The Politico Pimps Global Cooling for Congressional Deniers

If you like the old media's misreporting on climate (see "The NYT blows the bark beetle story" and so does NBC), then you'll love this whopper from the Politico, "Scientists urge caution on global warming," which opens:

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.

Growing accumulation? Too shaky? An entire piece on climate science that never actually talks to one single reputable climate scientist?

Even as pure political reporting, the piece is beneath rank amateurish -- as if climate change deniers on the Hill are "quietly" doing anything.

Has the reporter, Erika Lovley (sic), been following this issue for more than a week? Note to Ms. Lovley: The deniers on the Hill have been shouting their disinformation for years. Try listening to the recent Senate climate bill debate (see "Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 6: What the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill debate tells us").

This piece wins the 2008 prize for a press release masquerading as journalism -- a tough category to win given the competition: NYT suckered by ExxonMobil in puff piece titled "Green is for Sissies."

Even by old media's standards, the story is laughable. It is built around "Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D'Aleo and other scientists" who are pushing the "global cooling theory" (aka well-debunked denier talking point numero uno, see links below).

Note to Ms. Lovley: D'Aleo holds no doctorate in any scientific discipline. Whether holding a Masters in meteorology qualifies in general as being a scientist I will leave to others, but meteorologists should not simply be treated or quoted as experts on climate (see "Are meteorologists climate experts?").

Here's where the Politico jumps the shark into the territory best left to The Onion. The story actually builds its case around D'Aleo's article in that well-known, highly credible, peer-reviewed scientific climate journal, The 2009 Old Farmer's Almanac.

You can't make this stuff up. Well, maybe you can't, but deniers can. They can make stuff up, print it in places like the Almanac, and then get "media" outlets like the Politico to regurgitate it wholesale:

Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) 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.

We're worried that people are too focused on carbon dioxide as the culprit," D'Aleo said. "Recent warming has stopped since 1998, and we want to stop draconian measures that will hurt already spiraling downward economics."

You might think even a pseudo-serious new media journalist publishing such claptrap would bother to, say, ask even one real scientists at NASA GISS what he or she thinks their data says or, if that's too much of an imposition on the reporter's precious time, how about spending one minute on Google to see what the prolific head of GISS has written (see "Hansen throws cold water on cooling climate claim").

The story grudgingly notes "The National Academy of Sciences and most major scientific bodies agree that global warming is caused by man-made carbon emissions." But the Politico apparently doesn't know the difference between the National Academy of Sciences and the widely discredited Global Warming Petition Project (aka the "Oregon Petition"), since it gives the latter more ink.

Modern journalists from traditional media have for years made the mistake of balancing stories on the reality of accelerating human-caused global warming with a quote or two from deniers, though some are starting to do that less. The Politico's 1980s-style reporting manages to cite multiple deniers, including Patrick Michaels from the right-wing Cato Insitute and a staffer from lead Senate denier James Inhofe (R-OK), but then doesn't bother to quote a single climate scientist in opposition.

Indeed, Ms. Lovley treats those who understand the actual state of climate science as if they are the ones in the dwindling minority, ending with these two paragraphs:

Despite the growing science [!!!], the world's leading crusader on climate change, Al Gore, is unconcerned.

"Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don't believe we landed on the moon," said the former vice president's spokeswoman, Kalee Kreider. "We don't think this should distract us from the reality."

Has your head exploded yet?

Note to Ms. Lovley: Why call up Gore's office to respond to scientific disinformation? You do understand the difference between scientists and non-scientists, don't you?

Some of you who aren't political junkies may be wondering what the frig the Politico is anyway. Their mission statement from January 2007 says

The Politico's goals are simple. Over the past several weeks, we set out to assemble the most talented and interesting collection of journalists -- established names as well as promising young people -- that we could find. Now, we will turn these reporters loose on the subject we love: national politics....

The traditional newspaper story is written with austere, voice-of-God detachment. These newspaper conventions tend to muffle personality, humor, accumulated insight -- all the things readers hunger for as they try to make sense of the news and understand what politicians are really like. Whenever we can, we'll push against these limits.

Yes, who needs those tired old conventions of the traditional newspaper -- accuracy, checking sources, not getting suckered by one side to print stuff that isn't true, possibly having even one editor overseeing cub reporters who has the tiniest amount of knowledge or judgment on the story....

But wait, the Politico claims:

There is more need than ever for reporting that presents the news fairly, not through an ideological prism. One of the most distressing features of public life recently has been the demise of shared facts. Warring partisans -- many of whom take their news from sources that cater to and amplify their existing opinions -- live in separate zones of reality. In such a climate, every news story is viewed as either weapon or shield in a nonstop ideological war. Our answer to this will be journalism that insists on the primacy of facts over ideology.

Hey, that credo almost lasted a full two years!!

I actually got a call about this story from a leading print reporter expressing disbelief and asking me if I was going to write something about it since he/she can't do that sort of thing. I said I was going to call for the reporter's firing, but he/she said not to do that in this economic climate.

Fine. If you don't fire her, pull her from the environmental/energy beat and put a senior reporter on writing the real story of climate science on the Hill. Heck, instead of interviewing the deniers, who after all seem to be losing political strength in recent elections, why not talk to those who have been gaining strength in recent elections. Maybe the public knows something you don't.

Perhaps this coverage isn't a total surprise given the conservative leanings of the Politco's funding.

Also, there is a companion piece that wouldn't even make the cut at most high school newspapers.

Related Posts:

• Yes, the data show the planet STILL keeps warming


• Yes, the planet has kept warming since 1998


• Yes, the globe is warming. But how fast?


• This just in: Great Ice Age of 2008 is STILL over


• Hansen throws cold water on cooling climate claim


• Where is the media on the incredible warming and extreme weather of February?


• Media enable denier spin 1: A (sort of) cold January doesn't mean climate stopped warming


• No warming since 1998? Get real, deniers!


• NASA: 2007 Second Warmest Year Ever, with Record Warmth Likely by 2010


• Climate Forecast: Hot -- and then Very Hot."

Comments

[valkyrie607]

Whether you're a "skeptic" or a "denier" or whatever you want to call yourself: consider this: The world is finite. The atmosphere, the oceans, the ground itself--all have limits. Once upon a time humans thought we could never dump too much waste into rivers. We found that was false. Once upon a time humans thought we could never harvest so many fish that entire fisheries would crash. Now we have learned otherwise.

Tell me, what exactly makes you think that the atmosphere is any different? What makes you think that the atmosphere is suitable as an endless dump for our waste products?

[KHAAANNN]

There is only one thing you need to know about "Global Climate Change".
The oceans are getting warmer.
When the largest heat-sink on the planet begins to warm up, then you have irrefutable proof of a global climate change.
Don't believe me, Go to NOAA and look at the data.
Also, before all the trolls start ranting and foaming at the mouth about how "Cold" this summer was, or hot "Hot" the last few winters were, here is how you figure it out;
1) Get a dictionary.
2) Look up the definitions of two words; A) Weather B) Climate
Notice that they are DIFFERENT things!
Very good, you learned something today.

[TheBlackCat]

Almost every major new scientific principal is initially met by resistance by some part of the population. Germ theory, plate tectonics, atomic theory, the heliocentric theory, etc were initially met by the exact same kind of arguments that global warming now faces. It was said that the scientists were quacks, or charlatans, or conspirators in an attempt to undo the world order. It was said there wasn't a consensus when there actually was. Scientists spent decades before their research was finally accepted as general facts, and today, how many people in the world even know that plate tectonics used to be an extremely controversial theory?

The biggest exception to this of course is evolution. But first off, the vast majority of people in the world who are aware of the theory of evolution accept it as fact. Living in the United States we tend to get a skewed view. However, when I travel internationally, most people I meet aren't even aware that creationism is still believed by anyone other than those guys holding 'the end is near" signs at subway platforms.

Secondly, global warming does not run counter to Biblical doctrine, so I can't see the debate raging on even among Americans for that much longer.

When I saw a commercial recently with Pat Robertson discussing the dangers of global warming, I knew the denial movement was on its way out.

[GoVeg]

The real global warming solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ol_6Ju3oYI

[dobermanmacleod]

"Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash! -- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference." --David Roberts, The Nation, 24 February 2008

Although, to be fair, most people fail to realize how serious the problem really is:

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

If "global warming" or "climate change" are in the media, it's to achieve political ends, and as an environmentalist and a SKEPTIC (not "denier," this is not the Holocaust) I resent it. Today our beliefs are tantamount to religion. You may have noticed that religious people who present faith as fact and then use it to bludgeon people into accepting their politics are ANNOYING.

Let the climatologists duke it out. The so-called "consensus" simply does not exist. The climate models are not working well, so let them fix the models before we jump to conclusions. Let the climatologists do their work and stop POLITICIZING your prepackaged "solutions" before the fact!

