Currently viewing the tag: "ClimateGate"

For many years, conservatives have been claiming that Paul Krugman makes up economic data to support his political conclusions.

Proving the point, the New York Times columnist said Monday, "Nothing in the [ClimateGate email] correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety," and in the truly damning message from Phil Jones, the former head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, "it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence":

Back in 2009 climate skeptics got hold of more than a thousand e-mails between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia. Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety; at most, we learned — I know this will shock you — that scientists are human beings, who occasionally say snide things about people they dislike.

But that didn’t stop the usual suspects from proclaiming that they had uncovered “Climategate,” a scientific scandal that somehow invalidates the vast array of evidence for man-made climate change. And this fake scandal gives an indication of what the Wisconsin G.O.P. presumably hopes to do to Mr. Cronon.

After all, if you go through a large number of messages looking for lines that can be made to sound bad, you’re bound to find a few. In fact, it’s surprising how few such lines the critics managed to find in the “Climategate” trove: much of the smear has focused on just one e-mail, in which a researcher talks about using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a particular series. In context, it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence. But the right wants a scandal, and won’t take no for an answer.

No scientific impropriety? Jones was just making an effective graphical presentation?

Well, as NewsBusters reported last February, Jones himself, in an interview with the BBC, admitted that he manipulated data.

Of course, given his background, it's not at all surprising Krugman wouldn't consider this a scientific impropriety. Former Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent in May 2005 said the Nobel Laureate "has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."

With that in mind, let's examine what Krugman now claims was just an "effective graphical presentation."

As Marc Sheppard wrote in December 2009, "[T]he decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists — those determined by proxy reconstructions." He continued:

Jones was working on a cover chart for a forthcoming World Meteorological Organization report [PDF], "WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1990," when he wrote the e-mail. As the graph would incorporate one reconstruction of his own plus one each from Michael Mann and Keith Briffa, Jones was informing them that he had used the trick on Mann's series at the same 1980 cutoff as MBH98, but found it necessary to use 1960 as the cutoff on the Briffa series.

In February 2010, Jones admitted this to the BBC: "[It] was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."

In simple terms, Briffa's tree-ring data showed a decline in temperatures between 1960 and 1999 that weather stations around the world disagreed with. So, Jones spliced into Briffa's data set the real "instrumental" numbers for that period thereby "hiding the decline."

This should raise eyebrows for a number of reasons. First, Jones and Company gave no notification to folks receiving this data — including the Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change — that Briffa's numbers included instrumental data.

But more importantly, as the tree-ring numbers deviated so demonstrably from the observed temperature data between 1960 and 1999, why should anyone believe they're accurate for any periods in the past that can't be confirmed with instrumentation?

The entire global warming myth depends on tree-ring data that was grossly errant for forty years in the last century. This makes the decline ClimateGate scientists were trying to hide FAR MORE serious than most people believe.

I guess we can now include Krugman on this list.

That folks care what this man has to say about anything is astounding.

NewsBusters.org blogs

Tagged with:
 

For many years, conservatives have been claiming that Paul Krugman makes up economic data to support his political conclusions.

Proving the point, the New York Times columnist said Monday, "Nothing in the [ClimateGate email] correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety," and in the truly damning message from Phil Jones, the former head of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, "it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence":

Back in 2009 climate skeptics got hold of more than a thousand e-mails between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia. Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety; at most, we learned — I know this will shock you — that scientists are human beings, who occasionally say snide things about people they dislike.

But that didn’t stop the usual suspects from proclaiming that they had uncovered “Climategate,” a scientific scandal that somehow invalidates the vast array of evidence for man-made climate change. And this fake scandal gives an indication of what the Wisconsin G.O.P. presumably hopes to do to Mr. Cronon.

After all, if you go through a large number of messages looking for lines that can be made to sound bad, you’re bound to find a few. In fact, it’s surprising how few such lines the critics managed to find in the “Climategate” trove: much of the smear has focused on just one e-mail, in which a researcher talks about using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a particular series. In context, it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence. But the right wants a scandal, and won’t take no for an answer.

No scientific impropriety? Jones was just making an effective graphical presentation?

Well, as NewsBusters reported last February, Jones himself, in an interview with the BBC, admitted that he manipulated data.

Of course, given his background, it's not at all surprising Krugman wouldn't consider this a scientific impropriety. Former Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent in May 2005 said the Nobel Laureate "has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."

With that in mind, let's examine what Krugman now claims was just an "effective graphical presentation."

As Marc Sheppard wrote in December 2009, "[T]he decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists — those determined by proxy reconstructions." He continued:

Jones was working on a cover chart for a forthcoming World Meteorological Organization report [PDF], "WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1990," when he wrote the e-mail. As the graph would incorporate one reconstruction of his own plus one each from Michael Mann and Keith Briffa, Jones was informing them that he had used the trick on Mann's series at the same 1980 cutoff as MBH98, but found it necessary to use 1960 as the cutoff on the Briffa series.

In February 2010, Jones admitted this to the BBC: "[It] was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were."

In simple terms, Briffa's tree-ring data showed a decline in temperatures between 1960 and 1999 that weather stations around the world disagreed with. So, Jones spliced into Briffa's data set the real "instrumental" numbers for that period thereby "hiding the decline."

