A rising tide of climate sceptic disinformation

Myths debunked
An insight into how sceptics work

 

 

“Climate change scandal” – the headlines proclaim. In fact, the scandal is that the firm and increasing evidence of the danger of climate change is being ignored by large sections of the media.  It instead publishes stories implying the whole thing is a hoax.

 

The media climate has altered over the past couple of months such that The Express is now happy to publish “Global warming: what a climate con.”

 

First was ‘Climategate’. In autumn 2009, emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were illegally hacked and were published, just before the Copenhagen negotiations, resulting in a high-profile media storm. A detailed briefing on this affair can be found at http://climatesafety.org/climategate-a-briefer/ - the most telling point being that “Not one piece of evidence or data has been altered or found to be wrong as a result.”

 

The Institute of Physics – whose statements about UEA’s “worrying scientific integrity” were jumped on by media sceptics to negate the whole phenomenon of climate change– have recently issued a clarification saying that, “the climate is changing, and we need to do something now to mitigate that change” while their submission, it has been revealed, is likely to have been influenced by an energy consultant.

 

Next came ‘Glaciergate’. Buried in the 3000 page 2007 IPCC report, there was a brief mention of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. The Times and The Express in particular have implied that this somehow significantly undermines the whole report, claiming that this was a ‘central prediction, which is not the case.  Meanwhile the glaciers are retreating at an increasing rate.

 

A scientist quoted in the Daily Mail (Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified) has denied the quotes attributed to him.

 

‘Glaciergate’ encouraged the search for further ‘errors’ in the IPCC report. Jonathan Leake at the Sunday Times has been particularly keen, announcing ‘Amazongate’. The prediction that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was dismissed as an “unsubstantiated claim”. This story was sourced from a climate denial blogger. In fact, as BBC coverage on 30 January makes clear, there is peer-reviewed research predicting this impact. The error in the report was that the reference given was a WWF report rather than primary research. The article was the subject of a PCC complaint, which in June 2010 was upheld and The Sunday Times was forced to retract the article and issue an apology.

 

This was followed by ‘Africagate’ - attempts to smear as unreliable the discussion in the report of possible impacts of climate change on African agriculture -  and ‘Seagate’ - an incorrect figure which had been provided by a Dutch government agency for the proportion of the Netherlands below sea level. See discussion at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/#more-2832.

 

Another Times article on 14 February, World may not be warming, say scientists, cites work by Anthony Watts, a climate sceptic, on the siting of temperature stations, alleging that some produce poor quality data. However, when the actual data is analysed, the poor quality stations are found to underestimate, not overestimate, any warming trend.

 

Meanwhile, The Daily Mail claims Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995. Unfortunately, he didn’t. The article also contains other distortions.

 

Back at The Times on 15 February, UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chief “Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.”  In contrast, Deltoid blog reports that Robert Watson later said “The article distorted my statements - I was interviewed for an hour and it was obvious that the reporter wanted me to say that the authors were biased - I said I did not believe that.”

 

 

 

Below is a list of useful sites with facts debunking just about any climate sceptic myth.

 

Skeptical Science, for example, lists over 80 myths, including "There is no scientific consensus on global warming"; "Scientists predicted an impending ice age in the 1970s" and “It’s caused by sunspots”.

 

http://www.royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies/ Royal Society

How to talk to a GW skeptic    Coby Beck

Climate Change: A guide for the perplexed   New Scientist

Response to common contrarian arguments   Real Climate

Climate change debate summary    Natural Environment Research Council (UK)

Climate Change Doubts    UK Met. Office

A thorough debunking  Brian Angliss

Global Warming Myths   Open Source Systems Foundation

Skeptical Science    John Cook

  

 

It has recently been revealed that Koch Industries, a little-known, privately owned US oil company, paid nearly US$50 million to climate denial groups and individuals between 1997 and 2008.  In a similar period Exxon Mobil paid out around $17 to $23 million. Closer to home, it has been suggested that Shell's funding of an exhibition at the Science Museum may be linked to the museum stepping back from its earlier strong stance on climate change.

 

Those who actively promote climate scepticism are well networked, and have been termed 'deniers' rather than sceptics because many show scant regard for the facts, while seizing avidly on any error in the work of climate scientists.  This article discusses the psychology of climate change denial.

 

We have put together a hall of shame featuring the worst offenders.

 

To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.

 

These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics.

 

 

 
Fight back on the blogosphere. Find out how here.

Join our new Facebook group.

 

 

Some deniers are clearly simple charlatans. Watch George Monbiot expose one here: