I've just had a fascinating up close and personal experience of the right-wing climate denial echo chamber in action. It all started with an ABC Australia report on Thursday, by a journalist who apparently thought he had a scoop in publishing information from a purportedly secret document produced by the Global Campaign for Climate Action (GCCA).
The GCCA is an alliance of NGOs for which I serve as the Executive Director.
The document in question was a resource for communicating to public audiences the scientific conclusions of the latest IPCC report on the link between climate change and extreme weather. The report shows that climate change has already, or will in the future increase the frequency and severity of many kinds of extreme weather (strange that THAT wasn't the headline news). The fact that the document was published on our website and had been distributed to hundreds of people apparently escaped him.
The journalist sought a comment from Australia's version of the Heartland Institute, the right-wing think thank Institute of Public Affairs' Tim Wilson. This was like waving a checkered start flag to set the rest of the deniersphere in motion.
The story was picked up by The Australian, a Murdoch publication where the salient details were further embellished and misrepresented. The GCCA was characterized as a "lobby group" (we're not) and our talking points were referred to as a "spin sheet" (in quotation marks, as if the journalist was quoting from the document itself -- he wasn't).
The Australian regularly distorts and misrepresents issues around climate science, as documented by an Australian blog, Deltoid.
The story then spread across the denier blogs like the twilight barking chain in Disney's 101 Dalmatians, with each one dutifully copying and pasting the party line, adding their own twists here and there. It started with a few blogs in Australia and New Zealand, followed by name-brand denial influencers such as Andrew Bolt, a columnist for the Melbourne Sun Herald, and Steve Milloy who runs the U.S. blog JunkScience.
Once these icons of the deniersphere had posted, it didn't take long for the rest to follow suit, including Anthony Watts on WhatsUpWithThat and the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was recently found to be funded by the Australian billionaire Michael Hintze, who also funds the U.K. Conservative party.
So what is it we are accused of? According to The Australian -- Shock, horror! -- the GCCA "encourage[ed] its 300 member organisations to emphasise the link between climate change and extreme weather events, despite uncertainties acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
In plain English? They don't want us to connect the dots between what scientists say about climate change and extreme weather trends, and what we have all observed with our own eyes.
Ironically enough, the Murdoch article reinforced the GCCA's interpretation of the IPCC report. It listed several instances in which the scientists confirmed links between climate change and extreme weather, including temperature extremes, sea level rise and extreme precipitation.
They left out one of our main talking points which, not surprisingly, was the strongest link of all: the report says "it is very likely that the length, frequency, and/or intensity of warm spells or heat waves will increase over most land areas" -- with "very likely" being defined as between 90 and 100 percent certain (PDF).
And the article closed with this comment from Australian climate commissioner Professor Will Steffen:
This is an early warning sign that if we don't get this underlying warming trend under control there's going to be a lot more heat waves, droughts and intense rainfall events.
While droughts and flooding have never been strangers to Australia, things are definitely heating up down under. From the mid-nineties to around 2010, large parts of the country were in drought, with the mercury hitting new records. The period between 1997 and 2009 was almost certainly the driest since European settlement (PDF).
Australia has also seen recent unprecedented floods, rain and sea surface temperature records.
The Politics of Uncertainty
So why was this absurd "dog bites man" story so appealing for climate deniers? Because we chose to emphasize areas of high certainty and probability, while pedaling un-certainty is their stock in trade. But in the case of climate change, uncertainty is not a good thing. For one scientist's analysis of why that is the case, read here.
Indeed, history teaches us that the more certain we get with climate science, the more trouble it turns out we're actually in. Consider the progression of IPCC assessment reports starting with the first one in 1990.
One of the few things they could say with certainty was that humans were substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, resulting in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. They calculated "with confidence" that CO2 was responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect (PDF).