This should raise eyebrows for a number of reasons. First, Jones and Company gave no notification to folks receiving this data — including the Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change — that Briffa's numbers included instrumental data.

But more importantly, as the tree-ring numbers deviated so demonstrably from the observed temperature data between 1960 and 1999, why should anyone believe they're accurate for any periods in the past that can't be confirmed with instrumentation?

The entire global warming myth depends on tree-ring data that was grossly errant for forty years in the last century. This makes the decline ClimateGate scientists were trying to hide FAR MORE serious than most people believe.

I guess we can now include Krugman on this list.

That folks care what this man has to say about anything is astounding.

NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Tagged with:
 

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who first said ‘Laws are great, in theory, but…’

As his other project, the University of Virginia, gets further backed into a corner on the ‘Hockey Stick’ records it is spending upwards of a half a million dollars to keep from the public (even though the public paid for and has every right to them), we now see what Charlottesville radio host Joe Thomas of WCHV likes to note in this context as “UVA getting its Nixon on”. This time with a little help from its friends outraged that laws would be applied to the academic class:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Sarah Buckley

(804) 698-1057

[email protected]om

###

Delegate David Toscano
211 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434.220.1660 PHONE
434.220-1677 FAX
www.davidtoscano.com

******MEDIA ADVISORY******

Press Conference

Richmond –Senator A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico), Senator J. Chapman Petersen (D-Fairfax) and Delegate David Toscano (D-Charlottesville) will hold a press conference on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, in Senate Room 1 at the Capitol at 10:45 am to discuss their proposed legislation that repeals and limits the authority of the Attorney General to issue civil investigative demands.

Who: Senators McEachin, Petersen and Delegate Toscano

What: Press Conference on CID authority

Where: Senate Room 1

When: 10:45 am

Why: Limit the Attorney General’s authority to issue CIDs

At this press conference someone in the press might ask (hey, stop laughing) why the legislators in unanimously passing this law in both chambers forgot to exempt the academic class when passing the law. Or, did they just think it would be applied to people doing things they didn’t approve of?

As to why this troublesome law needs to be nipped in the bud, one need look no further than the transcript of oral argument on the matter August 20, 2010, in Albemarle County Circuit Court:

[Deputy Attorney General Wesley] RUSSELL:  The scope was limited when the University called and said, look, we don’t have one e-mail server.  They’re department by departments.  To check the e-mails as [the CID is] phrased, we which would have to check literally every server on campus because we don’t have a central e-mail server.

Specify the departments, would you do that? So we did.  And we specified I think eight specific departments.  We said, limit your  servers to that.  If you have a central e-mail server, just run the search terms like anybody would in any discovery.  But as far as going to individual departments, these are the only individual departments you have to go to.

And, of course, this comes out in this case with this history.  Prior to Attorney General Cuccinelli even being sworn in, various FOIA requests were made for both Mr. Mann’s e-mails and e-mails of other scientists in the Climate Science Department.  By the way, the University said to the responders that they raise no objection that the e-mails weren’t discoverable under FOIA or available under FOIA.  In fact, for some they said, yes, we have them.  Pay this fee and we’ll produce the e-mails to you [referring to a Greenpeace request for 'skeptic' Dr. Pat Michaels' emails].

Regarding Dr. Mann, specifically, they said, we have no e-mails.  And, in fact, in our papers we have attached the response of the University’s FOIA officer who said, we’ve had two IT engineers search exhaustively. There are no e-mails.

In my first conversation with [Associate UVA Counsel] Mr. Meek when a request for an extension was made I said, look, do you have any of these e-mails?  I don’t want to give you a 60-day extension and then at the end of the 60 days you say, we never had anything anyway.

Mr. Meek represented to me that a backup e-mail server had been found, which may have responsive data on it.

If we are entitled to every inference, and I don’t mean to suggest in any way any ill play by the University, but at this stage based on their cases we’re entitled to every inference.  You can draw a heck of an  interesting inference from that one, that it took the CID to discover the backup e-mails.

So, now that — thanks to Mr. Cuccinelli’s CID — the University’s claim that the records do not exist is no longer operative, and having said they identified the particular server , we have moved under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, directing to them to conduct a very inexpensive, targeted search for those (already found) documents on that (already identified) server.

UVA’s last-minute response to us on Thursday rang similar to their responses to the AG’s office, in that they claimed more time to respond, on the basis of the request being broad (of course, they’ve already conducted the search…), and implying under the law’s requirements they are producing the records. Except their history is one of doing everything possible to not produce the records. Using this time to simply delay formally denying us the records is consistent with past UVA behavior, but not with the law. So, more on what is going on here as we proceed this week.


Big Government

Tagged with:
 

In a memo obtained by Media Matters, Fox News vice president Bill Sammon ordered his reporters last year to question global warming, citing conspiracy theories about climate scientists based on hacked emails. Weeks before the leaders of the entire world gathered to address global warming pollution in Copenhagen, Denmark, hackers released a selective cache of emails stolen from the servers of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. Right-wing blogs and global warming deniers scanned through the thousands of messages, attempting to portray the scientists who sent them as conspirators that falsified data and suppressed dissent. Furthermore, they argued that the handful of scientists in the emails controlled the entire enterprise of climate research, throwing the decades of work by thousands of scientists into doubt.

Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor and vice president of Fox News, dictated to his reporters that the facts of climate change were just “notions,” because of the “debate” over the “Climategate” emails that Fox’s commentators were promoting. “Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data,” he wrote in the email, sent during the Copenhagen climate conference on December 8, 2009, “we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question”:

From: Sammon, Bill
To: 169 -SPECIAL REPORT; 036 -FOX.WHU; 054 -FNSunday; 030 -Root (FoxNews.Com); 050 -Senior Producers; 051 -Producers; 069 -Politics; 005 -Washington
Cc: Clemente, Michael; Stack, John; Wallace, Jay; Smith, Sean
Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009
Subject: Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data…

…we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

It is, of course, the place of journalists to sift fact from fiction. The assertion of a global scientific conspiracy to falsify the existence of a warming planet — particularly when the physical evidence of declining glaciers, changing seasons, intensifying weather disasters, and rising seas would be rather difficult to concoct — is a fantastic claim.

As Media Matters notes, Sammon sent the email 15 minutes after Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler performed his journalistic duties, debunking the Climategate conspiracy theory. Goler reported from Copenhagen that the World Meteorological Organization found the last decade is “expected to turn out to be the warmest decade on record.” When asked by anchor Jon Scott about the East Anglia temperature records, Goler responded that “the data also comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and from NASA. And scientists say the data of course across all three sources is pretty consistent.”

Watch it:

The evening after the memo was sent, Wendell Goler, anchor Bret Baier, and correspondent James Rosen all promoted the Climategate conspiracy theory to question global warming.

Wonk Room

Tagged with:
 

In 2005, the then-chairman of the House Energy Committee, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), a climate change skeptic, commissioned a report that would challenge the data in two major climate change papers, including the popular “hockey stick” theory. In 2006, the Barton-commissioned report was released and heralded by climate change skeptics the country over, laying the groundwork for last year’s “Climate-Gate” controversies.

Last week, experts hired by USA Today determined that the report was largely plagiarized.

At the time it was released, climate skeptics, most notably the Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee, touted it as proof that the climate was doing just fine, thank you. Edward Wegman, the George Mason University statistician who wrote the report, testified before the committee and made the cable news rounds.

“Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review,” Wegman and his co-authors wrote. “While the paleoclimate reconstruction has gathered much publicity because it reinforces a policy agenda, it does not provide insight and understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change… What is needed is deeper understanding of the physical mechanisms of climate change.”

GMU is conducting its own investigation of Wegman and his methods. Wegman maintains that the attacks against him are baseless. He did, however, admit to USA Today that he felt “some pressure” from Barton’s committee to work “faster than we might like.”

We should note that the basic premise of the report — that some climate-change data used in late-1990s reports was sloppy — has not been challenged. But, in the world of scientific papers that sway the course of public debate, plagiarism is a big deal.

The report aimed to refute, specifically, the “hockey stick” theory introduced by Michael Mann. Mann’s graphs showed the world’s temperature staying about the same for centuries before spiking with the Industrial Revolution.

Barton wanted to take Mann down. In preparation for hearing on climate change, Barton demanded Mann turn over all his raw data and software, as well as information on all his sources of funding.

Indeed, Wegman’s report — which apparently heavily plagiarized textbooks and Wikipedia — challenged the validity of Mann’s peer review by noting the connections between Mann and the fellow climatologists that reviewed his data, suggesting an untoward coziness.

Outside the committee, the report was seized on by other climate change skeptics, including the Wall Street Journal, which wrote an editorial bashing the idea that there was a consensus that global warming is real:

Mr. Wegman’s report was initially requested by the House Energy Committee because some lawmakers were concerned that major decisions about our economy could be made on the basis of the dubious research embodied in the hockey stick. Some of the more partisan scientists and journalists howled that this was an attempt at intimidation. But as Mr. Wegman’s paper shows, Congress was right to worry; his conclusions make “consensus” look more like group-think.

Wegman’s report’s reach was much further, however. Last year, skeptics again started hollering about a conspiracy to trick an unsuspecting public into believing in global warming. They called it Climate-Gate and alleged that a series of emails proved that leading climate scientists had conspired to suppress data that showed the world is doing A-OK.

One of the loudest of these skeptics is Ken Cuccinelli, the ultra-conservative attorney general of Virginia. Despite rebuffs from the courts, Cuccinelli has repeatedly tried to subpoena the University of Virginia, Mann’s former employer, in an effort to discredit Mann’s research. His latest attempt, filed in October, extensively quoted the Wegman report.

The Wegman report, Cuccinelli wrote, proved that Mann’s data is “poorly documented and archived.” Cuccinelli is trying to probe a $ 214,000 state grant Mann received for his research.

The Climate-Gate scientists, of which Mann, again, was one, have been cleared by several independent investigations.

The climate change debate, however, may be one of those things where evidence lacks the power to change minds. Barton, for example, stands by the Wegman report.









