[*B.S. means "Bad Science." What did you think it meant?]
The Earth's climate continued to change during 2011 -- a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property around the world. The scientific evidence for the accelerating human influence on climate further strengthened, as it has for decades now. Yet on the policy front, once again, national leaders did little to stem the growing emissions of greenhouse gases or to help societies prepare for increasingly severe consequences of climate changes, including rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, rising sea-levels, loss of snowpack and glaciers, disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and much more.
Why the failure to act? In part because climate change is a truly difficult challenge. But in part because of a concerted, well-funded, and aggressive anti-science campaign by climate change deniers and contrarians. These are mostly groups focused on protecting narrow financial interests, ideologues fearful of any government regulation, or scientific contrarians who cling to outdated, long-refuted interpretations of science. While much of the opposition to addressing the issue of climate change is political, it often hides behind pseudo-scientific claims, with persistent efforts to intentionally mislead the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change. Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, or pure and utter B.S. -- the same tactics that delayed efforts to tackle tobacco's health risks long after the science was understood (as documented in Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway's book, Merchants of Doubt).
Last year, we issued the first ever "Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards." I am now pleased to present the 2nd Annual (2011) Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards. In preparing the 2011 list of nominees, suggestions were received from around the world and a panel of reviewers -- all climate scientists or climate communicators -- waded through them. We present here the top nominees and the winner of the 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards.
The 2011 Winner:
Climate B.S.* from all of the Republican candidates for President of the United States
Is it really necessary to be anti-science in general, and anti-climate science in particular, in order to be nominated to lead the Republican Party in the United States? Apparently, yes, at least in the minds of the Republican presidential candidates or their advisors. These candidates can be split into three groups: those ignorant or uninterested in science and its role in informing policy; those who intentionally distort science because it conflicts with deeply held political or religious ideology; and those who blow with the wind, giving their allegiance to whatever ideology seems most expedient at any given moment. There is some overlap, of course: some candidates, such as Rick Perry, have been in all three groups at various times.
The third group includes candidates who have at one time or another held positions more or less consistent with scientific understanding but who in 2011 adopted anti-scientific positions during their primary campaigns. For example, Gingrich, Romney, and Huntsman, at some point in the past, all expressed at least a partial understanding about the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change. Yet all three have now retreated from the scientific evidence to faulty but ideological safe positions demanded by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. In October, Romney caved in to conservative pressure and changed his stance on the issue. Just days ago, after pressure from anti-climate-science activists, Gingrich cut a chapter on climate science from a book of environmental essays he had agreed to produce. Ironically, that chapter was to have been written by an atmospheric scientist (Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University) who happens to be an evangelical and speaks regularly to conservative groups. She was also targeted by these activists for personal abuse -- a tactic often pursued by climate deniers and contrarians. (For a few of the craziest things the top GOP candidates have said on climate change, see Joe Romm's recent essay at Think Progress.)
In short, the choice among the Republican candidates on the issue of climate change is scientific ignorance, disdain for science, blatant misrepresentation of facts, or naked political expediency, any one of which would make the Republican candidates strong contenders for the 2011 Climate B.S. of the Year Award. Combined? They win hands down.
[For comparison, while the Obama administration has made little progress (and some would argue insufficient effort) on climate change, the resident's stated position on climate change is clear and in line with scientific evidence. And here is his unequivocal comment on scientific integrity:
Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It's time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America's place as the world's leader in science and technology...the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources. It's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient. Especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth, and a greater understanding of the world around us... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFsB1Jk1OQ0]
Second Place: Disinformation from Fox News and Murdoch's News Corporation
In this year's competition, we award Fox News second place -- up from their fifth place finish last year. This year, the award is extended to the entire News Corporation empire of Rupert Murdoch because of its apparent efforts to synchronize anti-climate science reporting among the different Murdoch outlets in the UK, the U.S., and Australia. Among the bad climate science promoted by Fox News is that snowy weather disproves global warming (while ignoring or inaccurately reporting record high temperatures recorded around the world); biased and misleading reporting about the content of emails stolen from climate scientists; incorrect claims that El Niños are responsible for global warming; and inaccurate reporting about fundamental scientific principles.
Other Murdoch empire assaults on climate science? The editorial page editors of the Wall Street Journal routinely dismiss or ignore all climate change science. Glenn Beck incorrectly tells viewers that there has been no warming in the past decade -- the hottest decade in over a century. Sean Hannity says "global warming doesn't exist." Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon officially directed his journalists to cast doubt on climate science. Brian Kilmeade, of Fox & Friends, joked, "Sorry global warming people, we have too many polar bears." And of course, Bill O'Reilly has stated incorrectly, "For every scientist who says there is [climate change], there's one that says there isn't." [Thanks to MediaMatters for tracking these statements.] As a 2011 story in Rolling Stone noted, "[n]o one does more to spread dangerous disinformation about global warming than Murdoch."
