There are many things in the world about which intelligent, reasonable people may disagree. There are many things about which intelligent, reasonable people are mistaken. We all are from time to time and in all good faith, wrong about something.
But today I would like to talk about the Climate Deniers instead.
In early to mid-August the Denialosphere suddenly lit up with stories about how the Arctic ice coverage was exceptionally high, stories like “Troublesome Arctic sea ice defies alarmists, increases from ’07” and “Arctic ice fails to follow warmist doctrine”
I could not help wondering why the sudden surge of stories about ice coverage with the end of the melt season only weeks away. Why not wait until the end of the melt season and then make a big deal about it? naturally trying to spin it as “proof” that climate change was a hoax. It just seemed very odd.
The answer was right there on Aug 11th “Sea ice decline accelerates, Amundsen’s Northwest Passage opens” “Temperatures Hit 80 Degrees in the Arctic: 2008 May See a Record Sea-Ice Melt After All” . With a sudden warming that began Aug 1st the ice extent was not going to be high, in fact there was a very real possibility it would set a new record low. The Denialosphere had to pump the “record high” ice story fast before it melted away from them.
Leading the pack was Anthony Watts with “…this year, there was an exceptional amount of ice –” 8 August 2008. For his story he used selective quotes from this German report of ice research (hard for most readers to check your sources that way). Watts omits mentioning that the research has found steady annual increases in average temperature with 2008 being within the range of normal variability, as well as significant changes in Arctic water flow patterns.
Note also the language use by many, “sea ice increase”; as if the Arctic were freezing up rather than simply not melting as fast. One of the other sleight of hands in all of the stories was to report the ice extent, ie area, not amount. This is because every year we are losing more and more of the thicker, older ice, so even when the area is the same, the amount is not.
Put bluntly, they were pushing the story of record lack of melt as a direct response to the news that the melt was accelerating. This is not a case of being mistaken or having a different perspective, this was a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Unfortunately most of us expect there to be some measure of good faith when people report on an issue. We take it as given that a particular source may not give the whole story, but most people do not expect outright attempts at fraud.
This accounts for the Deniers enjoying some success in maintaining the fiction that there is any dispute about climate science. They engage in willful and deliberate distortion, and to a certain extent it works. It’s unethical, immoral, and dishonest, but it works.
Now the melt season has probably ended and the result is … “Arctic sea ice settles at second-lowest, underscores accelerating decline”, “Arctic sea ice melting slows down, for now” and so on. And how have the Deniers reported it?
“Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage” Asher even jumps the gun and tries to call the season over at the beginning of Sept, and Tim Lambert at Deltoid vivisects him quite nicely “You can’t make this stuff up”.
Meanwhile over at Newsbusters “Oops! Nets Wrong On Warming; Arctic Ice Still There” Again they try and spin near record loss as a gain. For further spin they emphasize the media frenzy about a couple of predictions that the Arctic ice might disappear entirely this summer, ignoring the fact that the bulk of the scientific community had a more measured opinion (eg North Pole Notes and “Sea Ice Hyperbole“)
They make a big deal that the ice is still there and want to pretend that this somehow causes problems for climate change science. They sure as hell aren’t going to point out that if climate change were not happening then the ice should be at least about average, or given that natural cycles like solar, PDO and ENSO are in cool phases, the ice extent should actually be larger than average.
Yet another Denier Myth that Coby Beck has already debunked “Summer ice in the arctic has recovered“ and added to his excellent collection of debunkings.
You can take any of the myths in the Denier Canon, “The Hockey Stick”, “Sunspots”, “Mars is Warming Too”, follow it through the Denialosphere and you will see the same pattern, deliberate, willful distortion and fraud. Make no mistake, this is not about differing opinions or debate about scientific uncertainty; the Deniers are waging a viscious political battle by any means necessary.
Not all of the Deniers are necessarily dishonest frauds. The ones who echo the stories may be acting in good faith; in essence they may be simple rubes conned by the Denier sharps and have no particular malice or lack of integrity.
Not so the authors of these frauds. They know exactly what they are doing – and that lets you know exactly what they are.
Thanks for putting a name to the comment. It adds authenticity. Mike, you are right. Temperature changes over time by six times as much at high latitudes, in winter, as it does at low latitudes. This periodically threatens the Arctic. How does greenhouse theory explain that?
Like it or not air temperature in the Arctic rises above zero for three months of every year and this has been the case for a very long time. One must also recognize that the ice is continuously melting from below, depending upon the flow of warm water from the tropics. In the 1940’s Arctic ice was threatened, as is it has been again over the last decade. In the 1960’s and 70s as the tropics cooled the ice grew in thickness and extent.
The answer to the question as to why the ice comes and goes lies in the change in cirrus cloud cover that occurs in the tropics in response to the flux in UV radiation and the solar wind. Details supplied upon request.erl@happs.com.au
Are you ready for reality or would you prefer religion?
The phenomena you describe are completely consistent with Climate Change science and hence it is puzzling why you would bring them up as if it were otherwise.
As for details, please reference a peer reviewed scientific journal where this material has been published and I will have a look at it.
Superb dissection. Again, this really deserves wider publication. I’d suggest http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree (community.suggestions@guardian.co.uk).
