Politico Reporter Erika Lovley Embarrasses Politico, Self, Profession of Journalism, Humanity

grist.org

Today brings two of the must jaw-droppingly moronic stories I've ever seen, both in Politico, both written by Erika Lovley, who one can only assume is either the most dimwitted, gullible reporter in D.C. or ... um, I can't think of another explanation.

Remember those articles you'd see five years ago, "balanced" stories on global warming science quoting the same small group of deniers, citing the same debunked myths, and conspicuously failing to reference a single peer-reviewed scientific paper or reputable scientific organization? The ones you thought self-respecting media organizations had finally tired of running?

These are worse than that. In a sane world they would prompt a retraction and an apology from Politico, not to mention professional embarrassment for every reporter who shares an office with Lovley.

It looks like she has fallen for press releases from Marc Morano, Sen. James Inhofe's house blogger. Morano sends trashy blasts to reporters all the time, but most of them have the good sense to ignore him. Seems he found a mark.

First, "Scientists urge caution on global warming" begins this way:

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.

The most notable feature of this "growing accumulation of global cooling science" is that Lovley doesn't cite a single piece of it. Seriously. Not one.

Lovley tells us that a "small, growing number of scientists" are questioning the consensus on warming. Who are these scientists? First, there's notorious skeptic and Weather Channel founder Joseph D'Aleo, who is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist. He's also a member of the American Meteorological Association, which considers him an outlier and is one among dozens of scientific bodies that have endorsed the scientific consensus. D'Aleo's signal contribution is to refute climate science using ... the Farmer's Almanac.

The only other scientist cited by name is ... wait for it ... Patrick Michaels, the oldest, crustiest, most quoted skeptic on the planet. (You may recall that Virginia's governor recently asked him to stop embarrassing the state by using the title "state climatologist.")

The same old skeptics. Where is this "growing number"? Oh, wait:

More than 31,000 scientists across the world have signed the Global Warming Petition Project, a declaration started by a group of American scientists that states man's impact on climate change can't be reasonably proven.

Yes, Lovley is seriously citing the "petition project" from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which was roundly debunked way back when it first surfaced in 1998 and has been debunked dozens of times since (see, e.g., the National Academy of Sciences, MIT's John Tirman, RealClimate, Tim Lambert, or the Union of Concerned Scientists). The original petition was deceptive; only a handful of signatories come from relevant scientific disciplines; you can put yourself on the petition online. All this could be uncovered with a simple Google search, which was apparently beyond Lovley's journalistic abilities.

As further evidence, Inhofe "aides report that they have received countless e-mails from scientists worldwide supporting [global cooling] theory." They haven't released these names or emails, but hey, if Inhofe aides say so it must be legit, right? Who's more credible on climate science than James Inhofe and his aides?

In the entire article, not one scientist is quoted defending basic global warming consensus, which is supported by a vast array of peer-reviewed research and the vast majority of climate scientists. The one countervailing quote goes ... to Al Gore's spokeswoman.

But all that circa-'90s dumbassery pales before the second story, "Tracking 'The Gore Effect'," which is about the "effect" whereby it gets cold or snows when Al Gore speaks.

That's really what the story is about.

It contains this priceless passage, which is my nominee for the single stupidest sentence written by any journalist this year, possibly this century:

While there's no scientific proof that The Gore Effect is anything more than a humorous coincidence, some climate skeptics say it may offer a snapshot of proof that the planet isn't warming as quickly as some climate change advocates say.

Read that again. "Some" skeptics say it "may" offer a "snapshot of proof" that the planet isn't warming "as quickly" as "some climate change advocates" say. A journalist wrote that sentence. Politico published it.

If this is the level of journalism Politico finds appropriate, do you think you can trust its other stories?

Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts

Comments

[Scarlet Fire90]

Not surprising that Politi-CLONE is aping GOP talking points. They have a vested interest in protecting their relationships with them. Mike Allen, Jonathon Martin et. al. want to keep attending the BBQs and take turns on the tire swing!