In an analysis of network news reporting on climate change, Feldman, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, and Leiserowitz concluded that Fox News is consistently the most dismissive about climate change and is highly biased toward choosing climate change doubters to interview. Nearly half of their guests dismiss climate change compared to 9 and 15 percent at CNN and MSNBC. In the scientific community, 97 to 98 percent of climate scientists accept human-caused climate change. This misinformation has an effect: a study from Stanford University shows that Fox viewers are far more likely to be fundamentally misinformed about climate change than others. In short, frequent exposure to Murdoch news reporting can be hazardous to your understanding and knowledge of the real world.
Third Place: Spencer, Braswell, and Christy for their lack of climate "sensitivity"
Third place goes to Roy Spencer and William (Danny) Braswell for a research paper on climate sensitivity, and John Christy, for an astounding piece of misleading testimony at a Congressional climate change hearing. Both the paper and the testimony received lavish attention from climate contrarians (including an especially absurd piece from the Heartland Institute, published as a Forbes blog post) and both were extensively and surgically debunked by the scientific community. The key scientific issue here is "climate sensitivity" -- how much the climate will change in response to natural and human influences. Spencer and Christy have argued for many years that the sensitivity of the climate is low, and their science has been constantly, regularly, and convincingly disputed. In 2011, Spencer and Braswell published a paper in the journal Remote Sensing that turned out to contain serious scientific errors according to experts working in this field. What makes a scientific paper 'bad'? A bad paper makes substantive errors in the analysis, misrepresents or ignores conflicting data or conflicting research, fails to address alternative explanations, or draws conclusions logically inconsistent with the results. Critics argued that this paper suffered from all of these problems (see the Dessler analysis, a video describing the flaws, the Trenberth and Fasullo assessment, and a formal response published in Remote Sensing).
In an astounding event, Wolfgang Wagner, the editor of the journal that published the Spencer and Braswell paper, resigned for having failed to spot the paper's scientific flaws during peer review. As he stated in his resignation letter:
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing... With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements.
Similar flawed scientific arguments about climate sensitivity made in the paper were repeated -- along with other incorrect or misleading arguments about climate science -- in testimony of John Christy at the March 8, 2011 hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, called by the Republicans to try to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas pollution. In Christy's testimony, he repeats arguments that many in the climate science community consider to be myths and errors, including continued reliance on a scientific article that other climate scientists have argued is flawed. Here is a comprehensive summary of Christy's errors. Finally, two new studies (here and upcoming by Po-Chedley and Fu in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology) also identify analytical errors in papers and pronouncements by Spencer and Christy -- adding to a long line of errors that have required corrections to their work for more than a decade.
Fourth Place: The Koch Brothers for funding the promotion of bad climate science
Fourth place goes to fossil-fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, Inc., who provide substantial funding to groups and politicians who deny the science of climate change. As noted in a New Yorker story, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outspent even ExxonMobil in funding a network of anti-climate science groups. A partial list of groups funded by the Koch brothers includes a veritable who's who of groups that put out misleading science or tout bad science on climate change. Tim Phillips, president of the super-PAC funded by the Kochs, Americans for Prosperity, brags outright about their political influence on Republican candidates: "If you look at where the situation was three years ago and where it is today, there's been a dramatic turnaround. Most of these candidates have figured out that the science has become political. We've made great headway." This may be good for their business, but it is bad for America, bad for science, and bad for our climate.
Fifth Place: Anthony Watts for his BEST, and worst, climate hypocrisy
Anthony Watts runs a blog popular with the anti-climate science crowd. He ran into a brick wall this year when he voiced support for an ongoing climate study (the "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature" or "BEST" study) that he thought would prove his anti-warming beliefs to be right because it was being done by someone he thought was in his camp ("... I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."). Unfortunately for him, that study proved his premise wrong and instead reconfirmed what climate scientists have been saying for decades: the Earth's surface is warming and at just the rate that numerous previous studies had shown. Watts then proceeded to tear down the paper, ostensibly because it hadn't been through peer-review, despite the fact that Watts, his guest posters, and commenters routinely and consistently produce or cite non-peer-reviewed science (often later shown to be wrong) to support their claims.
Runners Up: Other Noteworthy Climate B.S. of 2011
Some voters felt that the following entries submitted for the 2011 Climate B.S. competition deserve recognition though they win no awards from us.