P.S. Following through some of the links answered a question that had bothered me, but I’d not researched – why temperatures went down from ~1940 – ~1980 and then started increasing. See http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/stop_me_if_youve_reard_this_be.php and the first couple of comments explain it. Also, the other comments are quite entertaining to read as they eviscerate a noxious little denier, called ‘Lance’.
Also worth a read: http://hot-topic.co.nz/here-come-de-judge/ (Popper gets a mention).
And worth watching: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4385234/earth.the.climate.wars.s01e01.ws.pdtv.xvid-remax.avi (part 2 is linked in comments and part 3 has not yet been uploaded).
Whose ‘Climate Change Science’. You speak as if all questions were resolved. Do you have a ‘bible’ called ‘Climate Change Science’.
If you feel that it is unsafe for you to look at anything but authorized works within your bible of ‘Climate Change Science’ then perhaps better not risk it.
You need people to decide the big issues for you.
Don’t think. It’s could be risky.
@ Erl
Huh? I ask for links to reputable scientific journals, not to any particular perspective on the issue. Are you saying that what say is not supported by credible facts and evidence?
This is like smoking. For almost 40 years there were people who thought smoking was harmless and said so, at length, science to the contrary be damned. Juries believed this and routinely found for the tobacco companies.
Most of those deniers denied because they had an economic interest in doing so, as dramatic evidence finally revealed when certain tobacco company e-mails came out.
Then the public quickly FLIPPED position, and now smoking is a social no-no and is declining in the USA.
The same thing will happen regarding climate change. It will just take longer than in almost any other country. Wealthy companies can put off any FLIP like this for a very long time here because: 1. This country has a super public relations industry, and 2. Money is God here, so corporate leaders don’t hesitate to lie, and buy lying by other people, to keep on being tight with their God for as long as they possibly can.
(And other, non-liars, just promulgate the lies because to accept the truth would devastate their world view that economic growth can be perpetual.)
—-
Note that some of the professional Deniers did the same service for the tobacco industry http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming
Mike
Erl, early climate models from the 1970s, using nothing but increased CO2 forcing, predicted the arctic would warm up to four times faster than the rest of the world. These models did not include clouds (modern models include clouds, but are recognized as a large source of uncertainty — how you can so definitively make definite statements about them without a citation is shocking, as your insight would definitely make a huge impact in the journals if it were true and published). The predicted increase from the models of the 70s is comparable to the observed temperature changes in the arctic today.
(Although this particular prediction came from JASON, the 1979 Charney report is easier to track down. It’s a synthesis report that shows the general state of the science at the time.)
Simply put, current theories not only explain the observed warming geographic variation, but actually predicted it for thirty years. Your new theory is neither necessary nor sufficient to give cause to reject this claim. Try again.
—-
Amen! Also pertinent “Models ‘key to climate forecasts'” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6320515.stm
Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/final-report/default.htm
The 16 Climate Models http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/09/16-climate-models.html
Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy of Climate Models http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2008/Sep08/icecore.html
Mike
Nightman:
(And other, non-liars, just promulgate the lies because to accept the truth would devastate their world view that economic growth can be perpetual.)
While I agree with the main thrust of this point (that some honest folk are ideologically blinded to climate change due to opposition of government regulation — forgetting that inaction is a greater threat to self-determination…), the subpoint on economic growth isn’t entirely accurate. (Don’t get me wrong; in colloquial English it’s correct, but still.)
I’ll explain.
1) It’s not economic growth per se that’s the issue, it’s consumption of resources that are limited/nonrenewable on human timescales. Imagine a hypothetical economy that could grow without consumption (absurd, but this is a thought experiment) and there’s no conflict between their worldview and the stated goals of climate activism (reducing consumption of fossil fuels).
2) If the economy were defined in different terms, i.e. if the health of the natural world was seen as a form of capital*, then the economy could grow as a whole in spite of setbacks such as carbon pricing (assuming it’s a setback and not a net benefit — which could technically be considered point 3 on this list).
I understand that both of these are highly unlikely, but it shows that their threatened worldview isn’t one of economic growth (which, in hypotheticals, in theory, and in practice, could continue to grow) but rather one of unsustainable consumption. For some reason (or other), people seem to think such consumption is a good thing that should never end.
*See also The Economics of Happiness by Mark Anielski. Fascinating read; it posits a new economic theory where people, infrastructure, communities, and nature are considered capital alongside with traditional finances, and then documents places and companies that have attempted just that. Note that a small cost of funds that results in a net ‘profit’ in natural resource quality/availability or employee happiness is viewed as economic growth under this model, which attempts to maximize quality of life instead of GDP (fundamental focus on quality of life rather than growth at all costs). It’s idealistic, but the kind of idealism I can get behind.
Erl Happ briefly visited us some time back and here.
Now he turns up at BraveNewClimate “Response to a wine industry climate change skeptic” where Barry adds “. I hope if gives you a useful idea of how to respond, formally, to such pieces.” Have a look.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to be able to compare skepticism of AGW theory with skepticism of the theory of evolution in Darwin’s time, or skepticism of the theory of gravity in Newton’s time (or in Galileo’s time compared to AGW 40-60 years ago).
I imagine the time frames for acceptance would be much shorter now, due to methods of information sharing, and more rigorous science, but they might also be delayed more due to political and financial vested interests…
—-