TPMMuckraker

Tagged with:
 

Powerline makes an interesting observation

The New York Times is participating in the dissemination of the stolen State Department cables that have been made available to it in one way or another via WikiLeaks. My friend Steve Hayward recalls that only last year the New York Times ostentatiously declined to publish or post any of the Climategate e-mails because they had been illegally obtained. Surely readers will recall Times reporter Andrew Revkin’s inspiring statement of principle: “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”

So, the NY Times would not publish the ClimateGate documents which would damage their pet pseudo religion/cult, but, will stand up and publish material acquired illegally that contains all manners of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, material that can do serious damage to American interests around the world. Even though some of the material can hurt Obama, I suppose in Liberal World, damaging the United States’ standing is more important.

And, consider, from Anthony Watts

The NYT published details in 2005 about US efforts to eavesdrop on Al Qaeda, and is publishing info from the stolen Wikileaks Iraq messages, but they they wouldn’t publish the ClimateGate emails.

Mr. Revkin, your selective bias, and the bias of your newspaper (and your Dot Earth Blog) is screaming loudly for all to hear.

Remember, all manner of Very Important People begged the Fish Wrap to not expose the “domestic wiretapping” (which was anything but) program, including high ranking elected Democrats. Nor was this the only secret operation the Times exposed. There was the terrorist finance tracking program, among others. Remember, Bill Keller, the Times’ public editor, wrote, regarding the decision to publish the finance story

It’s not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective,………

Yet, they seemed to pass judgment when deciding to not publish the climategate material. Of course, like I wrote, the NY Times could care less about damaging the United States, especially when Bush was president, the other is about protecting a fake issue that would provide more power to government and redistribute wealth.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. sit back and Relax. we’ll dRive!

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Stop The ACLU

Tagged with:
 

This week marks the one-year anniversary of what the anti-science crowd successfully labeled ‘Climategate’.  The media will be doing countless retrospectives, most of which will be wasted ink, like the Guardian’s piece — focusing on climate scientists at the expense of climate science, which is precisely the kind of miscoverage that has been going on for the whole year!

I’ll save that my media critiques for Part 2, since I think that Climategate’s biggest impact was probably on the media, continuing their downward trend of focusing on style over substance, of missing the story of the century, if not the millennia.

The last year or so has seen more scientific papers and presentations that raise the genuine prospect of catastrophe (if we stay on our current emissions path) that I can recall seeing in any other year.

Perhaps the media would have ignored that science anyway, but Climategate appears to be a key reason “less than 10 percent of the news articles written about last year’s climate summit in Copenhagen dealt primarily with the science of climate change, a study showed on Monday.”

But for those interested in the real climate science story of the past year, let’s review a couple dozen studies of the most important findings.  Any one of these would be cause for action — and combined they vindicate the final sentence of Elizabeth Kolbert’s  Field Notes from a Catastrophe:  “It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.”

1. Nature: “Global warming blamed for 40% decline in the ocean’s phytoplankton”:  “Microscopic life crucial to the marine food chain is dying out. The consequences could be catastrophic.”

If confirmed, it may represent the single most important finding of the year in climate science.  Seth Borenstein of the AP explains, “plant plankton found in the world’s oceans  are crucial to much of life on Earth. They are the foundation of the bountiful marine food web, produce half the world’s oxygen and suck up harmful carbon dioxide.” Boris Worm, a marine biologist and co-author of the study said, “We found that temperature had the best power to explain the changes.”  He noted, “If this holds up, something really serious is underway and has been underway for decades. I’ve been trying to think of a biological change that’s bigger than this and I can’t think of one.”

2.  Science: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting:  NSF issues world a wake-up call: “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.”

Methane release from the not-so-perma-frost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle. This research finds a key “lid” on “the large sub-sea permafrost carbon reservoir” near Eastern Siberia “is clearly perforated, and sedimentary CH4 [methane] is escaping to the atmosphere.”

The permafrost permamelt contains a staggering “1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere,” much of which would be released as methane.  Methane is  is 25 times as potent a heat-trapping gas as CO2 over a 100 year time horizon, but 72 times as potent over 20 years!

The carbon is locked in a freezer in the part of the planet warming up the fastest (see “Tundra 4: Permafrost loss linked to Arctic sea ice loss“).  Half the land-based permafrost would vanish by mid-century on our current emissions path (see “Tundra, Part 2: The point of no return” and below).  No climate model currently incorporates the amplifying feedback from methane released by a defrosting tundra.

The NSF is normally a very staid organization.  If they are worried, everybody should be.

It is increasingly clear that if the world strays significantly above 450 ppm atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide for any length of time, we will find it unimaginably difficult to stop short of 800 to 1000 ppm.

3.  Must-read NCAR analysis warns we risk multiple, devastating global droughts even on moderate emissions path.

Dust-Bowlification may be the impact of human-caused climate change that hits the most people by mid-century, as the figure below suggests (“a reading of -4 or below is considered extreme drought”):

drought map 3 2060-2069

The PDSI in the Great Plains during the Dust Bowl apparently spiked very briefly to -6, but otherwise rarely exceeded -3 for the decade (see here).  The National Center for Atmospheric Research notes “By the end of the century, many populated areas, including parts of the United States, could face readings in the range of -8 to -10, and much of the Mediterranean could fall to -15 to -20. Such readings would be almost unprecedented.”

