Washington Post Ombudsman: Climate Change Denial Was Mildly Screwed Up

Answering to the storm created by Washington Post columnist George Will's climate change-denying op-ed, the Post's ombudsman Andrew Alexander writes that the process of fact-checking was a little flawed, and that he fundamentally disagrees with Will, but stops short of saying there was wrongdoing, despite finding this clear deception:

The editors who checked the Arctic Research Climate Center Web site believe it did not, on balance, run counter to Will's assertion that global sea ice levels "now equal those of 1979." I reviewed the same Web citation and reached a different conclusion.

It said that while global sea ice areas are "near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979," sea ice area in the Northern Hemisphere is "almost one million sq. km below" the levels of late 1979. That's roughly the size of Texas and California combined. In my mind, it should have triggered a call for clarification to the center.

There is a disturbing if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-an-idiot tone to much of the global warming debate. Thoughtful discourse is noticeably absent in the current dispute. But that's where The Post could have helped, and can in the future.

Frequent HuffPost Green contributor A. Siegel writes a scathing and link-filled review of Will's (and Alexander's) treatment of the climate change denial scandal.

Comments

[RTIII]

What the author and so many others are _also_ ignorant of is that sea ice CANNOT be measured by surface area. Nor can it be measured by height above sea level. To gather a true understanding, it _must_ be measured from above (satellite) and below (sonar soundings) and the results put together - obviously incorporating surface area in calculations of volume.

CLEARLY that was omitted from this "dialogue."

"If you don't agree with me then you're an idiot." No, dolt, if you don't have a brain and can't understand basic things like area versus volume, _then_ you're an idiot - or, at the very least, a simpleton.
.

[Exusian]

...continued

And what global warming climate change film would be complete without bringing up the Urban Heat Island effect. Christy states that “everyone knows” about it. Indeed, they do, even climate scientist, which is why they take it into account when anylizing raw temperature data.

- Perhaps the most interesting moment in the film is when Dr. Morner points to a raised terrace beach in the Maldive Islands and proclaims it as proof that sea level has fallen since 1970 due to stronger evaporation. How odd that he offers no explanation of why that 34 year drop left no intermediate evidence between the raised terrace beach and the current beach. How odd that he makes no mention at all of geologic uplift, which is a well known mechanism in the sudden creation of raised terrace beaches.

To sum up: Anyone looking for confirmation of their existing belief that global warming/climate change is not happening or that humans are not causing it will eagerly swallow Doomsday Called Off hook, line and sinker. Anyone interested in the actual science of climate and climate change will at least get a few good laughs.

[Exusian]

...continued

For example, in the opening sequence the narrator states that “the evidence [supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming] consists of computer models...” This is flat out wrong, since both the theory and numerical general circulation models are based on empirical evidence and observation and on well established physical laws and processes, not the other way around. And of course, the models are flawed because they are imperfect and incomplete, as are all models, by the way.

And the assertions, some of them mutually contradictory, only go down hill from there.

Other examples include:
- Questioning Dr. Michael Mann’s so-called “Hockey Stick” graph of proxi temperature data, despite the fact that at least three replication studies using different data essentially validate Mann’s work.

- Asserting that “there is considerable evidence that current warming may be a natural consequence of leaving the Littlee Ice Age in 1875.” No evidence is provided, of course. So there is warming, but it’s natural?

- But then Dr. Christy questions that there has in fact been warming, citing the satellite temperature record. So their isn’t warming? Never mind that there are several known problems in the satellite record, or that it is incomplete, just as climate models are. The weather balloon temperature record is also cited, which is known to exhibit a step-change when they started shielding the thermometers hung from the balloons from the sun, causing the thermometer readings to drop.

continued...

[Exusian]

Downthread several people cite the film Doomsday Called Off.

- This film was not produced by or for the CBC, the CBC was merely one of several television networks that broadcast it. The film was produced by independent Danish filmaker Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen, who, incidentaally, has produced two other films featuring global warming/climate change scepticism.

- The film was released in 2004. This means that no scientific research published after 2003 would have been available during production of the film, and that no actual physical events since 2003 had yet occured, such as the 2005 exceeding of 1998 global mean temperature and record hurricane season, the record low in Arctic sea ice extent of 2007, or the record low of Arctic sea ice volume of 2008.