There is so much that we CAN do to solve our environmental crises without our sharing the same opinions on so-called "climate change." Pollution. Deforestation. Sustainable agriculture. Alternative energies. If we'd just GET ON IT we would be achieving the right ends: We'd no longer be contributing to a problem that may or may not exist, rendering the "global warming" issue moot.

Bottom line: All this wah wah wah about climate change is supremely annoying to those of us who want to JUST GET ON WITH IT and create sustainable, low-impact societies regardless, because sustainable societies are cheaper, healthier, and most of all, they release us from the corporatist control grid. What's not to like about THAT?

[HemD]

I know that global warming is a hot political topic, but politics and science don't mix well. Data from two independent satellites measuring temperature in the upper atmosphere have consistently shown a lowering of average yearly temps for the past ten years. The ground stations measuring surface temperatures have shown to be increasingly surrounded by concrete heat sinks caused by the encroaching urban environment.
Global warming has never been "proved," and consensus has no real meaning in science. Of course there are those on both sides of the issue who have much to gain, but please don't confuse scientific proof with green political speech.
Lastly, Hansen et al base their dire warning on computer models that cannot replicate present day climate. A computer simulation that fails to replicate the present can't be sen as reliable for future predictions.

[rixter1965]

I try to do my best in my own life -- and act on behalf in larger ways -- for the environment, BUT...

Global warming/climate change/whatever is so abstract that it invites skepticism and "debunking" by interested parties, so time to dial it back to an old-fashioned, easily understandable, 1970s concept: POLLUTION!

As someone who grew up in Western Pennsylvania in sight of a coal-fired power plant, I know well that booming in the middle of the night to find the picnic table, the window sills, the family car covered in a film -- varying from light brown to black -- and knowing that it was not just "ON" things, but in the area and being breathed in by those who lived there. I remember driving into Pittsburgh past steel mills belching out yellow-green-brown exhaust that smelled of rotten eggs and causing my family to roll up the windows on the hottest of summer days.

You can't keep pumping toxic material into the air, the water, and the land -- claiming that restrictions might hurt the economy -- without realizing that it has real effects on real people. I'm not concerned about climate change/global warming as a theory, but rather I'm' concerned about all the toxic material diminishing individuals' quality of life and probably shortening their lives.

Talk about pollution and the global-warming skeptics lose their power.

[TheBlackCat]

This is a really good point. When I was a kid there was a huge push to stop pollution. Captain Planet, school field trips, the give a hoot don't pollute Owl, etc etc. I don't remember there being any debate about this at the time. People weren't saying that pollution didn't exist and politicize the subject with "pollution believers" and "pollution skeptics." As you state, anyone who visits L.A. or Mexico City or Hong Kong can see the hazards of pollution with their own eyes, they don't need to read peer reviewed journals or see climate models.

Pollution is far less abstract that "global warming" and is much easier to demonstrate to the lay person.

[holyhandgrenaid]

The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter if 'global warming' (nevermind that hardly anyone uses those words again because it oversimplifies a complicated issue) is real or not, Pumping that much excess CO2 into the atmosphere CANNOT POSSIBLY be a good thing. Whatever happened to being cautious and not taking gambles with the future of the planet????

[jmad]

The fact is that no-one is really going to willingly sacrifice anything.
The bright side is that increased efficiency will be rewarded.

[camper65]

You, sir, seem to be pretty knowledgeable on this subject. Perhaps you could answer a couple of questions: 1. What is the average planetary temperature? 2. When was this average determined, and by whom? 3. Is the rise in temp heading toward this average, or moving up from this average? 4. What do we do when the average is attained - how do we maintain it? 5. Any ideas on how we get China and India to buy into this program? Force? Blackmail? Appeals to their humanity? Just curious.

[GuyRC]

The Global Warming Petition, what a joke. Check it out for yourself

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_By_Last_Name.php

pick 5 names randomly, google them to see if they are qualified climatologists. Let's even help them out and only pick PhDs

Roy Melville Adams, PhD: nothing about this guy on the web except various links to the petition, how many qualified climatologists are web-invisible (none).

Nary, A. Naselow, PhD same

Tom W. Utley, PhD: not a climatologist:
FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Melbourne, Florida
Center for Aviation Human Factors focused on computer sciences, aeronautical sciences, industrial and organizational psychology, and the engineering disciplines

Arthur Robert Kantrowitz, PhD: not a climatologist:
Retired Professor of Engineering, earned his B.S., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in physics at Columbia University. He taught aeronautical engineering and engineering physics at Cornell for ten years, and was on advisory boards to the Ford White House (the Ford White House!)

