Climate Deniers Campaign Against the BBC Backfires

Last week's independent review of the BBC's science coverage was a major setback for climate denialism, concluding as it did that the BBC has given far too much weight to unsubstantiated claims. But one point has been largely overlooked in the extensive news coverage and commentary about the report: climate denial activists had actively campaigned for the investigation in the first place. That campaign has clearly backfired.

The review was announced in early 2010 as a response to heated public debates on the coverage of controversial issues such as climate change, genetically engineered foods, and the MMR vaccine. In particular, the BBC's coverage of the 2009 email hacking scandal known as "climategate" sent denialists into fits of apoplexy, charging that the BBC had not given the story the prominence they believed it deserved.

Unlike other mainstream British media corporations, whose political leanings if not overt biases are well understood, the BBC is expected to be impartial. This is because it is funded through public licensing fees, and is governed by a Trust expressly mandated to "represent the public who own and pay for the BBC."

When the review was first announced, denialist bloggers applauded the victory: "Climategate has moved things along faster than we had hoped: Today, we learn the BBC's governing body, BBC Trust, has launched a major review of its science coverage after complaints of bias, most notably in its treatment of climate change."

As the conservative Daily Mail put it, the BBC "...has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon."

The result of that review, however, was a major slap down of climate denialism, including explicit recognition of the fact that it was a concerted, organized effort to target the BBC:

The BBC has received many complaints about alleged weaknesses in its treatment of the subject. Many emerge from an organised response by determined climate‐change deniers rather than being objective disagreements with particular programmes.

The report runs to more than 100 pages, but the most scathing climate denier content can be found in pages 66-72. Take this quote for example:

Because so much of science involves uncertainty, it is open to attack from those who have never experienced that sensation. Purity of belief makes it easy for denialists to attract the attention of news organisations, but hard for them to balance their ideas against those of the majority. This can lead to undue publicity for views supported by no factual information at all.

In its early days, two decades ago, there was a genuine scientific debate about the reality of climate change (although that attracted rather little attention). Now, there is general agreement that warming is a fact even if there remain uncertainties about how fast, and how much, the temperature might rise.

Or this one:

For at least three years, the climate change deniers have been marginal to the scientific debate but somehow they continued to find a place on the airwaves.

And it further discredits the factually-challenged claims of some of the campaign's front men:

The impression of active debate is promoted by prominent individuals such as Lord Monckton and Lord Lawson. The BBC still gives space to them to make statements that are not supported by the facts.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the report concludes the BBC has devoted too much attention to global warming deniers, not too little as denialists had claimed (and this is what most of the press coverage has focused on):

The BBC needs to continue to be careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" can lead to 'false balance', meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinised. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but the BBC must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.

But why would the climate denialists, with all of their political and financial clout, have sought a review whose outcome had the potential to backfire so badly?

Maybe they failed to anticipate that a real scientist -- Emeritus Professor Steve Jones of University College London -- would be commissioned to conduct the review. Or maybe they thought some well placed preemptive pronouncements of bias would provide the necessary cover.

Charging eco-conspiracy is a favorite denialist tactic, as evidenced after each of the four independent reviews of the 2009 e-mail hacking incident (none of which found fault with the fundamentals of the science). In this case, however, it is much trickier to make that argument with a straight face given the report's opposite stance on genetically modified foods.

Whatever the reason, it was a badly calculated misstep.

Unfortunately, the denial campaign isn't solely dependent on the media to keep the public misinformed about the scientific consensus on climate change. The denialist Heartland Institute recently launched a fake climate change wiki, revealing a deeper facet of their strategy. In the words of one researcher who tried unsuccessfully to submit content:

The climatewiki is so dangerous because it presents itself as providing 'neutral' information about climate change, when in fact it is a highly selective and ideologically filtered presentation of climate science and politics. The tactics of organisations like the Heartland Institute are well known: funding and disseminating information that aims to undermine attempts to regulate carbon emissions. They have been exposed and discredited on many occasions. But this is more subtle -- it's an attempt to make a grab for the very building blocks of knowledge that the media and political debates develop from.

Perhaps this shift in strategy is the result of growing public concern about climate change in the wake of this year's dramatic weather extremes. Whatever the reason, it is just one more attempt to erode the sense of urgency about climate change and to forestall the one inescapable conclusion we are all making as we look at the events of the past year -- the time to act on climate change is now.