By the time of the second IPCC report in 1995, scientists were becoming increasingly concerned about the "discernible human influence on global climate." (PDF)
The next time around in 2001, scientists concluded that most of the warming observed over the past 50 years was attributable to human activities. They also emphasized the fact that uncertainty cuts both ways: "Decision making has to deal with uncertainties including the risk of non-linear and/or irreversible changes and entails balancing risk... "
In 2007, the IPCC came out with its strongest report to date, stating that warming of the climate system is "unequivocal " and that warming since the mid-20th century is "very likely" (more than 90 percent certainty) due to human greenhouse gas emissions.
The fifth assessment report is currently underway, and is due for publication in 2014. We already know from many publications in the intervening years that droughts, heatwaves and extreme precipitation events have increased and are projected to become more extreme and intense in the future.
24 years after Jim Hansen famously stated in a congressional hearing that "... it is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here," scientists are increasingly doing exactly that.
In a study published in Nature just last week, the authors conclude that "the evidence is strong that anthropogenic, unprecedented heat and rainfall extremes are here -- and are causing intense human suffering... "
We may be uncertain about exactly how much worse things are going to get, but what we do know for certain is that any further delay in addressing the problem will increase both the cost of action and future consequences of climate change. So when the deniers criticize us for connecting the dots, more than ever, we must do exactly that.
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2040449/HarperCollins-pledge-urgent-review-Times-world-atlas-wrongly-overstated-global-warming.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html
Australian state of Queensland found several of its cities under persistent floods Queensland Police Service reported that the water killed 35 people, and the economic fallout is expected to exceed $A30 billion,
Shortly after that, floods afflicted the state of Victoria, which has also faced severe fires in recent years. The region experienced the worst blazes in Australia's history in February 2009, and experts indicate that persistent high temperatures and water shortages are increasing its fire risk.
A house in Iberville Parish, La., that was destroyed in Hurricane Katrina. Psychologists warn that the rise in weather-related catastrophes could cause widespread mental distress.
extreme weather events are often difficult to attribute directly to climate change, but scientists have observed an increase in severe weather phenomena over the past 40 years, a trend that's likely to continue. Meanwhile, public health experts are finding more evidence that conventional damage estimates don't include one troublesome category: mental health problems.
The areas in Australia have begun to rebuild, but the impact of the storms, flooding, fires and dryness may linger in the minds of many Australians, affecting their health and well-being. Public health officials there and around the world are increasingly concerned about how people mentally react to natural disasters as well as the added trauma from the prospect that these are long-term trends that are setting in, such as drought and sea-level rise.
http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2011/11/15/2
The multi decadal swings in the Southern Oscillation Index measuring the Pacific Ocean surface temps (La Nina and El Nino events) has by far the greatest impact on eastern Australian climate.
That your report was not given the proper defference is surprising, the strongly left leaning ABC is a well known bastion for climate change believers.
"Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate."
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Decade of Weather Extremes
Dim Coumou & Stefan Rahmstorf
Nature Climate Change (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1452
Published online 25 March 2012
The ostensibly large number of recent extreme weather events has triggered intensive discussions, both in- and outside the scientific community, on whether they are related to global warming. Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1452.html
------------------------------------------------
Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere.
Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs. Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems.
Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
jdey123: "1. Their assertion that warming is unequivocal has no time range..."
Reading for comprehension helps - in the IPCC report it's clear that the IPCC is referring to recent decades.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html
jdey123: "...nor is it useful, since a warming rate of 0.0000000001C per century would meet this criteria."
Wrong again.
A warming rate over recent decades that low could not be scientifically verified as unequivocally occurring, and if you jdey123 understood basic statistics and basic climate science then you would know this.
--------------
* "curryandwebster" is jdey123's newest HuffPo sock puppet. Jdey123's account has been banned from HuffPo, Wikipedia, and SkepticalScience - the latter site for falsely impersonating an actual climate scientist.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
Lie.
Here's the quote from the IPCC report:
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations... {WGI 9.4, SPM}"
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html
See that bracket, Jdey123? Those are references, which are live links in the actual report.
