The Politico may have lots of fine journalists who know a lot about Beltway stuff, but at least one of their reporters -- and presumably, the editors above them -- don't know shit about the climate crisis. CJR's Curtis Brainard explains.
Proving that old misunderstandings are not easily resolved, Politico published an anachronistically bad article about climate science yesterday. The piece, by Erika Lovley, began by stating that:
Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.First of all, Lovley does not review (or even mention) a single piece of climate research that supports the notion of a “growing accumulation of global cooling science.” Second of all, she bases her entire piece on the arguments of Josef D’Aleo and a section on climate change that he wrote for the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac (that bastion of peer-reviewed science!). D’Aleo is co-founder of The Weather Channel and a career meteorologist with a master’s degree in meteorology, but he does not have a doctorate in climatology. Generally speaking, that is an important distinction that all climate reporters should be aware of when choosing sources for their reporting.
There has been a notable trend in global-warming skepticism among meteorologists; it’s unclear exactly why that is, but it has led to some journalistic confusion about the difference between weather (meteorologists’ domain) and climate (Ph.D climate scientists’ domain). And that confusion has abetted some of the misunderstanding about global cooling. Lovley writes that:
Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.
Data from the same source shows that during five of the past seven decades, including this one, average U.S. temperatures have gone down. And the almanac predicted that the next year will see a period of cooling.
Well, yes, the mean temperature in the U.S. has gone up and down over the last century, but it’s global mean temperature that really matters in this debate. Furthermore, if Lovely had called the people behind that data, she would have learned that the scientists at Goddard firmly believe the world is getting warmer. Lovley gets to the Northern Hemisphere, at least, shortly thereafter when she quotes D’Aleo delivering one of the most common, and fairly easily rebutted, arguments in the skeptic’s playbook: “Recent warming has stopped since 1998.”
First, 1998 was an anomalously warm year (due to a particularly strong El Niño effect in the Pacific), so it is not a particularly good baseline for comparison. Second, the statement relies on only one data set (i.e. temperature record), from the Hadley Climate Centre in the U.K.’s Met Office (weather service), which happens to represent the lower end of warming. Other data sets show greater warming since 1998, and although the Hadley Centre data still lists that year as the hottest on record, others agree that 2005 was hottest and that 1998 and 2007 are tied for second place. Finally, the last and perhaps biggest problem with D’Aleo’s statement is that ten years is really too short a time period to show anything useful about climate. (Both Grist and New Scientist have made all of this abundantly clear; and, like Goddard, the Hadley Centre does not dispute the scientific consensus on climate change). The bottom line: in the long run, the Earth as a whole is still getting warmer.
This brings us back to the confusion about weather and climate, and the fact that short-term changes in the former are irrelevant to long-term trends in the latter. Yet every winter, the onset of cold inspires climate skeptics to once again attempt to “debunk” global warming and journalists to once again fall for the maneuver. I reported on that phenomenon in 2007, and New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin covered it in March 2008. Despite journalists’ earnest, and somewhat successful, efforts to move past the basic points that global warming is happening and that human industry is the cause, lingering confusion about the basics of climate science continues to plague public understanding.
A major problem with this area is widespread scientific illiteracy amongst journalists.
Climate is not an area for dabblers, and if you don't have some background knowledge and are locked into a binary, two-competing-opinions-should-be-given-equal-weight journalistic algorithm, you run a great risk of misinforming your readers.
I find it astounding that Lovley could write an entire article on the "mounting evidence against global warming" without once mentioning the 2007 IPCC reports, which distilled the world's climate research and found that:
- "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level"
- "Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases."
- "There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming."
Source: The IPCC summary for policymakers of the synthesis report.
That's the consensus of the world's climate research community. Every world government signed off on the IPCC report, which works by consensus, so its wording tends to the conservative.
However, Lovley did have plenty of time for Republican "skeptics."
The Pew Research Center published an interesting survey back in May, about six months after IPCC synthesis report came out. Look at the results:
Mind you, 2007-08 was a La Nina winter, which means the currents of the Pacific Ocean bring up a heaping helping of very cold water, which cools the atmosphere. So that might have affected how people perceived the issue, but it would seem the change amongst Democrats and Independents is well within the margin of error.
However, after the IPCC reports, believe in human-caused global warming plunges amongst Republicans. WTF?
I think there's something else at play. Check this post out, but the gist of it was that some research in the U.S. that suggests of all the political groupings, conservatives are most likely to shrug off lies and when confronted with proof that something they believe simply isn't true, most likely to react by digging in their heels.
It then becomes a faith-based issue, not a fact or reality-based one.
Saying you don't believe something because you don't believe something isn't the basis for scientifically literate skepticism.
To that end, Lovley did note the Global Warming Petition Project, which Brainard addresses.
However, it's useful to know -- and Brainard didn't get into this -- that Arthur Robinson, the creator of the petition, also believes the dangers of nuclear war have been overestimated, according to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy. He also reportedly markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools."
That's another key point in the climate debate.
Much of the virulent opposition to the notion that humanity's 160-year carbon binge might be having an effect on the climate comes from those who see the Kyoto Protocol as socialistic.
To say you don't believe in global warming because you hate the "socialistic" Kyoto Protocol isn't logical. Therefore, the anti-Kyoto types try to frame the debate in terms of how the "science isn't settled yet."
However, one question you might want to ask such people is this: "When will the science be settled to your satisfaction?"
Another is this: The IPCC essentially thinks there is a 10 per cent chance that it is wrong about the anthropogenic nature of the climate change problem. What level of uncertainty would you ascribe to your views that the climate change is not anthropogenic or is not happening at all?
If you are merely skeptical, what would it take to convince you than anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon?
Those I've talked to on the "skeptical" side have never given me straight answers to those questions.
That's one reason why one should be skeptical about those types of skeptics.
No one can say with absolute certainty that the skeptics aren't correct, but the nature of the climate problem is that the cliff of dangerous climate change awaits and we're driving towards it ever faster as emissions continue to rise.
See this post for details, and this one for consequences.
If carbon emissions are the problem, we want to start "braking" -- i.e., reducing them -- long before we get to the cliff.
Applying the brakes after it's either too late to stop -- or we go off the cliff entirely --won't really help.