Dennis A. Falgout, PhD: nothing

try it yourself

[BushBites]

Most of those petitions are signed by whacked out engineers, many of whom have some connection to the oil industry, and part-time junior college science instructors.

[TheBlackCat]

I've done this myself. Whenever I see any article referencing a "scientist" I ALWAYS google that scientist. When the scientist in question is a climatologist who does state global warming is real, 95% of the time I can google their name and find a huge list of achievements, distinctions, and decades worth of research projects. Whenever I google a global warming denier scientist name, 95% of the time I can find literally ZERO accomplishments fom this person, and also they almost never have done their OWN research. They just look at someone ELSE'S research and claim they can interpret it better, even though their degree is almost always in an unrelated field, like engineering.

And also, I always research the institution these global warming skeptic scientists work for. And 95% of the time, the insitution is actually funded by Exxon-Mobile or some other oil conglomerate.

[Walden2Now]

Great post! The deniers and their ignorant sycophantic followers continue to exasperate. But there is hope. President-Elect Obama has promised action on climate change and has included this in his job creation strategy. And then there is the chance that the Democrats may achieve a filibuster-proof majority. Furthermore, if they don't get the 60 senate seats, there may some Republicans who will refuse to support a filibuster on climate change legislation, especially since blocking such legislation would also block job creation.

[republifornian]

global warming is a theory and it is not fact, face ti people to much data contrdicts the theory 1 way or another

[Javani]

Here are some facts:

When the global surface is cooling recently, like last year, the warmers blame anomalies like La Nina,

But when 1998 was the warmest year recently, they absolve El Nino as the cause.

Of course rising CO2 might have some warming effect even when average temps are cooling, hypothetically without rising CO2 the cooling would be greater. But this is about politics and money. If CO2 levels is not cast as the primary, even only, driver of climate change, no more money. No crisis, no scientific funding. Biggest of all, no crisis, no cap and trade.

[BlackbirdHighway]

I don't know what you consider "recent", but 2007 and 2005 were both warmer than 1998. Warmer temperatures DO NOT indicate that the Earth is cooling, unless maybe you are just a complete idiot.

Unlike you, I have scientific data to back up what I say:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

[MGhamma]

El Ninos and La Ninas are natural phenomina that have a warming or cooling effect on our planet. That's one of the reasons temps rise and fall. But temps are rising and falling in an ever higher range. Overall, temps are rising, because of the increasing levels of CO-2 in our atmosphere. It's not that hard to understand. Unless you have your head in the sand. Or you're a denier who likes to pretend that somehow you have some kind of extraordinarally perseptive intelligence that makes your "opinion" more valid than all of the qualified experts in the field of climatalogy. BTW, the petition project is pure political propaganda, and a joke.

[lisakaz2]

Apparentlly, you deniers want a mushroom cloud for irrefutable proof here but are willing to buy Booo$hie on next to nothing. How ironic except that in both cases you're buying PR and trying to get all of us to do so -- and we won't.

[samiam4285]

Can I clarify something for you? For scientists, theory IS fact. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Theories are considered fact because no evidence has been found to contradict them. The word "theory," in the context of global warming, is not being used in the colloquial sense--scientists consider it to be fact.

[Overtone]

Those who doubt the reality of Global Warming might read this article and see if they still question the reality: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/a-journey-across-the-grou_b_145839.html

[tomfact]

Its a sad story of the effects of climate change. But just saying "its clearly man made" does not make a good scientific arguement. What is the link??

[tomfact]

Joe the Scientist,

If the science of man made golbal warming is settled, please explain it to we ignorant few who still don't understand. Instead of "calling for the firing" of the deniers, take a little time and explain it to the few unenlightened remaining.

[GuyRC]

You have to educate yourself, no one can do that for you.

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

[tomfact]

I ihave worked with near infrared (NIR) spectriphotometers for years. The Oxygen- Hydrogen bond (water) is a strong absorber at a wavelength of about 1.8 microns and is conservatively estimated to be about 25,000ppm in air worldwide. The C-O bond is a weak absorber of Infrared and makes up 300ppm.

Since CO2 is a byproduct of organic decomposition and the world is one big compost pile, it seems to me that as the temperature rises the CO2 follows. What do you THINK? Not what do you BELIEVE.