[Vision2020] CNN Is Spun Right Round, Baby...

[Ted Moffett]

As usual, Realclimate again offers superb commentary and discussion on how
climate science is reported rather poorly in the popular media.  CNN's axing
of their science news team is perhaps a consequence of budget cuts given
loss of advertising revenue due to the recession, which is hitting cable
news and newspapers hard.  NASA's Goddard climate scientist Gavin Schmidt
authors the entry below:

Schmidt's bio:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46
----------------------

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/cnn-is-spun-right-round-baby-right-round/#more-640

 14 January 2009 CNN is spun right round, baby, right round Filed under:

   - Communicating
Climate<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/>
   - Reporting on
climate<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/reporting-on-climate/>
   - Climate Science<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/>

— gavin @ 5:26 PM

With the axing of the CNN Science
News<http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/cnn_cuts_entire_science_tech_t.php>team,
most science stories at CNN are now being given to general assignment
reporters who don't necessarily have the background to know when they are
being taken for a ride. On the Lou Dobbs show (an evening news program on
cable for those of you not in the US), the last few weeks have brought a
series of embarrassing
non-stories<http://mediamatters.org/items/200812190013>on 'global
cooling' based it seems on a few cold snaps this winter, the fact
that we are at a solar minimum and a regurgitation of 1970s vintage
interpretations of Milankovitch theory (via
Pravda<http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/remember_when_right-wingers_di.php>of
all places!). Combine that with a few hysterical (in both senses)
non-scientists as talking heads and you end up with a repeat of the
nonsensical 'Cooling world' media stories that were
misleading<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/>in
the 1970s and are just as misleading now.

Exhibit A. Last night's (13 Jan 2009)
transcript<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/13/ldt.01.html>(annotations
in italics).

Note that this is a rush transcript and the typos aren't attributable to the
participants.

DOBBS: Welcome back. Global warming is a complex, controversial issue and on
this broadcast we have been critical of both sides in this debate. We've
challenged the orthodoxy surrounding global warming theories and questioned
more evidence on the side of the Ice Age and prospect in the minds of some.
In point of fact, research, some of it, shows that we could be heading
toward cooler temperatures, and it's a story you will only see here on LOU
DOBBS TONIGHT. Ines Ferre has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

INES FERRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Will the day after tomorrow
bring a deep freeze like that shown in the movie? Research more than 50
years ago by astrophysicist Milanchovich (ph) shows that ice ages run in
predictable cycles and the earth could go into one. How soon? In science
terms it could be thousands of years. But what happens in the next decade is
still up in the air. Part of the science community believes that global
warming is a man-maid threat. But Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute
predicts the next 20 to 30 years will actually bring cooling temperatures.

*Dennis Avery is part of the 'science community'? Who knew? And, while
amusing, the threat of 'man-maids' causing global warming is just a typo.
Nice thought though. Oh, and if you want to know what the actual role of
Milankovitch in forcing climate is, look at the IPCC FAQ
Q6.1<http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-6.1.html>.
Its role in current climate change? Zero. *

DENNIS AVERY, HUDSON INSTITUTE: The earth's temperatures have dropped an
average of .6 Celsius in the last two years. The Pacific Ocean is telling
us, as it has told us 10 times in the past 400 years, you're going to get
cooler.

*For those unfamiliar with Dennis Avery, he is a rather recent convert to
the bandwagon idea of global cooling, having very recently been an advocate
of "unstoppable"<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/>global
warming. As for his great cherry pick (0.6º C in two years - we're
doomed!), this appears to simply be made up. Even putting aside the nonsense
of concluding anything from a two year trend, if you take monthly values and
start at the peak value at the height of the last El Niño event of January
2007 and do no actual trend analysis, I can find no data set that gives a
drop of 0.6ºC. Even UAH
MSU-LT<http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt>gives
only 0.4ºC. The issue being not that it hasn't been cooler
this year<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/>than
last, but why make up numbers? This is purely rhetorical of course,
they make up numbers because they don't care about whether what they say is
true or not.*

FERRE: Avery points to a lack of sunspots as a predictor for lower
temperatures, saying the affects of greenhouse gas warming have a small
impact on climate change. Believers in global warming, like NASA researcher,
Dr. Gavin Schmidt disagree.

*I was interviewed on tape in the afternoon, without seeing any of the other
interviews. Oh, and what does a 'believer in global warming' even mean?*

DR. GAVIN SCHMIDT, NASA: The long term trend is clearly toward warming, and
those trends are completely dwarf any changes due to the solar cycle.

FERRE: In a speech last week, President-elect Obama called for the creation
of a green energy economy. Still, others warn that no matter what you think
about climate change, new policies would essentially have no effect.