- The film features interviews with five scientists or reseaarchers who are well-known and outspoken global warming/cliimate change skeptics, yet not a single scientist who supports the scientific concensus on GW/CC is interviewed, leaving the presentation of the consensus to the voice-over narrator. By any criteria, that would make this an advocacy film, not an objective documentary.

- The film is long on opinion and assertion by the five interviewees, but quite short on presenting any actual scientific evidence in support of those opinions and assertions, which include many of the repeatedly debunked standard GW/CC sceptic talking points.

continued ....

[tokenconservative]

Why didn't we get a lengthy article when the WaPo ombudsman publically admit that (as an Obama supporter), he thought the presidential coverage was frighteningly one-sided?

[vgirl1]

Gee, difficulty defending the undefendable. Who'd have thought?

[Cinnamonape]

"Houston, We have a problem!" John Christy is cited on his wiki page as having received NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

But his name isn't listed in the actual roster of recipients. Is someone embellishing their resume?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Exceptional_Scientific_Achievement_Medal

[chascates]

The major screw-up was hiring Will in the first place.
But then hiring Billy Kristol was in a category of its own.
Katrina-class.

[steve-oo]

George Will has officially lost it .. he used to be the conservative voice of some reason, but now he's floundering along with the rest of the conservative right who id SELF DESTRUCT ... Ed Rollin's and Charlie Crist might be the only two republicans left with any credibility.

[newshawk14]

George Will suffers from a rare mental disorder, caused by an excess production of bile.

[Kaleban]

I like how John Christy says the troposphere is more or less stable but the surface temperatures are not.

I'm sure all of humanity can just easily move to the top of the troposphere, just have to grow wings, easy, naf?

Perhaps they should look into geological heat retention models too, rather than getting funding from the American Petroleum Society to counteract the United Nations Panel.

Let's see, two cooks and a professor from Alabama, or the entire international community of scientists... tough call.

[SFTor]

Let's try to illuminate you here:

What John Christy is saying is that the climate models predict that the troposphere should heat up more if the climate models are correct.

He is basically saying that the climate models are not doing a good job of modeling what is being observed.

[Kaleban]

The funny thing after watching the documentary is these peoples' conclusions.

Such as this not being the warmest period ever. Well great, but the differences over millenia are not too extreme globally, and generally the lifeforms in wildly varying temperatures did not include homo sapiens.

So while on a geological timescale, the global temperature variance is not abnormally large for our current period, the fact of the matter is that humans as a species could not survive in the current system were the temperature to chance significantly as it has.

And when did it become en vogue for scientists to err on the side of destruction, rather than caution? I'd rather spend money to avoid climate change now and be proven wrong, instead of NOT spending money and being proven right. Being able to say "I told you so" is small consolation when your species is extinct.

[SFTor]

Kaleban:

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age took place within the last 1,200 years. There were plenty of people around.

Again, the temperature has changed. 0.7 degrees Celsius over a little over a century. What makes you say that this is "significant?" (I am not saying it isn't, I am asking for your reasons to call it "significant.)

[bdwoolman]

George Will, striving to be relevant and remake his conservative chops after his thoughtful reservations concerning Sarah Palin angered the faithful, has obeyed the fundamental rule of publicity. That is, If you want to get noticed go slaughter a sacred cow. Do so in the town square and preferably with a chain saw. Well done, George. You are in the news. And to all you struggling journos and bloggers out there... Pick one of the following. There is no financial crises. "They" made it up to get the rest of our money. There is plenty of oil left, the scarcity is artificial (just like diamonds). Find a few facts to support this hoodoo (or make them up). Write a blog. Get noticed.

[Austintatious]

Certainly, it is the right of the Washington Post to employ the columnists and editors it chooses, just as it is the right of consumers to judge the quality of the paper's product and accept or reject it.

A paper's effort to present fair and balanced perspectives is to be applauded. On the other hand, it is obligated to make prudent choices in the writers it retains and the materials it distributes. In particular, a paper bears real responsibility for the track record and credibility of the writers it regularly features, and the content of their work product.