[VinceAZ]

This article so clearly illustrates the unscientific religion surrounding the global warming theory. Anyone that brings up scepticism to the theory is immediately burned at the stake.

I don't pretend to know which camp is the correct one but it is quite clear that the warmist don't want to debate the subject logically. We need an unbiased group of clear headed scientist to sit down and pry the dubious data from the warmist and do some real scientific analysis on the methods and sources.

The silver lining to whole scenario is that regardless of which camp is correct mankind is becoming a better steward of this tiny planet due to hightened attention to the subject.

[BarryChamplain]

"I don't pretend to know which camp is the correct one..."

The one with all the scientists. How tough was that?

I, for one, am glad you don't "pretend to know" anything about climate change... but I sure wish to Hell you wouldn't "pretend to know" that there is a "debate".

There is only a "debate" if the accredited experts agree to "debate" what science tells them to be fact. They are, in fact, not doing this. There is, in fact, a reason for that... kind of like why they don't "debate" whether or not the Earth is flat, either (or maybe they're scared of what devastating contradictions we might find out if the "skeptics" are allowed to speak! Yeah. That's it).

Al Gore is anathema to you people, not just because he's a crusader for environmental reform (there are a lot of those), but BECAUSE HE DEBUNKED YOUR PROPAGANDA METHODS and the people behind them. Of COURSE he's a target!

Please. Put this crap to bed. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE "DEBATE". If you insist upon one, have it with yourselves.

[KHAAANNN]

As others here have pointed out, educating the masses on the difference between a change in "Climate" vs. a change in "Weather" is almost impossible.
They just can't grasp it because to do so requires something most people just don't have. A concept of TIME. This is the same reason the Bible-Thumpers can't grasp Evolution. They cannot fathom the amount of TIME involved on a planetary scale.
"Weather" is variable hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, "Climate" is not. That is why the changes we are seeing over TIME constitute "Global Climate Change" (the term "Global Warming" is a REALLY BAD label, kind of like the Bush Administration's "Clear Skies" policies that increase pollution.)
I have a similar problem in my technical teaching trying to explain the difference between "Accuracy" and "Precision". Most just can't wrap their brains around it.
Accuracy = How close to a defined standard value a measurement is.
Precision = How variable a measurement is when repeated.
It is easy to be highly "Precise" while at the same time being glaringly "Inaccurate".

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks. A useful distinction. Since Barack takes the issue seriously those of us who seek to support him need to find a language to explain the issue -- clearly it is going to be a steep climb. Best, S

[kpod]

One of the problems here, with Lovley's original articles and Roberts' skewering of them, is that what is being discussed is not "global warming." What we are discussing, and reputable scientists are researching is "global climate change." Current models don't predict warming over the entire globe. Some areas will actually cool, some will dry out, some will see increased precipitation. The effect of accumulated toxins in our air and water is not predicted to be uniform, but to be an increase in the spectrum of weather and climate responses. Summers will get warmer, winters colder, hurricanes more frequent and stronger, droughts more intense and longer.

"Global warming" vs. "Global cooling" is a red herring.

[feo]

Cooling vs warming is an idiot's argument. Spewing carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and all the other even nastier chemicals into the air and sea is a very bad thing, not good for anyone. And just wait till everyone in China and India has a car.

[demockracy]

Did you know that...?

- Methane emitted by livestock is 23 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas?
- Humans eat five times more meat than they did, even as recently as 1950?
- Never mind the bad public health effects (confined animal feeding operations -- CAFOs -- are the largest consumer of antibiotics in the U.S., breeding tons of antibiotic­-resistant strains of e.coli, and animal waste can exceed human waste, but CAFOs don't need to treat their sewage)...
... the contribution to global warming by livestock exceeds all human transportation systems combined...?

See http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=775299

... and stop changing your lightbulbs... start eating less meat and milk..Go Vegan!... for reals.