Harrison Schmitt and the Heartland Institute for "Arcticgate"
As the Arctic ice disappears before our eyes, we must call attention to former Senator Harrison Schmitt's refusal to correct persistent errors and "cherry picking" of data in denying the disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and for the Heartland Institute's promulgation of -- and refusal to correct -- those errors when they were uncovered.
Rush Limbaugh for his consistent falsehoods about climate science
We would acknowledge Rush Limbaugh for his blatant and stunningly high level of climate B.S., but he has already been awarded the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year" award at MediaMatters.org.
Steve McIntyre
And finally, the "dishonorable" mention of the year goes to Steve McIntyre for his despicable smear of climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University (and to Anthony Watts for amplifying that smear) by drawing a parallel between the Penn State pedophilia investigation and their separate scientific investigation of questions about climate research (in which Professor Mann has been completely and repeatedly exonerated). Joe Romm discusses this disgusting case here.
The 2011 Climate B.S. of the Year Award was prepared by Peter Gleick with an independent group of climate scientists and communicators serving as nominators, reviewer, and voters. Thanks to all who participated this year. See you next year.
Update: Ben Webster of the Times of London felt that his inclusion in the original list of bad science purveyors from Fox News and News Corporation was inappropriate. After discussion and review of Mr. Webster's body of work, we agree and have modified the post to remove him.
Follow Peter H. Gleick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterGleick
Bill McKibben: The Great Carbon Bubble
----------------------------------------
Into Ignorance
Vote to Overturn an Aspect of Climate Science Marks a Worrying Trend in US Congress
As Nature went to press, a committee of the US Congress was poised to pass legislation that would overturn a scientific finding on the dangers of global warming. The Republican-sponsored bill is intended to prevent the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, which the agency declared a threat to public welfare in 2009…
That this finding is scientifically sound had no bearing on the decision to push the legislation, and Republicans on the House of Representatives' energy and commerce committee have made clear their disdain for climate science. At a subcommittee hearing on 14 March, anger and distrust were directed at scientists and respected scientific societies. Misinformation was presented as fact, truth was twisted and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let alone learn from them. It has been an embarrassing display, not just for the Republican Party but also for Congress and the US citizens it represents…
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
In any event larger point taken.
On a somewhat related note, Repub legislators from New Hampshire are proposing a bill requiring that all state legislation "addressing individual rights or liberties" find its justification from the Magna Carta.(!)
Why the 800-year-old medieval English Magna Carta as opposed to say the U.S. Constitution, you may ask? Good question, and it's quite evident that sponsors of the bill don't know either:
"[GOP Rep] Vita admitted he needs to "bone up" on the content of the charter."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/300270/eight-hundred-years-later-inspiration
Those wacky Repub representatives - what will they try and legislate next.
Why do you ask?
The Republicans are not only anti-scientific though. They are also totally against history - hence their constant rewriting of it. They are against economic reality, hence their repeated attempts at trickle down style economics, after every previous one failed to produce results. They are completely out of touch with the rest of the world, hence their paranoid use of the military against imaginary enemies world wide.
As for Murdoch, it would be nice if more climate scientists took them to court. Some of them do, and the reason is that they always find their names used to support positions that they don't hold. As for FOX, they are so execrable, that running the station itself should be a crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve recently been involved with other scientists and scholars in Utah trying to stop the spread of outright lies, half-truths, abuses of data, and distortions about climate change. Much of this disinformation is coming from (or through) some Republican members of the Utah Legislature, and the other Republican (and some Democratic) members have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker...
In addition, I’m a Republican myself, and it galls me that my own party has locally fallen for a bunch of conspiracy theories and scientifically incompetent trash. In my opinion, something has to be done to save the party from disaster in the long run…
Democracy depends on accurate information being readily available to the public, and I see people who propagate such disinformation campaigns as enemies of Democracy.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/about-this-blog/
I thought you meant the "Bachmann Scale".
He uses the idea of "climate dice" to show how we should think about long-term trends.
Listen to how he describes the way people often misinterpret single events, and how we should replace that type of approach with a more sensible way of understanding what is going on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auTEWanRTfM&feature=player_embedded
This video is excellent background for understanding his latest study (not yet published):
http://fromjameshansen.blogspot.com/2012/01/perceptions-of-climate-change-new.html
The intense heat wave in Russia "was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability," the scientists reported in a paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2011-03-09-russian-heat-wave-global-warming_N.htm
Update below-
Scientific Assessment of 2010 Western Russian Heatwave
"Analysis of forced model simulations indicates that neither human influences nor other slowly evolving ocean boundary conditions contributed substantially to the magnitude of this heat wave."
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2010/russianheatwave/papers.html
But they then go on to say "It is not known whether, or to what exent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer."