I would defend anyone's right to deny the existence and/or harmful effects of global warming, or that it is essentially a manmade phenomenon, or that it represents a crisis of great magnitude and immediacy. When, however, a longstanding columnist representing a news organization like the Post makes such a denial, or seriously misrepresents facts relevant to a matter of such magnitude, in opposition to the overwhelming majority of credible authorities, serious harm is done. That is called irresponsibility, as is the less than satisfactory follow up by the Post stated in the article.

BTW, despite the Post's suggestion to the contrary, if, by now, you haven't concluded that global warming exists and that a significant component is caused by man's activities on Earth, by definition, you ARE an idiot.

[SFTor]

Austintatious,

your last statement is nothing but argument by namecalling. Could you try to behave yourself like decent human being when you engage in a debate, or is that too much to ask?

Average temperatures are a warmer than they were a hundred years ago. This much is correct. How much warmer? About .7 degree Celsius warming in a century. We started measuring at close to the coldest year in 10,000 years: 1875.

If it hasn't dawned on you yet, this may not be the end of the world.

[Austintatious]

Yes, yes, SFTor,

you are right, of course, at least with regard to the "namecalling". It is something to be avoided and, for more than one reason, I regret having made the statement.

You ask if I haven't considered the possibility that "... this may not be the end of the world." I don't know if you refer solely to the .7 degree Celsius warming you mention or to the concept of global warming and its inherent threat to humanity and the other life on Earth that so many hysterics like me believe it represents.

Assuming that you refer to the latter, my response is yes, indeed, I have considered its potential for harm to the Earth and, while it may or may not ultimately bring on the end of the world, I am forced to believe that, if unchecked, it surely represents the end of the world as we have known it or want it to be.

In the interest of fairness, let me ask if it has dawned on you that global warming just may result in harmful climate change sufficient to cause worldwide destabilizing affects that could lead to famine and international conflict, including war?

Even if such events are only a possible result of climate change caused by global warming, and not the likelihood that more and more "authorities" are saying, shouldn't the world act as it can to minimize that possibility?

[mortiesd]

What happened to the Ozone Hole? Oh, I forgot, that was the scare before Co2.

[Exusian]

If you really wanted to know you could actually look it up, but then you don't really want to know, do you?

You can't forget something you never knew anything about.

[shockmagog]

We took steps to ameliorate the Ozone Holes. It's STILL a problem, but the damage we've been causing to the Ozone Layer has largely been stopped.

'No Quick Fix for the Ozone Hole'
30 June 2006

'The hole in Earth's protective ozone layer won't repair itself until about two decades later than had been expected, scientists announced yesterday.'

'The ozone layer blocks more than 90 percent of the sun's ultraviolet radiation, helping to make life as we know it on Earth possible. For many decades, ozone was depleted by chlorine and bromine gas in the air, produced by man-made chlorofluorocarbons. A hole in the ozone layer formed over the Southern Hemisphere.'

'Efforts to curb those chemicals have in recent years led to optimism that ozone would rebuild.'

'Computer models had predicted the hole would fill back in by 2050.'

'An improved computer model, from scientists at NASA, NOAA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, predicts the recovery won't occur until 2068. The model, fed with fresh data from satellites and airplanes, was verified by the fact that it accurately reproduced ozone levels in the Antarctic stratosphere over the past 27 years.'
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060630_ozone_hole.html

It was a SERIOUS problem, it's STILL a problem, and we took steps to fix it.
DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?

[mortiesd]

Obviously you missed the point as I suspected you would. But that's OK, because I can make a ton of money off of the Co2 scare, just as I did off of the Ozone scare. My problem is though what will be the next great trumped up boogie man bandwagon. Please let me know so I can get in early, because as the old saying goes, "the early bird gets the worm".

[PlayTOE]

The anti global warming campaign is being fought for the benefit of oil companies just like the anti-cancer campaign was fought for the tobacco companies, and often by the same people using the same tactics.

[Exusian]

Not just the oil companies. Remember, US oil reserves peaked around 1970, but there's enough coal in the US to fuel current domestic energy consumption for perhaps another 200 years. Exxon is really the junior funder of the anti-science campaign. Look into Western Fuels and the Koch Foundation.