[Scott M]

Speaking of independent fact checking, John Coleman was the founder of the Weather Channel. Joseph D'Aleo was actually a co-founder and the first Director of Meteorology for the Weather Channel.

Facts schmacts.

[owendog]

Uh...if he's co-founder, does that not make him a founder. Seems to me like your splitting hairs.

[JRsNana]

Definition of cofounder: To establish or found in concert with another or others.
Definition of In concert: together
Together, John Coleman and Joseph D'Aleo were founders of The Weather Channel. Joseph D'Aleo, at the time of the founding of The Weather Channel, also became it's first Director of Meteorology.

Definition of fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth.

[Pulemerci]

The earth's atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13° Celsius since 1979 according to highly accurate satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements. By contrast, computer climate models predicted that the globe should have warmed by an easily detectable 0.4° C over the last fifteen years.
The scientific evidence argues against the existence of a greenhouse crisis, against the notion that realistic policies could achieve any meaningful climatic impact, and against the claim that we must act now if we are to reduce the greenhouse threat.
Current computer climate models are incapable of coupling the oceans and atmosphere; misrepresent the role of sea ice, snow caps, localized storms, and biological systems; and fail to account accurately for the effects of clouds.
Temperature records reveal that predictive models are off by a factor of two when applied retroactively in projecting the change in global temperature for this century.
The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54° C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period — 0.37° C —occurred in the first half of the record — before the period of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases.

[DasBoot]

so all those melting ice caps and starving polar bears are just a fata morgana.

[BSERIUS]

What starving polar bears?.... And the ice caps that are trapping whales that have to be culled because of too much ice ?

[Pulemerci]

I was in Alaska last summer (07') and at the Mendenhall Glacier, there is a reference center. While most of the information there speaks about the global warming theories, there was some information that indicated some scientists believe that ther will be a mini ice age in the near future.

[Bitsko]

These so-called journalists never write about the effects of global warning. They think the climate will just get warmer and, yes, there may be some flooding (so long Bangladesh!), but hey we've got our air conditioners to keep us cool and our condos in Aspen. They never think, or just don't care, about how the very process of producing oxygen is being effected. Or do they just believe that they'll be able to afford oxygen tanks to ride them by? Terry Gilliam in his wildest nightmares couldn't dream these people up.

[kapo]

Be warned that climate science is akin to theology or politics. Many of the smarter debaters know what they are arguing is rubbish, but they believe the bogus concepts they preach are good for you. So ignorant people should believe Obama is a muslim because smart Republicans know it means votes for the 'right' side. Many of those who argue the pros and cons of global warming really want to promote their own views about how the world should be run and make this their battleground. I try to remember that it is difficult for me to determine the level of my own ignorance.

[hardybear]

thank you for that last line kapo, it's honestly one of the most profound things I've read in a long time. I get so caught up in opining that I neglect to remind myself that I do not now, and never will, have even Most of the answers.

[BarryChamplain]

Science is not supposed to be beholden to theology or politics. And one of my understandings about the meaning of this past election (and granted, I could be jumping to conclusions) was that now, we are no longer required to put the brakes on our free commentary or our societal progress, in order not to offend the religious or political sensibilities of the residents of Dumbleepistan.

I want SO to believe that the Know-Nothings and the religious freaks no longer matter. By national mandate, the future now goes to the Informed, and the others are now relegated to the Fringe... which is what they've always been, despite their post-Reagan lionization as "Salt of the Earth" Americans.

Once upon a time, we used to call these outliers just plain "stupid", and their role in society was regarded accordingly. America's Stupids never should have been given juice, by a regime that only ever wanted them as a voting bloc.

[SOLERSO68]

politico sucks for many, many other reasons but im willing to accept this story as a "snapshot, or perhaps eveidence" that politco hires their writers through Manpower Temps.