Jdey123: "...nor is it accurate since at least some of the warming would have to be natural."
So what part of
"MOST of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century..."
are you not clear on, Jdey123?
(added emphasis mine)
Again reading for comprehension helps.
"FROM IPCC: "We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme" "
That is not what the IPCC actually said, and is a distortion of what they did say.
Apparently brand new HuffPo account "Gerald Wilhite" missed the latest conclusions of the IPCC - here are excerpts:
----------------------
It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights, and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights, at the global scale…
There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions...
It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water…
It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century... It is very likely that the length, frequency, and/or intensity of warm spells or heat waves will increase over most land areas…
It is very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future…
There is high confidence that changes in heat waves, glacial retreat, and/or permafrost degradation will affect high mountain phenomena such as slope instabilities, movements of mass, and glacial lake outburst floods.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf
FROM IPCC: "We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme"
http://omnologos.com/official-ipcc-words-we-do-not-know-if-the-climate-is-becoming-more-extreme/
Here's the IPCC's actual words, taken directly from the report:
---------------------------
FAQ 3.1 | Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme?
While there is evidence that increases in greenhouse gases have likely caused changes in some types of extremes, there is no simple answer to the question of whether the climate, in general, has become more or less extreme. Both the terms ‘more extreme’ and ‘less extreme’ can be defined in different ways, resulting in different characterizations of observed changes in extremes. Additionally, from a physical climate science perspective it is difficult to devise a comprehensive metric that encompasses all aspects of extreme behavior in the climate...
Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf
Huff Post readers should note that for some reason you failed to include the concluding paragraph of FAQ 3.1. Incidentially, FAQ 3.1 is exactly the same reference used by what you call my obscure source. The first sentence of that concluding paragraph states:
"None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here."
Clearly the authors of the IPCC report are simply saying that at this point they could not confidently answer the 'weather versus climate' question.
Frankly, Gallon, I am personally insulted by your abusive and uncivil ad hominim attack attempting to label me with the Orwellian 'denier' term, and your accusation that I am somehow 'misrepresenting the truth'. I believe your comment is an intentional attempt to derail a logical discussion of the issue. The Huffington Post Comment Standards state that:
"However, this community does not tolerate direct or indirect attacks, name-calling or insults, nor does it tolerate intentional attempts to derail, hijack, troll or bait others into an emotional response."
For these reasons, I am reluctantly compelled to report your comment as abusive.
"Huff Post readers should note that for some reason you failed to include the concluding paragraph of FAQ 3.1."
HuffPo readers should note that for some reason you did the same.Â
HuffPo readers should note that in your first post you instead just quoted a misleading quote from an obscure blogger, and you misrepresented said quote to make it appear as if it came from the IPCC.Â
HuffPo readers should note that in your second post here you just cherry-picked the first sentence of that concluding paragraph, which taken out of context as you have done here is misleading.
Gerald: Â "Incidentially, FAQ 3.1 is exactly the same reference used by what you call my obscure source."
Incidentally, what I - not Gallon - called your "obscure" blogger/source is indeed an obscure blogger.
Gerald: "Clearly the authors of the IPCC report are simply saying that at this point they could not confidently answer the 'weather versus climate' question."
Incidentally, as I explained above you and your obscure blogger are misrepresenting what the IPCC actually said.
The inertia in the climate system, makes this changes slow to begin with- but over time its like a 'Faustian Bargain' the warming in the pipeline will show, and brutally over time. With C02 today at 395ppm- this will not be seen for perhaps 20 years- but by then C02 will be near 450ppm- a critical tipping point. Its all in time- the weather will become more extreme as years pass. It will be an accumulative number of disasters that over time begins to disrupt the social fabric of society - rather one of 2 single events.
Why are the nice round numbers "critical tipping points"?
see
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/06/two-degree-global-warming-limit-is-called-a-prescription-for-disaster/
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/01/27/nasa-climate-chief-labors-targets-a-recipe-for-disaster/