney has done science reporting and will look at the whole picture and acknowledge the facts. Will leaves out important info that he doesn’t want to discuss. Will is a political columnist who does not study science — you have to take his science opinions with several grains of salt.
Dan,
I stand corrected. You indeed named only one of his books – “Storm World.” While writing my comment I failed to remember “Climate Change Myths and Facts” was a reference to his published article and not one of his books.
I have read Mooney’s critique on Wills. I agree Wills’ approach to scientific journalism is, well, amateurishly unscientific. Quite a few other science journalists besides Mooney took him to task on his “Dark Green Doomsayers” article. I believe we can both agree Wills should stick to political journalism. He got the critique he deserved for such a poorly researched article.
My exception is not with Mooney’s critique of Wills but rather with Mooney being held out as a true voice for science on the heels of his latest book. In the book, he seems to have mislaid objectivity by embarking on a scathing rant that pits anyone who claims conservative values or affiliated with the Republican Party to be rank enemies of science. The book reeked of a loose science themed reverse equivalent of Ann Coulter’s journalism which categorically demonizes all Democrats and liberals. It is unfortunate that he should make the same error committed by Wills by cherry picking a few high profile Republicans then using them to typecast all conservatives and those claiming affiliation with the Republican Party. Contrary to Mooney’s claims, there are many conservatives who not only support the sciences but who are scientists.
Deborah Byrd did a thought provoking piece on E&S a few months back titled “Does science need ambassadors?” wherein she does an excellent job touching on this very issue. Science does need ambassadors but when the voices being placed before the public start making politically or socially charged indictments, science looses its respect and public audience. Mooney may have been an excellent science journalist and well informed on the AGW side of the debate. But a good ambassador must present the value proposition of the science to the public or engage in spirited debate while leaving political and social indictments to politicians and social commentators. In my opinion, this is where Mooney has erred and disqualified himself as being a good ambassador.
Dan,
The vast majority of people who “doubt” global warming, including George Will, don’t really believe that global warming isn’t happening. Their claims are made because they believe it is in their best interest to make those claims, not because they beleive them to be true.
There is a belief among conservatives that combating global warming will cost wealthy people money and negatively affect conservative politcal goals. Accordingly, they oppose it regardless of its truth. No evidence will ever make them change their minds, unless it is evidence that they will make more money by saying something else.
Dan,
It is sad to see a post extolling how “accurate” Chris Mooney’s article is, when the post itself is not accurate at all. Mooney said that Will “suggested that widespread scientific agreement existed at the time that the world faced potentially catastrophic cooling.” In your post “suggested” has been changed to “claimed.” In fact, however, what Will said was that those who made the claim (which he copiously quoted) were wrong. Surely that is a conclusion both you and Mooney would agree with.
As to Will’s second point about sea ice levels, Mooney has point.
Nonetheless to make Will seem to claim things he did not so that he can be derided as someone who needs to be debunked is simply inaccurate and bad journalism. Please be more careful in the future.
Frank — actually, Mooney and I both refer to Will’s “claims.” I realize that Will noted how climate scientists were wrong about global cooling in the 1970s — but he presents it as the only thing scientists were speaking about back then, making it seem like they’ve flipped positions and now find evidence for warming. Mooney points out that this is not true — that greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature back then, too.
I haven’t put words in George Will’s mouth; he devoted a lot of space in his column to describing how some science articles mentioned cooling. If we look at his words literally, maybe I should have labeled it as an “indirect claim” that the scientific community was convinced that global cooling was about to occur. That’s certainly what he implies.
In any case, he cites only 9 articles from a five-year period — less than two per year, really not that many. Mooney puts his citations in context, giving us all a fuller picture of climate science in the 1970s. That’s the important part.
There has been global warming since the glaciers started melting and it is attributable to ocean currents and the sun.
When land masses erode and shift and ocean currents change a few degrees latitude it impacts the climate as it always has. Only a change in the flow of cold water from the Mississippi to the St Lawrence supposedly caused the little ice age.
So the whole man causing global warming argument is about money and power. It is about progressives taking even more money from the populace to support more bureaucratic programs to enrich themselves and their friends.
I am all for a cleaner planet and believe there should be stricter environmental controls but this global warming hysteria in nonsense.
First, a quick question – where did you get the information for your quote “seven of the 10 warmest years on record have come in the 2000s”? I have not found that information in any of the scientific literature.
One of the main faults of those who promote the idea of global warming (or global climate change, as it now has become known) is the disregard for the fundamental approach to studying phenomena – the scientific method. This may be unintentional by some, but I believe is more due to political bias by most. The theory of man-made global climate change has gone beyond hypothesis for it’s believers – it now a fundamental law of earth science. Unfortunately, the data has been collected over too short a period of geologic time and is too ambiguous to support this.