[PSTEN]

Actually there is evidence which was outlined in a NewYorktimes artical just a few weeks back and the topic has also been covered on NOVA. The theory in a nut shell, due to pollution not as much sunlight is reaching the surface of earth. Smog, smoke etc. blocks the sun. This has been confirmed to be 10 to 20% depending on the location and pollution levels. This causes a decrese to the greenhouse effect. They have also been able to calculate the reduction in heat this causes. It's not true cooling but it is causing a lessening of the greenhouse effect. There is hard evidence to back it up.

[rhwalker22]

No, the science that Frontline reported on was global "dimming," not cooling. And the argument wasn't that the earth is cooling, but that the dimming was having the effect of offsetting some (not all) of the effect of global warming. In fact, the scientists interviewed worried that as clean air protections are adopted by more countries, less particulate pollution may be emitted into the atmosphere, thus allowing more sunlight to hit the planet's surface and, thus, triggering even more intense global warming. Again, dimming does NOT equal cooling. It offsets some of the warming that's already happening.

[jade7243]

Recognize that Ms. Lovley did not post that piece on her own. She is a reporter. The editorial staff checked it, edited it, and posted/printed it. I suspect she was merely doing what she was assigned.

Also recognize that Politico has been "accused" of being a Republican mouthpiece -- not once, but multiple times throughout this election season. Hence, you get the Inhofe spin and not the facts.

[Norpag]

The fact is the earth is cooling not warming. In this matter Obama is straying far from his promise of fact based policies and is following ,as are the main stream media, George Bush's policy of fitting the facts to the policy instead of the other way around.Anybody can see the basic data for themselves without simply quoting some "authority" eg Google - Hadley CRU - the British climate site. Scroll down to the SST GL data. Warming peaked in 1998 the earth has cooled since 2003. This year to date is cooler than 1997. Since then CO2 is up 5% with no warming. Spencers UAH satellite data show the same thing - and he has recently shown that the IPCC CO2 temp sensitivities are simply wrong.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is now in a negative phase and this together with the continuing lull in solar activity suggests a cooling spell of at least 20 - 30 years. The science of the AL Gore IPCC AGW paradigm is flawed to the point of fraudulence. But the true believers such as yourself refuse to look at the data preferring instead to make ad hominem attacks on anyone who points out that the AGW emperor has no clothes.

[lisakaz2]

Give us a credible source. The "fact" is that you are a shill.

[Norpag]

I gave you two credible sources which you are obviouslytoo idle or unwilling to check . if you had you would see that what I said was true. You resorted to name calling exactly as I suggested AGWers usually do - the CRU and UAH data are among the main data sources for this entire argument look at them before sounding off further from a position of ignorance.

[Javani]

"IPCC CO2 temp sensitivities"

What, you distrust the magical mystery calculations from the UN, an org that profits off carbon offset trades? Myself, I find the "feedbacks" sweeteners entertaining.

You will laugh, or cry, at this article:

http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?StoryId=1a9b09b8-b5a1-4994-bdfa-75ed0ecf3014

The European Carbon Market price bubble has collapsed for the second time. Between the lines, they hope for institution of cap and trade in in the USA, in order to dump their carbon credits for dollars.

"That assumed that the United States, Japan and Australia didn't collectively introduce ambitious cap and trade schemes which mopped up some of the carbon offset supply."

Bad English...they mean "will mop up".

The Europeans will probably figure that no more carbon bubbles can be sustained, and when Obama institutes cap and trade they will cash out their credits here in the USA and be done with Kyoto for good. They might feel revenged about it. They say the inclusion of cap and trade at 1998 Kyoto was at the demand of the Americans. Enron was still extant then.

[Norpag]

There are a number of cycles of various lengths relating to the orbit of the earth around rhe sun. The main Milankovitch cycles are 100,000, 46000 and 26000 years.long A number of shorter cycles relating to changes in solar activity are well known. Those pertinent to the present discussion are an approximately millenial cycle which brought us the Medieval warming period when the earth was warmer than at present , the deVries cycle of + - 210 years and the solar cycle of about 11 years. Evidence of all these cycles is clear in the geological record.The ice core data show clearly that CO2 levels follow warming and do not cause it. We are not warming "right now" we are cooling. The question is are we headed for a Dalton type minimum as the de Vries cycle might suggest or a more serious Maunder type. Anthropogenic CO2 has little effect on temperatures and any CO2 emissions cuts we make will have almost no measurable effect on future temperatures.
CO2 does increase crop yields significantly. If a cooling trend does indeed develop it would be a much greater threat than a little warming and we would need as much CO2 as possible to help feed the 3 billion extra humans expected by mid century.
If you think that we know enough about climate to predict more than 20 or 30 years ahead you are deceiving youself.