 

Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg

Comments

[Publicola]

12:58 PM on 07/30/2011

Bob Carter has committed climate science fraud.*

Hey Richard2,

Do you agree that prominent global warming"skeptic" Dr. Bob Carter has committed scientific fraud as demonstrated by Tamino in the link that I have provided here? 

If 'no' please explain in scientific detail how in your mind the flat lines indicating temperature trends that Dr. Carter drew on the UAH global temperature data as shown by Tamino are statistically and  scientifically valid; thank you.

Dr. Robert "Bob" Carter is a Heartland Institute conference speaker and a leader of and/or major contributor to other prominent organizations that are "skeptical " of man-made global warming / climate change as well, including the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

On a related note Executive Director of the ICSC Tom Harris repeatedly refused to address Bob Carter's fraud in the "Investigation Hits at Climate Change Denier's 'Science'n" thread.**

----------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html

[Richard2]

10:58 AM on 07/30/2011

Science And The BBC: A Victory For The Forces Of Public Relations

Wednesday, 27 July 2011 13:12 Research Fortnight .Last week the BBC published an analysis of its science coverage during two four-week periods in 2009 and 2010. The broadcaster commissioned the study from the Science Communication Group at Imperial College London* as part of a series of reviews of impartiality.

The study concluded there was no evidence of significant factual inaccuracies in the coverage. What it did uncover, however, was that BBC journalism on the whole tended to celebrate discoveries rather than critique them, challenge them or report uncertainties in scientific findings. It also found that three out of four stories were based on press releases, and that if an expert was interviewed as part of a story, this would often be someone named on the press release: in other words someone unlikely to be critical.

The Imperial study also showed that BBC journalists seem to miss basic things in their reporting. For example, stories do not mention sources of research funding; and commentators are never drawn from those fields professionally trained to question and to challenge: such as philosophy, ethics or the law.

This is surely worrying. The Imperial team has confirmed that the BBC’s viewers, listeners and readers are getting a very misleading picture of what science is and how it is done.

[WRBurton]

09:45 AM on 07/30/2011

Imagine a large container filled with 1100 ping pong balls symbolizing the molecules in a given space of our earth's atmosphere.... then imagine three of these balls are painted red. This would sybolize the ratio (circa, say 1980) of CO2 molecules to all the other molecules in the atmosphere. Or less than 1/3 of 1%. Now imagine throwing into that mix ONE additional RED ping pong ball.... Making the total CO2 molecules 4 in 1,100. That's a simple picture of what we're talking about here. Now, can you really... I mean SERIOUSLY look us all in the eye and say that ONE ping pong ball is somehow "trapping" the heat found in ALL the other 1,099 balls.... Give me a break!

[Publicola]

10:00 AM on 07/30/2011

Your facile analogy is effectively arguing that the Greenhouse Effect does not exist, while in the reality-based world the existence of the Greenhouse Effect is as "settled" as science ever gets.

By the way your numbers are off by multiple orders of magnitude.

HTH.

[WRBurton]

11:08 AM on 07/30/2011

The "reality-based world" to which you refer is, in actuality, a computer model, which I belive would make it a "VIRTUAL reality-based world". My simple explanation underscores the REAL data from NASA showing that over the last 10 years there has been no appreciable "trapping" of heat in the atmosphere. It appears "virtual" is not the same as "actual" reality. My numbers are somewhat rounded, sure. But they're pretty darn close. According to my research, CO2 levels in the late '70s were 2.8 molecules per THOUSAND and are now about 3.7 per thousand. Hence, the rounding. And by the way, "multiple orders of magnitude" is one of the most assinine phrases I've ever read from someone criticizing someone else's accuracy.

[Publicola]

12:33 PM on 07/30/2011

WRButon: "The "reality-based world" to which you refer is, in actuality, a computer model"

Wrong again. In fact, that the Greenhouse Effect is scientific fact has nothing to do with computer models; it instead established very basic atmospheric physics.

WRBurton: "REAL data from NASA showing that over the last 10 years there has been no appreciable "trapping" of heat in the atmosphere."

In fact said data shows now such thing, though I can see how someone who doesn't understand the science could be mislead into thinking otherwise.

[chrisd3]

01:01 PM on 07/30/2011

You know, 1099.6 of your 1,100 ping pong balls have absolutely nothing to do with keeping the Earth warm enough for us to live on. THis simple fact throws your entire analogy into a cocked hat.

Whether you knew it or not, you are using a rhetorical trick known as the "inappropriate divisor."

You are also using the standard "skeptic" meme of "If there isn't much of something, it's not important." Do not test this logic with botulinum toxin.

[WRBurton]

02:14 PM on 07/30/2011

Actually, the simple trick is called "logic". CO2 is by definition a "trace element".... We're not talking bio-chemistry here, as in your reference to botulism, where a trace element can completely alter a substance. We're talking something closer to mechanics. Where it is claimed that the addition of 1 molecule in 1,100 can catastrophically tip the scale of our planet's heating and cooling system. That is completely illogical. A far more logical culprit for the variations in our weather is the sun. Here's a question for you: How is it that the 10-15% decay in the earth's magnetic field over the last 100 years has had no effect whatsoever on our warming, eventhough that magnetic field is the only thing protecting our atmosphere from the solar wind?

[Publicola]

09:21 AM on 07/30/2011

The SEPP's Bob Carter has committed scientific fraud.*

Richard2 immediately downthread copy-and-pasted climate science denier propaganda addressing scientific fraud and climate science without providing a single instance of fraud. Here is an instance, committed by prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Robert M. "Bob" Carter:

Bob Carter committed climate science fraud whereby Dr. Carter deceptively tried to Hide the Incline of the global warming temperature trend over recent decades, as statistician Tamino demonstrates.* 

Bob Carter a leader of and/or major contributor to prominent organizations that are "skeptical " of man-made global warming / climate change, including the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

Richard2,

Do you agree that Dr. Bob Carter has committed scientific fraud as demonstrated by Tamino in the link that I have provided here? If 'no' please explain in scientific detail how in your mind the flat lines indicating temperature trends that Dr. Carter drew on the UAH global temperature data as shown by Tamino are statistically and  scientifically justifiable; thank you.

On a related note Executive Director of the ICSC Tom Harris repeatedly refused to address Bob Carter's fraud in the "Investigation Hits at Climate Change Denier's 'Science'" thread.**

----------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html

[texfly]

05:24 PM on 07/30/2011

Oh I like that:

"Hide the Incline"

Has a nice ring to it.

HIDE the Incline,

Hide THE Incline,

Hide the INCLINE!

[Richard2]

11:23 PM on 07/29/2011

The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee has called for greater integrity and data disclosure in peer-reviewed literature. It recommends that all UK research institutions should have "a specific member of staff leading on research integrity".

MPs are also concerned that research quangos should be wary of the journal "Impact Factor" when commissioning new work. MPs also call for open peer review and pre-publication, saying social network tools can be a boon.

The inquiry into peer review came after the release of the Climategate files, which revealed academics at the University of East Anglia selectively disclosing data needed to replicate their results, hiding from Freedom of Information Act requests, recommending destruction of email trails, and vowing to "redefine" the peer-review process to keep papers they disagreed with out of the publication system.

Andrew Miller MP, Chair of the Committee, said:

"Although it is not the role of peer review to police research integrity and identify fraud or misconduct, it does, on occasion, identify suspicious cases," said select committee chairman Andrew Miller MP. "While there is guidance in place for journal editors when ethical misconduct is suspected, we found the general oversight of research integrity in the UK to be unsatisfactory and complacent."

[Publicola]

12:39 PM on 07/30/2011

Richard2 again copy-and-pastes propaganda from yet another obscure science denier without providing attribution.

This R2 copy-and-pasted climate science denier propaganda tries to insinuate that the UK's House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee call "for greater integrity and data disclosure in peer-reviewed literature" is in specific response to climate science issues, when in fact the official Parliament report says nothing of the kind, and nor does it imply as much.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/110728-peer-review-published/

Hey Richard2,

Do you agree that global warming"skeptic" Dr. Bob Carter has committed scientific fraud as demonstrated by Tamino in the link that I have provided here? If 'no' please explain in scientific detail how in your mind the flat lines indicating temperature trends that Dr. Carter drew on the UAH global temperature data as shown by Tamino are statistically and  scientifically valid; thank you.

* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

[Publicola]

11:46 AM on 07/29/2011

The NZCSC's Bob Carter has committed scientific fraud.*

Dr. Robert M. "Bob" Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to several prominent organizations that are "skeptical " of man-made global warming / climate change, including the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

You Orkneygal have nonetheless repeatedly claimed to have "no interest" in addressing irrefutable evidence of the debunked Bob Carter's fraud, just as Executive Director of the ICSC Tom Harris repeatedly refused to address Bob Carter's fraud in the "Investigation Hits at Climate Change Denier's 'Science'" thread.**

Please answer this question that you Orkneygal have repeatedly refused to answer:

Dr. Bob Carter is also a founding leader of the "skeptical" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC), which is a sister organization to the ICSC. You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

---------------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html

[Orkneygal]

09:13 AM on 07/29/2011

As Pubicola has admitted down thread, UAH and RSS data are now concordant, corrected by the advancement of science.

As Publicola's comments have confirmed my observation of the data remains triumphant.

UAH and RSS confirm that the lower Tropospheric Temperature High reached in 1998 has not been exceeded since.

Gaia is cooler today than at the high point in 1998, according to NASA satellite data.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

11:13 AM on 07/29/2011

Publicola has not confirmed your lies; stating so is itself another lie. Why do you use the title "Gaia"?

[Orkneygal]

06:27 PM on 07/29/2011

Ok, then you provide a chart of Lower Tropospheric Temperature data, from a reputable source, that shows the 1998 high has since been exceeded.

[Publicola]

11:37 AM on 07/29/2011

Roy Spencer incorrectly analyzed NASA satellite data for many years.*

Orkneygal: "As Pubicola has admitted down thread, UAH and RSS data are now concordant"

Your "admitted" misleading wording notwithstanding, I never said or implied otherwise and neither is that a point in contention in the climate science community.

Orkneygal: "...corrected by the advancement of science."

Roy Spencer and John Christy's infamous error was corrected by independent climate scientists at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), who upon auditing their work discovered the critical and ongoing error in Christy and Spencer's NASA satellite data analyses - a critical error Roy Spencer and John Christie repeatedly made and propagated for many years.*

Orkneygal: "UAH and RSS confirm that the lower Tropospheric Temperature High reached in 1998 has not been exceeded since."

The strongest El Nino on record was in 1998.

The UAH and RSS global satellite temperature datasets also confirm that the lower troposphere has warmed over the past 3 decades, as AGW theory correctly predicted.

Orkneygal: "Gaia is cooler today than at the high point in 1998, according to NASA satellite data."

Wrong.

The lower troposphere is cooler today than during the 1998 "super" El Nino according to NASA satellite data, not Gaia.  You do understand the difference between the lower atmosphere and the Earth, don't you Orkney?

-------------
* http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/earth/18CLIM.html

[Orkneygal]

06:31 PM on 07/29/2011

The Lower Troposphere is cooler today than it was at the high point of 1998.

That is the comment I originally made and despite all your drivel, mis-direction and related non-sense about scientific disputes about measurement techniques, that fact remains the truth.

The Lower Tropospheric Temperature has never returned to the 1998 highs, based upon NASA satellite data.

[Publicola]

03:58 PM on 08/06/2011

Roy Spencer incorrectly analyzed NASA satellite data for years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/earth/18CLIM.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Roy Spencer's climate science has been repeatedly debunked by other climate scientists.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

Roy Spencer believes that per the Bible God will protect us from global warming.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf

Roy Spencer is a creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

Climate science deniers take Roy Spencer's repeated attempts to have climate science conform to his religious fundamentalist beliefs as fact and with zero skepticism.

[Publicola]

09:19 AM on 07/28/2011

Roy Spencer's UAH data was infamously wrong for years.

Orkneygal: "Post your link that shows current UAH is significantly different that RSS."

So what part of my explicitly stating that Dr. Roy Spencer "was audited and corrected by independent climate scientists in 2005" were you not clear on, Orkney?  

In fact, it was climate scientists at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) who audited and corrected Roy Spencer's (and John Christy's) UAH satellite temperature record data, which again for the better part of a decade had falsely indicated no global warming trend in the lower troposphere.  

Roy Spencer and John Christy's false UAH data was in turn cited for the better part of a decade by global warming "skeptics" as "proof" that global warming was a "hoax", overwhelming scientific evidence even then to the contrary, including all of the surface global temperature datasets demonstrating global warming, notwithstanding.

I did get the year wrong though: the year that RSS climate scientists corrected Dr. Roy Spencer's false UAH data was 2003, not 2005.*

----------------------
* http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/earth/18CLIM.html

[Publicola]

09:32 AM on 07/28/2011

Roy Spencer says God will protect us from global warming.

Dr. Roy Spencer along with John Christy and the fraudulent and debunked Bob Carter [1] is one of the relatively very small number of climate scientists who is also a global warming "skeptic".

Roy Spencer is a also on the Board of Advisers of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation [2], a fundamentalist Christian organization that preaches that the Bible infallibly tells us that God will protect us from global warming:

-----------------------
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels... 

We believe that idea... fails the tests of theology... with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible...

The providence and promises of God inform a Christian understanding of creation stewardship, helping to avert irrational or exaggerated fears of catastrophes - fears that are rooted, ultimately, in the loss of faith in God... God’s wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth’s ecosystems are robust and will, by God’s providence, accomplish the purposes He set for them.
------------------------
[3]

continued...

[Publicola]

10:08 AM on 07/28/2011

Roy Spencer is an evolution science denier who believes that "the theory of creation actually [has] a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution [4] in addition to his believing that God will protect us from global warming.

Do Dr. Roy Spencer's religious beliefs influence his "scientific" assessments?

We report, you decide.

----------------
[1] http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

[2] http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/board-of-advisors/

[3] http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

[Orkneygal]

07:45 AM on 07/28/2011

Breaking news........Pachauri has systematically misled the entire world about how his organization writes its reports. He has insisted that these reports are based only on peer-reviewed literature when this is simply not the case.


http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/27/how-the-ipcc-defines-distinguished-scientist/

[Publicola]

09:26 AM on 07/28/2011

The fraudulent and debunked Bob Carter* is a founding leader of the "skeptical" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC), which is a sister organization to the ICSC. You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

---------------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

[gallon]

06:42 AM on 07/30/2011

"Breaking news . . ."

Every thing is a sensation to you Orkney. Are you practising your disinformation for your career in political science?

[texfly]

01:17 PM on 07/30/2011

Relentless ... like a pit bull. Bin and count, assign a grade. Even grade schoolers have to show workings!

[Publicola]

04:58 AM on 07/28/2011

The ICSC's Bob Carter has committed scientific fraud.*

Dr. Robert M. "Bob" Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to several prominent organizations that are "skeptical " of man-made global warming / climate change, including the Science & Environmen tal Policy Project (SEPP), the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and the  International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

You Orkneygal have nonetheless repeatedly claimed to have "no interest" in even examining evidence irrefutably demonstrating an instance of ICSC Chief Science Adviser Bob Carter's fraud,* just as ICSC Executive DirectorTom Harris repeatedly refused to address Bob Carter's fraud in the "Investigation Hits at Climate Change Denier's 'Science'" thread.**

Please answer the following question that you Orkneygal have repeatedly refused to answer:

The debunked Bob Carter is also a founding leader of the "skeptical " New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC), which is a sister organization to the ICSC. You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

---------------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html

[texfly]

02:55 AM on 07/28/2011

"... not too little as denialists had claimed .."

The same segment of the political right used to belly ache at the evening news being liberally biased. So they started Faux News and "bias" has never been the same. It is now "fair and balanced"... by fiat.

[texfly]

04:39 PM on 07/27/2011

Although contrarians love to assert the Galilleo analogy, the deniers fail to realize that THEY are Holy Mother Church.

[hogtown]

11:55 AM on 07/27/2011

The denier strategy is to discredit and obfuscate the science using a chief tactic: organize and spread the obfuscation as far and wide and as fast as possible – hence the term "echo chamber". This is why you will see the same denier stories and quotes – word for word – appear on a hundred skeptic websites virtually simultaneously. Eventually, these stories even find their way in these comments sections via either the misinformed minions caught in the denier net or the contrarian foot soldiers who are paid to spread the denier message.

You would think that professional news outlets like the BBC are above the grasp of the echo chamber. But unfortunately, in an attempt to present two sides of an issue (that has only one), news outlets simply take the denier bait without making it subject to journalistic due process.

Real journalism's primary role is to inform the public in the public's best interest. By their complacency and indifference and lack of scientific knowledge, the media is aiding the deniers in bringing us to the brink of a very uncertain future.

Starting right now, we need to demand much more of our media.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

01:01 AM on 07/28/2011

And this problem should be placed in the context of right-wing efforts to corral media generally. Their playbook has them make charges of "liberal media bias" as the only way to camouflage their own efforts to capture media. I think texfly has it about right; the denier is part of a much larger social problem that has set humanity back over and over. Their motivations seem to be rather similar here; to deny the natural world has limits of any kind as the prerequisite to an unfettered chase of wealth and over-consumption. The fourth estate and investigative journalism are incompatible with such pathology, so getting control of that particular media function is high priority. Science is also going to be increasingly contrary to this worldview more broadly; to wit, denial of climate change, evolution, modeling, measurement, method etc.

[Orkneygal]

04:47 AM on 07/27/2011

I wonder if BBC will cover this

Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Climatic Data

The climate change attribution problem is addressed using empirical decomposition. Cycles in solar motion and activity of 60 and 20 years were used to develop an empirical model of Earth temperature variations. The model was fit to the Hadley global temperature data up to 1950 (time period before anthropogenic emissions became the dominant forcing mechanism), and then extrapolated from 1951 to 2010. The residuals showed an approximate linear upward trend of about 0.66°C/century from 1942 to 2010. Herein we assume that this residual upward warming has been mostly induced by anthropogenic emissions, urbanization and land use change. The warming observed before 1942 is relatively small and is assumed to have been mostly naturally induced. The resulting full natural plus anthropogenic model fits the entire 160 year record very well. ...... New solar activity proxy models are developed that suggest a mechanism for both the 60-year climate cycle and a portion of the long-term warming trend. Our results suggest that because current models underestimate the strength of natural multidecadal cycles in the temperature records, the anthropogenic contribution to climate change since 1850 should be less than half of that previously claimed by the IPCC.........

http://benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V005/74TOASCJ.htm

[canuckhoser]

03:36 PM on 07/27/2011

Loehle, another Heartland heartthrob...

What is it with you? It's anything but..? It's any paper but the *credible* ones that go through the rigorous review process? You claimed that there was no warming over the last decade, yet, every response to you on this you run away...statisticians were given the studies *not even knowing* what they were given, yet, concluded an ^ upward trend...

And you continue to parrot failed papers and failed pseudo "science"

You are the very definition of a paid denier...and if you aren't being paid, why throw away your integrity for nothing?

[Orkneygal]

06:48 PM on 07/27/2011

According to NASA satellite data, the tropospheric temperature is below the peak it reached in the El Nino year of 1998. You might not like that fact, but it remains true.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

[Publicola]

05:36 AM on 07/28/2011

Roy Spencer's UAH data was infamously wrong for years.

Dr. Roy Spencer, the "official" climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show, happens along with the fraudulent and debunked Bob Carter* to be one of the relatively very small number of climate scientists who is also a global warming / climate change "skeptic".

Roy Spencer was infamously wrong with respect to the UAH satellite global temperature dataset that he analyzes and maintains for many years, reporting falsely for the better part of a decade that that globe wasn't warming when it in fact was until he was audited and corrected by independent climate scientists in 2005.

On a related note:

Dr. Roy Spencer is also a religious fundamentalist who along with his Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation brethren believes that per the Bible a just and Christian God will protect us from global warming.** 

Dr. Spencer is also an evolution science denier who believes that "the theory of creation actually [has] a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution."***

Do Dr. Roy Spencer's religious beliefs influence his "scientific" assessments?

We report, you decide.

----------------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

[canuckhoser]

03:37 PM on 07/27/2011

You're not even here discussing the topic, you're just spamming denialist drivel...

[hogtown]

01:06 AM on 07/28/2011

Ork is just here to spread the echo chamber's story du jour.

[Orkneygal]

07:05 AM on 07/28/2011

My quest for the truth is never ending.

[GSR]

09:56 PM on 07/26/2011

This is not good news. The fact that the BBC felt pressured into treating science denial with respect shows that Aunty has been got at. There should have been a recommendation arising from this enquiry that a judicial commission be formed to investigate how the BBC was got at and by whom.