FRED SINGER, SCIENCE & ENV. POLICY PROJECT: There's very little we can do
about it. Any effort to restrict the use of carbon dioxide will hurt us
economically and have zero effect on the Chicago mate.

*Surely another typo, but maybe the Chicago mate is something to do with the
man-maids? See here<http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=4506059&page=1>for
more background on Singer.
*

FERRE: As Singer says, a lot of pain, for no gain.

*Huh? Try looking at the actual
numbers<http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/mckinsey.jpg>from
a recent McKinsey
report <http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp>. How
is saving money through efficiency a 'pain'? *

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FERRE: And three independent research groups concluded that the average
global temperature in 2008 was the ninth or tenth warmest since 1850, but
also since the coldest since the turn of the 21st century.

DOBBS: It's fascinating and nothing — nothing — stirs up the left, the
right, and extremes in this debate, the orthodoxy that exists on both sides
of the debate than to even say global warming. It's amazing.

*This is an appeal to the 'middle muddle' and an attempt to seem like a
reasonable arbitrator between two opposing sides. But as many people have
previously noted, there is no possible compromise between sense and
nonsense. 2+2 will always equal 4, no matter how much the Hudson Institute
says otherwise.*

FERRE: When I spoke to experts and scientists today from one side and the
other, you could feel the kind of anger about –

*That was probably me. Though it's not anger, it's simple frustration that
reporters are being taken in and treating seriously the nonsense that comes
out of these think-tanks. *

DOBBS: Cannot we just all get along? Ines, thank you very much.

Joining me now three leading experts in Manchester, New Hampshire, we're
joined by Joseph D'Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental
Change Assessment Project. Good to have with you us.

JOSEPH D'ALEO, CO-FOUNDER WEATHER CHANNEL: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: He's also the cofounder of The Weather Channel. In Washington, D.C.,
as you see there, Jay Lehr, he's the science director of the Heartland
Institute. And in Boston, Alex Gross, he's the cofounder of co2stats.com.
Good to have you with us.

*Well that's balanced! *

Let's put a few numbers out here, the empirical discussion and see what we
can make of it. First is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
has very good records on temperatures, average temperatures in the United
States, dating back to 1880. And here's what these numbers look like. You've
all seen those. But help us all — the audience and most of all me to get
through this, they show the warmest years on record, 1998, 2006, and 1934.
2008 was cooler, in fact the coolest since 1997. It's intriguing to see that
graph there. The graph we're looking at showing some question that the
warming trend may be just a snapshot in time. The global temperatures by
NOAA are seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since
2001. The ten warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

So let me start, if I may, Joseph, your reaction to those numbers. Do you
quibble with what they represent?

D'ALEO: Yes, I do. In fact, if you look at the satellite data, which is the
most reliable data, the best coverage of the globe, 2008 was the 14th
coldest in 30 years. That doesn't jive with the tenth warmest in 159 years
in the Hadley data set or 113 or 114 years in the NOAA data set. Those
global data sets are contaminated by the fact that two-thirds of the globe's
stations dropped out in 1990. Most of them rural and they performed no urban
adjustment. And, Lou, you know, and the people in your studio know that if
they live in the suburbs of New York City, it's a lot colder in rural areas
than in the city. Now we have more urban effect in those numbers reflecting
— that show up in that enhanced or exaggerated warming in the global data
set.

*D'Aleo is misdirecting through his teeth here. He knows that the satellite
analyses have more variability over ENSO cycles than the surface records, he
also knows that urban heat island effects are corrected for in the surface
records, and he also knows that this doesn't effect ocean temperatures, and
that the station dropping out doesn't affect the trends at all (you can do
the same analysis with only stations that remained and it makes no
difference). Pure disinformation. *

DOBBS: Your thoughts on these numbers. Because they are intriguing. They are
a brief snapshot admittedly, in comparison to total extended time. I guess
we could go back 4.6 billion years. Let's keep it in the range of something
like 500,000 years. What's your reaction to those numbers and your
interpretation?

JAY LEHR, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE: Well, Lou –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry.

DOBBS: Go ahead, Jay.

LEHR: Lou, I'm in the camp with Joe and Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and I
think more importantly, it is to look at the sun's output, and in recent
years, we've seen very, very low sunspot activity, and we are definitely, in
my mind, not only in a cooling period, we're going to be staying in it for a
couple decades, and I see it as a major advantage, although I think we will
be able to adapt to it. I'm hopeful that this change in the sun's output
will put some common sense into the legislature, not to pass any dramatic
cap in trade or carbon tax legislation that will set us in a far deeper
economic hole. I believe Mr. Obama and his economic team are well placed to
dig us out of this recession in the next 18 months to 2 years, but I think
if we pass any dramatic legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, the
recession will last quite a few more years and we'll come out of it with a
lower standard of living on very tenuous scientific grounds.