4.   Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred and Geological Society: Acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown “by end of century” — Co-author: “Unless we curb carbon emissions we risk mass extinctions, degrading coastal waters and encouraging outbreaks of toxic jellyfish and algae.”

Marine life and all who depend on it, including humans are at grave risk from unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases.  This can’t be stopped with geo-engineering and there is no plausible strategy for undoing it.

Ocean acidification may well be the most under-reported of all the catastrophic climate impacts we are risking.

5.  Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100 [see figure] and these related findings and studies:

SLR PNAS pic

For more on SLR, see Coastal studies experts: “For coastal management purposes, a [sea level] rise of 7 feet (2 meters) should be utilized for planning major infrastructure”

6.  Royal Society: “There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.”

This is from a special issue of 16 articles in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (Biological Science), “Biological diversity in a changing world,”- which notes “Never before has a single species driven such profound changes to the habitats, composition and climate of the planet.”

7.  Science: Drought drives decade-long decline in plant growth

The NASA news release explains the importance of the work by researchers Maosheng Zhao and Steven Running,:

“These results are extraordinarily significant because they show that the global net effect of climatic warming on the productivity of terrestrial vegetation need not be positive — as was documented for the 1980’s and 1990’s,” said Diane Wickland, of NASA Headquarters and manager of NASA’s Terrestrial Ecology research program….

“This is a pretty serious warning that warmer temperatures are not going to endlessly improve plant growth,” Running said….

“The potential that future warming would cause additional declines does not bode well for the ability of the biosphere to support multiple societal demands for agricultural production, fiber needs, and increasingly, biofuel production,” Zhao said.

Precisely.

UPDATE:  A commenter notes that questions about the statistics used in this paper have been raised here. It does look to me like the authors should have put in more of a disclaimer about statistical uncertainty.  I viewed (and still view) the original results as credible because they’re consistent with the findings of the Global Carbon Project — see slide 26 here, which is based on this 2009 Nature Geoscience article.  See also Nature on stunning new climate feedback: Beetle tree kill releases more carbon than fires.” The bottom line is that this study joins others in raising the serious warning that, contrary to the popular view, a world of ever increasing carbon dioxide may not lead to increased vegetation and may in fact lead to a decreased land sink. That would be particularly true if the NCAR drought projection comes true.

8.  Nature review of 20 years of field studies finds soils emitting more CO2 as planet warms

A biogeochemist quoted by Nature explained that “perhaps [the] most likely explanation is that increasing temperatures have increased rates of decomposition of soil organic matter, which has increased the flow of CO2. If true, this is an important finding: that a positive feedback to climate change is already occurring at a detectable level in soils.”

Another major study in the February 2010 issue of the journal Ecology by Finnish researchers, “Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon fractions in boreal forest soil,” had a similar conclusion.  The Finnish Environment Institute, which led the study, explained the results in a release, “Soil contributes to climate warming more than expected”

9.   Global Warming: Future Temperatures Could Exceed Livable Limits, Researchers Find.

There were so many important climate science findings this year I didn’t get to write on all of them.  This one in particular was misunderstood:

Reasonable worst-case scenarios for global warming could lead to deadly temperatures for humans in coming centuries, according to research findings from Purdue University and the University of New South Wales, Australia.

The study notes that even a 12°F warming would be dangerous for many.  In fact, we could well see these deadly temperatures in the next century or century and a half over large parts of the globe on a very plausible emissions path.

10.  UK Met Office: Catastrophic climate change, 13-18°F over most of U.S. and 27°F in the Arctic, could happen in 50 years, but “we do have time to stop it if we cut greenhouse gas emissions soon.”

Right before Climategate broke, scientists were increasingly starting to realize that humanity might well ignore the increasingly strong evidence that we needed to take action.  They even held a conference on “4°C and beyond” just weeks before the scandal broke.  Some of the top climate modelers in the world finally did a “plausible worst case scenario,” as Dr Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre, put it in a terrific and terrifying talk (audio here, PPT here).

This is the “plausible worst case scenario” for 2060 from the UK Met Office that occurs in 10% of model runs of high emissions with the carbon cycle feedbacks [temperature in degrees Celsius, multiple by 1.8 for Fahrenheit]:

Graphic of chnage in temperature

As the Met Office notes here, “In some areas warming could be significantly higher (10 degrees [C = 15F] or more)”:

  • The Arctic could warm by up to 15.2 °C [27.4 °F] for a high-emissions scenario, enhanced by melting of snow and ice causing more of the Sun’s radiation to be absorbed.
  • For Africa, the western and southern regions are expected to experience both large warming (up to 10 °C [18 °F]) and drying.
  • Some land areas could warm by seven degrees [12.6 F] or more.
  • Rainfall could decrease by 20% or more in some areas, although there is a spread in the magnitude of drying. All computer models indicate reductions in rainfall over western and southern Africa, Central America, the Mediterranean and parts of coastal Australia.
  • In other areas, such as India, rainfall could increase by 20% or more. Higher rainfall increases the risk of river flooding.

In fact, though, this is ‘only’ the 5.4°C case, and if it doesn’t happen in the 2060s (which it probably won’t), it is merely the business as usual projection (!) for 2100 (see “M.I.T. doubles its 2095 warming projection to 10°F — with 866 ppm and Arctic warming of 20°F“).