[Norpag]

For some reason my reply was posted above your first post. By the way doesnt your last sentence imply that the 20th century warming was part of a natural cycle and not due to man made CO2

[jbatch]

All of these issues you raise have been debunked; none have withstood the test of a peer-reviewed journal. Why do you repeat this junk science? Are you a shill who knows better, or are you simply brainwashed.

Look, dude, this isn't an issue with "2 sides" demanding balance -- it isn't a debate -- it's settled science. Science is a process which forms hypotheses, tests and challenges them rigorously (with facts and empirical observations, not sophistry) and repeats this until the hypothesis becomes a theory -- very few theories have withstood as much testing as AGW ...

It's not a popularity issue -- you can't attempt to get more people on your "side" by repeating lies and then hope reality changes ...

Give it up, man. It's over.

You may not be aware of it, but your assertions have all the persuasive power of a guy from the aluminum foil hat club at a radio conference.

[Vickster]

Re: "The ice core data show clearly that CO2 levels follow warming and do not cause it."

I once read that CO2 levels increase during global warming because land life becomes dominant during these times, whereas sea life dominates during Ice Ages. Likewise, as land life becomes more successful, the CO2 levels continue to rise until another Ice Age is triggered. Not that I'm saying global warming doesn't exist, but there are some scientists who believe it may be a precursor to the next Ice Age.

[BlackbirdHighway]

2007 was warmer than 1998 or 2003.

2005 was warmer than 1998 or 2003.

So, please explain how warmer temperatures support your claim that the Earth is cooling.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

You are completely and totally wrong. Stop posting lies.

[Norpag]

Why on earth would I post "lies" which anybody can easily check. You obviously didn't check the data sites I posted which show exactly what I said. There are four main temperature sources. The two I quoted + the RISS satellite.The Hansen GISS data is the warm outlier compared with the other three which you can easily check on line. The GISS data is the most unreliable for many reasons that you can check at Climate Audit and the Watts site. Among the main reason is that they do virtually no quality control on their weather station data.As they themselves said in response to their latest Oct 2008 data fiasco. they spend exactly one quarter of a man year / year on producing this vital information and they have a nasty habit of retroactively adjusting their earlier data to fit their AGW paradigm.
Global Temperature measurement is an inexact concept and science an. The two sources I quoted are the most reasonable for a number of reasons..

[1099]

There's a great deal of money to be made by the people who propogate extreme global warming theories. It's all about the dollars.

[jbatch]

"The fact is the earth is cooling..."

NO, that is NOT a fact; that is a denier talking point with no foundation.

Here's some facts:

Yes, 1998 was the hottest year on record, BUT:

2007 was the second hottest;

The six hottest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998 -- the 15 hottest have all occurred sine 1988.

Sound like a cooling trend to you?

Sorry, but you can't cherry pick one year and claim it defines a trend. What will you do when 1998's record is broken -- which will happen with the next strong el Nino? Start the whole denier BS again and say the earth is cooling -- until that record gets broken and so on?

What is it with you people. Why are you so married to debunked, anti-science BS?

[thos]

I'm no scientist, but I bet the earth was hotter when it was covered with magma.

[maduce]

I looked at the Politico story and clicked on "Erika Lovely". She looks barely legal so maybe you should give her a break. The story, of course, is ridiculous.

[TrueD]

Lovley! A snapshot in journalism like Sarah Palin. That sentence, however, should have real value to professors of journalism as a negative example.