More on global warming

[ciphergoth]

Here's Dr Chris de Freitas writing in the Guardian debating the reality of global warming. He writes:

There is no proof that humans are affecting global climate. The IPCC 2001 report endorses this view. It states: "The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century, and that other trends have been observed, does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic [human-induced] effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural."

This is an astonishing piece of intellectual dishonesty. If you read the quote in context (last three paragraphs), you will quickly see that the report does not endorse the view that de Freitas is trying to attribute to it, and no-one who read it could think that it did. As you can see from the linked text, what they're saying paraphrases to something like "Just because temperature has changed doesn't prove that it's human-induced. To make a case that it's human-induced we need evidence X Y and Z, which we present here." And the global warming skeptics are quoting just the first half, and entirely reversing the meaning.

The really shocking thing about this - and the thing that should hopefully put paid to any suspicions anyone might harbour that global warming denialism is anything more than an oil-industry-funded effort to protect their profits from uncomfortable truths - is just how often this misrepresentation is trumpeted by the skeptics. I did a Google search for "the observed change may be natural". The first entry is the IPCC report itself, and the second is a blog entry discussing its misrepresentation. After that, it's forty-odd instances of people saying "The IPCC doesn't believe global warming is real, look". Sometimes you hear the story that the "Summary for policymakers" was "tacked on" and doesn't represent what the IPCC really felt. No, the IPCC think there's strong evidence for human-induced global warming, and the quote above is part of the way in which they say so.

I've recommended the science blog Deltoid here before; it was after reading this article pointing out one instance of the misrepresentation that I was motivated to do the Google search linked above, and find dozens of other examples.

Comments

[henry_the_cow]

Part of the problem seems to be that the press can't tell the difference between a scientific controversy and a political controversy. I believe there is broad agreement among climate scientists that the world is warming, largely as a result of human activity. There are some scientists who disagree, but there are always some scientists who disagree (it's the job of scientists to question things). The political debate, however, is further away from consensus, and the partisans on both sides use the underlying scientific positions to argue their case. The result is that the scientific consensus is hidden by the political debate and many journalists don't see the difference.

Add to that the media's need for controversy, in order to sell copies, and a notion of "balance" that doesn't include a weighting system to reflect the actual balance of scientific opinion, and it's not surprising that the science is still perceived as controversial. This is also reflected in "pro" pieces that take the worst case outcome and tell us that the world will end in 10 years time (or whatever).

Um, I'm straying from your point, I think. I agree that the quotation out of context is frankly dishonest, if deliberate, or shockingly negligent, if accidental.