The earth has warmed and cooled over eons. Ice ages and periods of global warming have occurred many times, and sometimes these changes have been rapid (on a geologic time scale). To reconfigure our economic system, and indeed the the actual structure of our government (as some have proposed) based on at best incomplete data seems to me to be very dangerous.
One other question – what should be the ideal temperature of the earth? Is it what we are experiencing now, or the temperature 12,000 years ago, when approximately a mile of ice covered the land where I now live?
Climate change has been occurring throughout our planet’s existence. For example, at some point in the past 4-5 billion years, much of the earth has been: (a) underwater, (b) under ice, (c) dry as a bone, and (d) lush with vegetation and animal life.
And yet, we have built our civilizations based on how the earth’s climate has been for the past 10,000 years. Our cities, towns, economies, and methods of food production are clear evidence that we don’t expect things like climate and sea levels to change.
Our dependence on a stable climate is even more disturbing when we realize that we have had numerous tastes of climate change and its disastrous effects. The “mini ice age” from 1300 to 1850 wreaked havoc in Europe. The various droughts during the 1900s gave us the “Dust Bowl” in the central U.S. and the famines in Africa. Volcanic eruptions have had devastating and lasting effects on the earth’s climate and our lives.
Even if we don’t consider the distinct possibility that we are affecting the world’s climate, it is clear that we must develop a level of flexibility and adaptability on a scale not seen before.
If we choose not to develop such flexibility, we will continue to be as dependent on an unchanging climate as were the dinosaurs. It didn’t work well for them, and I don’t think it will work any better for us.
Paul — I got the quote from Chris Mooney’s piece. One scientific source for this info is the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). One of their divisions, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), produces annual climate reports covering both the entire globe and the United States.
The global section of the “Climate of 2008 Annual Report” notes that actually 8 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 — and all of the top 10 have occurred since 1997. See this Web page for the global analysis: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html
Scientists have been studying climate change carefully and thoroughly for the last 20 years, employing the scientific method all the way. Over time, they have shown that it is not possible for climate models to reproduce the slight rise in temperatures since the 1800s, without including the effect of greenhouse gases — most of which have been generated by human activities. They have collected data that goes back 600,000 years and I believe recently back to 1 million years ago (ice cores and such).
The 2007 IPCC report contains a lot of the science — see http://www.ipcc.ch/
Since then there have been many more studies confirming the climate change hypothesis. If you have specific examples to support your views, please share them here, along with the links.
Mr.Kulpinski,
Is there any consensus among scientists studying climate change and global warming regarding the need to limit global population growth?
An interesting observation for the objectivists in the room: The National Weather Service reports that February 2009 was a record low for snowfall in Denver! Pretty shocking, with only a trace of snow recorded. However, it turns out that the snowfall was measured at Denver International Airport for the very first time. It heretofore was measured at Stapleton Airport, where they just happened to have an inch of snow, not a record at all. Why didn’t the NWS report a record HIGH snowfall for February 2009 as well? Guess.
David B — I don’t know of any consensus among climate scientists about limiting population growth, but projections for future energy use and carbon emissions all at least implicitly acknowledge that the global population will continue to grow at a fast pace.
Thomas Friedman discusses population growth a bit in his recent book, ‘Hot, Flat, and Crowded.’ I wrote about it here: http://blogs.earthsky.org/dankulpinski/2009/02/01/energy-internet-needed-in-a-world-that-is-hot-flat-and-crowded/
-Dan
Dan,
Thanks for the info. I will check out Friedman’s book.
Dave Bross
Dan – Thanks for the reference link (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html). It actually was helpful in supporting some of the points I was actually trying to get across.
Please review the graph at the top of the page on this website.. You will note that there was an increase in global mean temperature between approximately 1910 and 1940 ( /- 0.45 degree C) that corresponds very well to the increase shown for the period of warming observed between 1975 and the present ( /- 0.5 degree C). This leads to several questions.
Among them: What caused this increase? Do you believe this warming is due to anthropogenic sources. If you do believe that man’s activities caused this warming period, why would there be a period of cooling over the following 30 or so years?
Data is a wonderful thing. You can manipulate it many ways to advance a theory. Look at that graph again. Why was the period around 1970 arbitrarily chosen as the zero point to show these temperature anomalies? Why not 1880? If that year was chosen the graph would look much different, showing that temperatures have been basically on the increase since 1910.
Another point you have made is that 8 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. Here’s another way of looking at that same data: there has been no increase in global temperature since 2001.
I’ll end with the same question I posed in my earlier post – what is the ideal temperature of the earth? Is it what we are experiencing now, or the temperature 12,000 years ago, when approximately a mile of ice covered the land where I now live?
Hi
I am UK journalist commissioned to write an article trying to work out the difference between climate change truth and myth and while there are plently happy to talk truth I am struggling to find anyone to talk myth. Do you know anyone who might help?
Thank you
John Dean
John — If you do enough Google searches, you can probably locate the few people who propogate the climate change myths. Or contact some of the folks who have commented above.
Dan