CONCLUSION:  Unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases threaten multiple catastrophes, any one of which justifies action.  Together, they represent the gravest threat to humanity imaginable.  The fact that the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media ignored the overwhelming majority of these studies and devoted a large fraction of its climate ‘ink’ in the last 12 months to what was essentially a non-story is arguably the single greatest failing of the science media this year.

I didn’t have space here to report on the many studies that bolstered the case for our understanding that recent warming has been unequivocal and that humans are the primary cause.  But indeed the case is so strong that this year, even the normally staid U.S. National Academy of Sciences labeled as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

Must-read NCAR analysis warns we risk multiple, devastating global droughts even on moderate emissions path

Climate Progress

Tagged with:
 

In previously unreported remarks, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), the top candidate for the chairmanship of the House energy committee, questioned the science of man-made global warming and called for Congressional hearings to investigate climate scientists.  Brad Johnson has the story.

On January 14, 2010, Upton participated in a panel challenging the scientific consensus that fossil pollution is destabilizing the climate, arranged by Detroit News in conjunction with the 2010 North American International Auto Show. Moderated by global warming denier and right-wing radio host Frank Beckmann, “Are Green Auto Rules Based On Flawed Science?” also featured industry deniers Pat Michaels and Myron Ebell. When asked if “the emails from East Anglia University that seem to show a pattern of concealment at the least, deception at the extreme” should “affect climate policy here in the United States,” Upton claimed that there is “no real science” that supports climate policy and then called for Climategate hearings:

All of the steps Americans were going to take, businesses and individuals, the added costs that we were going to incur — Consumers Energy told us just because of cap-and-trade, energy costs would rise in Michigan by almost 40 percent by 2020. Are any of those incurred costs actually going to impact the rising temperature of debate? The answer was no. No matter what we did between now and 2050, it, it, there was no real science to verify that it would reduce the temperature rise that some predicted. And that’s why we do need hearings.

Watch it:

In fact, the threat of global warming pollution has been understood since the 1950s. The Environmental Protection Agency has found that the enactment of U.S. climate legislation would greatly impact rising temperatures, reducing the risk of warming by 2 C from 99 percent to 25 percent, and the risk of 4 C warming from 32 percent to practically zero. That is why the National Academies of Science recommended in May that the United States “act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Upton is just one of several top House Republicans who have called for a witch hunt against practicing climate scientists. After Upton’s remarks in January, the scientists have been repeatedly exonerated of the unfounded charges of conspiracy and corruption laid against them by the right wing. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), in line to take over the oversight committee, has repeatedly called for hearings, and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) hopes to use the global warming committee to investigate scientists. Upton’s challenger, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), also wants to launch McCarthyite show trials on climate science.

Upton enjoys a reputation as a “moderate on environmental issues,” but he has become as extreme as the rest of his Tea Party colleagues on global warming and other environmental rules.

The Wonk Room previously reported that Upton was “the only candidate to take over the House Committee on Energy and Commerce who doesn’t explicitly question the science of manmade global warming.” We regret the error.

- Brad Johnson, in a Wonk Room cross-post.

Climate Progress

Tagged with:
 

As first reported earlier today by the Wonk Room, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), the top candidate for the chairmanship of the House energy committee, has questioned the science of manmade global warming and called for congressional hearings to investigate climate scientists. On January 14, 2010, Upton participated in a panel challenging the scientific consensus that fossil pollution is destabilizing the climate, moderated by global warming denier and right-wing radio host Frank Beckmann and featuring industry deniers Pat Michaels and Myron Ebell. When asked if “the emails from East Anglia University that seem to show a pattern of concealment at the least, deception at the extreme,” should “affect climate policy here in the United States,” Upton claimed that there is “no real science” that supports climate policy and then called for Climategate hearings:

All of the steps Americans were going to take, businesses and individuals, the added costs that we were going to incur — Consumers Energy told us just because of cap-and-trade, energy costs would rise in Michigan by almost 40 percent by 2020. Are any of those incurred costs actually going to impact the rising temperature of debate? The answer was no. No matter what we did between now and 2050, it, it, there was no real science to verify that it would reduce the temperature rise that some predicted. And that’s why we do need hearings.

Watch it:

Upton enjoys a reputation as a “moderate on environmental issues,” but he has become as extreme on global warming and other environmental rules as the other contenders for the chairmanship of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce when Republicans take over the House of Representatives next year.

ThinkProgress

Tagged with:
 

In previously unreported remarks, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), the top candidate for the chairmanship of the House energy committee, questioned the science of manmade global warming and called for Congressional hearings to investigate climate scientists. On January 14, 2010, Upton participated in a panel challenging the scientific consensus that fossil pollution is destabilizing the climate, arranged by Detroit News in conjunction with the 2010 North American International Auto Show. Moderated by global warming denier and right-wing radio host Frank Beckmann, “Are Green Auto Rules Based On Flawed Science?” also featured industry deniers Pat Michaels and Myron Ebell. When asked if “the emails from East Anglia University that seem to show a pattern of concealment at the least, deception at the extreme” should “affect climate policy here in the United States,” Upton claimed that there is “no real science” that supports climate policy and then called for Climategate hearings:

All of the steps Americans were going to take, businesses and individuals, the added costs that we were going to incur — Consumers Energy told us just because of cap-and-trade, energy costs would rise in Michigan by almost 40 percent by 2020. Are any of those incurred costs actually going to impact the rising temperature of debate? The answer was no. No matter what we did between now and 2050, it, it, there was no real science to verify that it would reduce the temperature rise that some predicted. And that’s why we do need hearings.

Watch it:

In fact, the threat of global warming pollution has been understood since the 1950s. The Environmental Protection Agency has found that the enactment of U.S. climate legislation would greatly impact rising temperatures, reducing the risk of warming by 2 C from 99 percent to 25 percent, and the risk of 4 C warming from 32 percent to practically zero. That is why the National Academies of Science recommended in May that the United States “act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Upton is just one of several top House Republicans who have called for a witch hunt against practicing climate scientists. After Upton’s remarks in January, the scientists have been repeatedly exonerated of the unfounded charges of conspiracy and corruption laid against them by the right wing. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), in line to take over the oversight committee, has repeatedly called for hearings, and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) hopes to use the global warming committee to investigate scientists. Upton’s challenger, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), also wants to launch McCarthyite show trials on climate science.

Upton enjoys a reputation as a “moderate on environmental issues,” but he has become as extreme as the rest of his Tea Party colleagues on global warming and other environmental rules.

The Wonk Room previously reported that Upton was “the only candidate to take over the House Committee on Energy and Commerce who doesn’t explicitly question the science of manmade global warming.” We regret the error.

Wonk Room

Tagged with:
 

On Wednesday night the Competitive Enterprise Institute, through its outside counsel Gibson Dunn, filed its brief arguing against NASA’s rather scattershot and contradictory effort to dismiss our lawsuit requesting certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

MG_0126

Our suit, CEI vs. NASA (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), followed on the heels of ClimateGate, and a December 2009 Notice of Intent to Sue if NASA did not turn over certain records withheld since CEI sought them in August 2007 and January 2008 requests. That Notice was eleven months ago and, despite NASA offering some documents and admitting — temporarily — that certain others relating to the advocacy site used by NASA scientists, RealClimate.org were “agency records”, NASA then ceased its brief steps to comply with the transparency statute FOIA.

Despite NASA stonewalling CEI has already learned, for example, that NASA does not, contrary to widespread media and pressure group claims, have an independent temperature data set. Instead, as NASA told USA Today in an email, despite its serial, breathless press releases trumpeting some new temperature high, it actually is just a modeling office, which also (for unknown reasons, possibly extra attention and importance, or mere advocacy)  cobbles together some US data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) with that of the Climatic Research Unit’s temperature history. You may recall how CRU withdrew its claim to a temperature history data set after ClimateGate led to an admission it actually lost its data.

Specifically, CEI’s FOIA suit seeks documents and emails relating to NASA’s temperature record, which NASA was forced to correct in response to criticism from a leading climate watchdog, Steve McIntyre.  Those corrections destroyed NASA’s stance that U.S. temperatures have been steadily rising in recent years and returned 1934, not 1998, to being the warmest year on record. NASA refuses to give CEI the computer file they used to make these changes, whose title includes “Steve” and “alternate cleaning.”

CEI also seeks emails from NASA scientists using Real Climate.org on official time using official resources, often to advance what NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (its climate activist office) has decided is appropriate public advocacy.

In addition to uncovering the “Steve”/”cleaning” file, a few of the more interesting pieces of evidence expounded upon in CEI’s brief include:

* After CEI filed the FOIA seeking RealClimate emails, administrators at Real Climate deleted all timestamps on all of their postings, making it impossible to show they were made during work hours.  But we kept color copies of the original posts.

* NASA admits that it discovered 3,500 emails on Dr. Schmidt’s NASA computer related to his work on RealClimate but won’t produce them.

* NASA did not ask Dr. Schmidt to look for responsive records until 22 months after we sent them the FOIA and threatened to sue.  It is highly likely relevant emails were destroyed during this period.

* NASA’s delay in responding to CEI’s FOIA requests was extraordinary, far outside its normal or even most egregious examples of delay or non-compliance. For instance:

o   NASA took more than 900 days to produce documents pursuant to CEI’s two 2007 requests.  The agency took more than 700 days to produce records in response to CEI’s 2008 request.  NASA does not explain these delays. FOIA requires that an agency produce responsive records within 20 days. Although agencies rarely meet that deadline, even for “complex” FOIA requests, NASA’s average processing time is under 100 days. In 2008, NASA processed complex requests in 82 days, on average. In 2009, it processed such requests in 89 days, on average.

o   Prompted by congressional inquiries, the NASA Inspector General investigated the delay associated with these FOIA Requests. The Inspector General determined that the delays were caused by “inadequate direction” as to what documents were requested; “inadequate communication between NASA personnel; and “inadequate staffing” at the Goddard FOIA office.  In reality, one of the primary reasons for the delay was that NASA did not inform GISS officials about one of the requests and inexplicably held documents for years instead of producing them on a rolling basis, as requested.

We should argue this within the month. CEI requests the court allow it to proceed to the discovery stage next, examining records and deposing relevant witnesses.