DOBBS: Alex, the carbon footprint, generation of greenhouse gases,
specifically co2, the concern focusing primarily on the carbon footprint,
and of course generated by fossil fuels primarily, what is your thinking as
you look at that survey of 130 — almost 130 years and the impact on the
environment?

ALEX WISSNER-GROSS, CO2STATS.COM: Well, Lou, I think regardless of whatever
the long-term trend in the climate data is, there a long- term technological
trend which is that as time goes on our technology tends toward smaller and
smaller physical footprint. That means in part that in the long term we like
technology to have a smaller environmental footprint, burning fewer
greenhouse gases and becoming as small and environmentally neutral and
noninvasive as possible. So I think regardless of the climate trend, I think
we'll see less and less environmentally impactful technologies.

*Wissner-Gross is on because of the media
attention<http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=dirty-google-searches-researcher-hi-2009-01-12>given
to misleading
reports <http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/65794.html> about the carbon
emissions related to Google searches. Shame he doesn't get to talk about any
of that.*

DOBBS: To be straight forward about this, that's where I come down. I don't
know it matters to me whether there is global warming or we're moving toward
an ice age it seems really that we should be reasonable stewards of the
planet and the debate over whether it's global warming or whether it's
moving toward perhaps another ice age or business as usual is almost moot
here in my mind. I know that will infuriate the advocates of global warming
as well as the folks that believe we are headed toward another ice age.
What's your thought?

*Curious train of logic there…*

D'ALEO: I agree with you, Lou. We need conservation. An all of the above
solution for energy, regardless of whether we're right and it cools over the
next few decades or continues to warm, a far less dangerous scenario. And
that means nuclear. It means coal, oil, natural gas. Geothermal, all of the
above.

DOBBS: Jay, you made the comment about the impact of solar sunspot activity.
Sunspot activity the 11-year cycle that we're all familiar with. There are
much larger cycles, 12,000 to 13,000 years as well. We also heard a report
disregard, if you will, for the strength and significance of solar activity
on the earth's environment. How do you respond to that?

*Is he talking about me? Please see some of my publications on the subject
from 2006 <http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Shindell_etal_4.html>,
2004 <http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/Schmidt_etal_3.html>
and 2001<http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Shindell_etal_1.html>.
My point above was that relative to current greenhouse gas increases, solar
is small - not that it is unimportant or uninteresting. This of course is
part of the false dilemma 'single cause' argument that the pseudo-skeptics
like to use - that change must be caused by either solar or greenhouse gases
and that any evidence for one is evidence against the other. This is
logically incoherent. *

FEHR: It just seems silly to not recognize that the earth's climate is
driven by the sun.

*Ah yes. *

Your Chad Myers pointed out it's really arrogant to think that man controls
the climate.

*This is a misquoted reference to a previous segment a few weeks ago where
Myers was discussing the impact of climate on individual weather patterns.
But man's activities do affect the climate and are increasingly controlling
its trends. *

90 percent of the climate is water vapor which we have no impact over and if
we were to try to reduce greenhouse gases with China and India controlling
way more than we do and they have boldly said they are not going to cripple
their economy by following suit, our impact would have no — no change in
temperature at all in Europe they started carbon — capping trade in 2005.
They've had no reduction in groan house gases, but a 5 percent to 10 percent
increase in the standard of living. We don't want to go that route.

*What? Accounting for the garbled nature of this response, he was probably
trying to say that 90% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour.
This is both wrong<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/>and,
even were it true,
irrelevant<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/>.
*

DOBBS: Alex, you get the last word here. Are you as dismissive of the carbon
footprint as measured by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

GROSS: No, not really. But I think in the long term, efficiency is where the
gains come from. I think efficiency should come first, carbon footprint
second.

DOBBS: Thank you very much. Alex, Jay, and Joe. Folks, appreciate you being
with us.

FEHR: Thank you.

In summary, this is not the old 'balance as
bias<http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978>'
or 'false balance<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/the-false-objectivity-of-balance/>'
story. On the contrary, there was no balance at all! Almost the entire
broadcast was given over to policy advocates whose use of
erroneous-but-scientific-sounding sound bites is just a cover for their
unchangable opinions that nothing should ever be done about anything. This
may make for good TV (I wouldn't know), but it certainly isn't journalism.

There *are* pressures on journalists that conspire against fully researching
a story - deadlines, the tyranny of the news
peg<http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2006/12/08/chapter.html>etc. -
but that means they have to be all the more careful in these kinds of
cases. Given that Lou Dobbs has been
better<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/06/ldt.01.html>
on <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/15/ldt.01.html> this
story<http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/13/ldt.01.html>in
the past, seeing him and his team being spun like this is a real
disappointment. They could really do much better.

------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090121/d73f3f9d/attachment-0001.html