Rhetoric heats up; reality fogs up (Op-ed piece)

[Switchgear]

link

Are we being told the whole truth about global warming?

I'm not so sure.

No single statistic has been used more effectively to suggest that our use of fossil fuels is leading to a planetary meltdown than this: Nine of the 10 hottest years in American history have occurred since 1995. Based on such evidence, who could dispute that the Earth is getting hotter and that humanity is to blame?

Turns out the statistic is wrong.

Only three years in the past decade -- 2006, 1999 and 1998 -- were among the top 10. Four others -- including the hottest of all, 1934 -- occurred during the Dust Bowl decade of the 1930s, before the burning of fossil fuels could have started ramping up appreciably heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The 15 hottest years since 1880 are now spread out over seven decades, suggesting a process of ebbs and flows rather than the steady buildup that has been widely reported.

Here's where it gets interesting. A Canadian computer analyst named Stephen McIntyre discovered the error and informed NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The institute accepted McIntyre's calculations and changed the numbers on its Web site Aug. 7. It did not, however, issue a news release about them, and the mainstream media have largely ignored this finding. A recent search on the Nexis database found a handful of short news reports, a few editorials and a syndicated column by conservative pundit Cal Thomas.

One could argue that the institute and the mainstream media buried this story because there is less to McIntyre's findings than meets the eye. The new data pertain only to readings in the United States and do not contradict broader findings that as a whole, the past decade has been the warmest on record. (Supporting this observation while underscoring that the science here is not settled, the National Climatic Data Center says five of the hottest years have occurred since 1998.)

But this logic crumbles when you remember the symbolic weight attached to the idea of what The Washington Post, in a front-page article in January, called "a nine-year warming streak 'unprecedented in the historical record.' " That record, along with melting glaciers and extreme weather, has been a factual poster child used to convey the threat of global warming.

McIntyre, who had previously disputed the "hockey stick" graph Al Gore and others used as evidence of a sharp increase in global temperatures over the past century, did not challenge a marginal claim but, from a public relations standpoint, a central one advanced by those worried about the issue. Imagine if the reverse had occurred, if new figures found that not three but nine of the past 10 years had been the hottest on record. Does anyone doubt that this would have been plastered across every front page?

Name-calling is no help

It seems clear that the institute and the mainstream media buried McIntyre's findings because his data suggested an inconvenient truth. Without undermining the case for global warming, the findings complicated it. They forced those who believe global warming is the most urgent problem we face to admit an error.

It is easy, and necessary, to criticize those who have suppressed McIntyre's findings. But if we view the episode in a broader context, we can see that global warming is not just the province of objective science but also the rancorous realm of ideas and politics, dominated by two sides that have rejected nuance in the name of battle.

Those alarmed by global warming had good reason to downplay McIntyre's findings. Rush Limbaugh and other skeptics pounced on the new report as proof that human-made global warming is a hoax. Thomas used the incident to compare "global-warming fundamentalists" to those who believe in "Santa Claus or the tooth fairy."

Such talk is dangerous nonsense. Few climatologists dispute the notion of global warming, and there is no doubt that heat-trapping greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly. The real disagreement involves its causes -- mostly humans? mostly nature? a mix of both? -- the extent of its impact (will seas rise two feet or 30?), and what, if anything, we might do to mitigate its effects.

Unfortunately, when people such as Limbaugh raise the legitimate point that not all scientists believe global-warming is man-made, they use language that suggests those making the claim are acting in bad faith and that global warming is not a problem. They are wrong on both counts.

But demonizing runs both ways. A recent cover story in Newsweek implicitly compared those who question whether people are responsible for climate change to Holocaust deniers. In fact, 56 percent of the 530 climate scientists who participated in a 2003 poll said humans are responsible for climate change; 30 percent said they were not.

Such doubts are rarely acknowledged by leaders such as Gore, who says it's perfectly fine to present worst-case scenarios as probable outcomes.

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality," Gore said in a 2006 interview. "And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

I'm not a scientist, but my reading -- I heartily recommend Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth" -- suggests that global warming is an immense and complicated problem. If we are going to tackle it in meaningful ways, we need more honesty and less rhetoric.

Skeptics must stop pretending that global warming isn't happening, and those worried about it need to acknowledge forthrightly that many questions remain. If we are going to tackle the pressing issue of global warming, we need more truth and less hot air.

[Thiebear]

its been getting warmer for 18 thousand years. We are still slightly better off in ICE than we were 130k years ago... but we don't know if we've turned the corner yet so.....

It is now political fire on both sides... nothing to do with the real world.

Lets not go out and cause destruction, but lets not go crazy either.

[Winslowalrob]

link

Skeptics must stop pretending that global warming isn't happening, and those worried about it need to acknowledge forthrightly that many questions remain. If we are going to tackle the pressing issue of global warming, we need more truth and less hot air.

Wait, so global warming IS happening? But the other posters say its a hoax! Or that we do not know! I am so confused...

[Larry]

There's no proof that smoking causes cancer.

[Johnny Punani]

There's no proof that smoking causes cancer.

Funny.

However, reality is that smoking causes less cases of cancer then the public is led to believe. That is the same problem with anthropogenic global warming. The public is being misled about the severity and scope of the situation. I think a lot has to do with just human nature and the need to over exaggerate something if you want attention drawn to it.

[Larry]

Therefore, everybody should keep smoking, and should, in fact, continue increasing their smoking.

Because the professional counter-arguers have revised their position from "it doesn't exist", to "it's just a coincidence", to "man has nothing to do with it", to "well, man doesn't have as much to do with it as some people claim".

[alexey]

Revised numbers still have 9 out of 10 hottest years globally occuring after 1995. We have already seen this one come up... last time they completely left out the globally vs continental US... at least this one says "in American history."

[JMS]

Funny.

However, reality is that smoking causes less cases of cancer then the public is led to believe. That is the same problem with anthropogenic global warming. The public is being misled about the severity and scope of the situation. I think a lot has to do with just human nature and the need to over exaggerate something if you want attention drawn to it.

I'm in my mid 40's. I remember as a kid sitting around with the neighbors playing in the yard and such. The mothers who smoked 3 our of 7 who were on our block are dead. They died of cancer. The mothers who did not smoke are all still with us.

This is empirical evidence but it is striking.

I would also note that cigars are different than cigarettes. My g-dad smoked cigars every day of his life and lived into his late 80's.