Meanwhile, the rate of extreme heat events worldwide has increased by 400% in recent decades, making it plausible that some recent change is about 80% responsible for that increase, and human release of greenhouse gases is the only remotely plausible candidate.
So as best we know now, the Russian heat wave might or might not have been caused by global warming, but a betting man would give 5 to 1 odds that it was.
You kids!
According to Lester Brown, "Earth 2.0," we could do this at a cost of $195 Billion worldwide, achievable by, for instance, cutting world military budgets by 195 Billion per year. If we achieved that goal, we would achieve the following benefits:
1. Stable energy costs, because the price of wind and solar does not increase.
2. Less money to Al Qaeda and other organizations currently being funded by Saudis who now get our oil money.
3. Less money, and so less money to Hamas and Hezbollah and to the Syrian Government of President Assad; also, less money to President Hugo Chavez and to other dictators.
To what of that do you object?
All of you science deniers, conspiracy theorists, and media distorters should not bother. You might actually learn something and that would make your little heads hurt.
I suggest that any of you with brains accept that the Kochs and their suckers will prevail and do the best to provide for your own families and friends. There are no doubt ways in which you will be able to profit from the coming catastrophes, or at least minimize your exposure.
There are two kinds of people: those for whom facts are more important than team loyalty, and those for whom team loyalty is more important than facts.
Both have evolutionary advantages in various situations.
The former group tend to be non-religious, liberal, scientific.
The latter group tends to be religious, conservative, suspicious of science.
And the two groups argue differently. The scientists present facts and think they've won the argument, while the conservatives are completely unimpressed. Meanwhile, the conservatives attack some perceived weakness in the perceived leaders of the scientific community and think they've demolished the scientific claim, only to be met by incredulous derision from the scientists.
It's a real trick to get them to speak the same language.
With respect to evolution science denial religion's central role is clear: religious fundamentalists are forced to choose between their belief that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, and large numbers of them including some scientists chose their fundamentalist faith for reasons in line with what Seattle Guy detailed above.
The motivations for global warming science denial are a bit more complex but not much. As with evolution science denial there are many people including some scientists who believe, as Seattle Guy delineated, that AGW goes against their fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. There is another form of fundamentalist belief in play here as well -Â the belief in "free market" fundamentalism - and the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting AGW fundamentally undermines both of these faith-based belief systems. There is also strong team identification with both of these "persecuted" (in their minds) belief systems - and promoting that persecution narrative is a good way to scare people into even tighter adherence to their "team's" faith-based belief systems.
continued...
Then, of course, another strong motivating factor for AGW denial is just simple greed - the same sort of simple, science-denying greed that has resulted, for example, in the delays in substantively addressing the adverse effects of smoking for decades. The non-fundamentalist, primarily greed-motivated deniers are in my view the most responsible for the consequences of prolonged science denial - they know the consequences of what they are doing and don't care, and they manipulate as puppets the faith-over-facts fundamentalists to advance their money-over-people-and-the-planet agenda.
I heard a Swede did it.
Listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEN_o3xYfEE
The term "climate denier" is short for "climate science denier".
Climate science deniers are those who deny and/or obfuscate the overwhelming scientific evidence indicating that:
1) The globe has warmed over recent decades, as had been predicted by AGW theory,
2) Said global waming is very likely in large measure due to anthropogenic (man-made) influences,
and
3) Anthropogenic global warming poses a substantial threat to the health and welfare of humans and the Earth's ecosystem.
HTH.
That's odd, because from where I'm standing it appears the case for AGW is crumbling whilst the agenda behind its promoters is being exposed.
If one doesn't have science, then one need to depend upon Fox and a.m. radio for news of scandal and skullduggery. They know their audience. The pichforkers love this stuff.
The paper is elegant in its simplicity and reveals a powerful insight.
Joe Romm does a fabulous job explaining it.
Thank you, Joe. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/06/399350/hansen-extreme-heat-waves-texas-oklahoma-moscow-were-caused-by-global-warming/?mobile=wp
Normally, when a hoax is exposed, the scoundrels vanish into the woodwork. The game is up. No point in sticking around. But the scientific community are not acting like hoaxers at all in this regard. Far from withdrawing, they continue to issue reports, studies, and statistics at a fantastic pace, all reiterating, and even expanding, on the supposedly false message. Never have hoaxers shown such boldness and a solidarity almost unheard of amongst human beings, especially since this would be once of the biggest (and most improbable) hoaxes in history.
In truth, the only real debate within the scientific community is about just how screwed we are. In the global-warming debate, the only people who have backed down are the global-warming deniers, no two of whom agree with one another. They also constantly attack each another as frauds, which is quite funny.