Big Government

Tagged with:
 

After ACORN’s demise, you might have thought that if if the GOP takes the House and Rep. Darrell Issa becomes the new chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the California Republican would have better things to worry about. You’d be wrong.

Last week, Issa issued a blueprint for his agenda titled “A Constitutional Obligation: Congressional Oversight of the Executive Branch.” Among the issues he chastised the Democratic leadership for not addressing: the fraud he says was committed by the community organizing group ACORN.

A spokesman for Issa said that ACORN had already been addressed in a bipartisan way in Congress, but left open the possibility that Issa could address the “other entities that ACORN morphed into.” The Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development addressed such a group in a report issued at Issa’s request last week.

Some media coverage has indicated that Issa plans to go subpoena crazy. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) even said that Issa would be “issuing subpoenas everywhere” which he said “will define the next two years of the president’s administration. The White House will be full-time responding to subpoenas about where the president may or may not have been born, whether his mother and father were ever married, and whether his wife’s family is from Georgetown or Sampit.”

But according to spokesman Kurt Bardella, that’s not true.

“Despite what some Democrats say - the notion that we’re prepared to embark on an epic subpoena-led politically-motivated investigatory effort is just wrong and nothing Issa has said even hints at that,” Bardella told TPMMuckraker in an e-mail.

Bardella specifically criticized Clyburn, who he said lied that Issa would make President Obama’s birthplace a topic for the committee.

“Where he got that impression is beyond me, maybe it was from a sock-puppet but Darrell has NEVER even hinted that that was something he was interested in — it’s not — it’s a moot issue as Congress voted without any opposing vote on language that recognized that the President was born in Hawaii,” Bardella said. “That’s a legally binding resolution. How could he investigate something he acknowledged wasn’t an issue - he voted for the resolution.”

Issues Issa would address range from the more serious — like giving Inspector Generals subpoena power — to what critics say are the less-so-serious issues, like investigating the “Climate-Gate” controversy.

Bardella emphasized that issues like the FDA’s effectiveness (“especially in light of the salmonella outbreak and the Johnson & Johnson recalls”), Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s roles in the sub-prime crisis, health care reform (“Not repealing it, that’s not our job or jurisdiction but rather the implementation of it”), data transparency and postal reform would all be on the docket if Issa were in control of the committee.

“The unparalleled encroachment of the federal government in the private sector and the lives of individual Americans that began during the Bush Administration and continues in the Obama Administration… has led to concerns of an oncoming tsunami of opacity, waste, fraud, and abuse,” Issa’s report says. “This trend must be met by vigorous Congressional oversight of the massive federal bureaucracy.”

“A Constitutional Obligation: Congressional Oversight of the Executive Branch” is embedded below.

Committee Oversight Gov Reform Doc









Darrell Issa - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform - Republican - United States - White House


TPMMuckraker

Tagged with:
 

After ACORN’s demise, you might have thought that if if the GOP takes the House and Rep. Darrell Issa becomes the new chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the California Republican would have better things to worry about. You’d be wrong.

Last week, Issa issued a blueprint for his agenda titled “A Constitutional Obligation: Congressional Oversight of the Executive Branch.” Among the issues he chastised the Democratic leadership for not addressing: the fraud he says was committed by the community organizing group ACORN.

A spokesman for Issa said that ACORN had already been addressed in a bipartisan way in Congress, but left open the possibility that Issa could address the “other entities that ACORN morphed into.” The Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development addressed such a group in a report issued at Issa’s request last week.

Some media coverage has indicated that Issa plans to go subpoena crazy. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) even said that Issa would be “issuing subpoenas everywhere” which he said “will define the next two years of the president’s administration. The White House will be full-time responding to subpoenas about where the president may or may not have been born, whether his mother and father were ever married, and whether his wife’s family is from Georgetown or Sampit.”

But according to spokesman Kurt Bardella, that’s not true.

“Despite what some Democrats say - the notion that we’re prepared to embark on an epic subpoena-led politically-motivated investigatory effort is just wrong and nothing Issa has said even hints at that,” Bardella told TPMMuckraker in an e-mail.

Bardella specifically criticized Clyburn, who he said lied that Issa would make President Obama’s birthplace a topic for the committee.

“Where he got that impression is beyond me, maybe it was from a sock-puppet but Darrell has NEVER even hinted that that was something he was interested in — it’s not — it’s a moot issue as Congress voted without any opposing vote on language that recognized that the President was born in Hawaii,” Bardella said. “That’s a legally binding resolution. How could he investigate something he acknowledged wasn’t an issue - he voted for the resolution.”

Issues Issa would address range from the more serious — like giving Inspector Generals subpoena power — to what critics say are the less-so-serious issues, like investigating the “Climate-Gate” controversy.

Bardella emphasized that issues like the FDA’s effectiveness (“especially in light of the salmonella outbreak and the Johnson & Johnson recalls”), Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s roles in the sub-prime crisis, health care reform (“Not repealing it, that’s not our job or jurisdiction but rather the implementation of it”), data transparency and postal reform would all be on the docket if Issa were in control of the committee.

“The unparalleled encroachment of the federal government in the private sector and the lives of individual Americans that began during the Bush Administration and continues in the Obama Administration… has led to concerns of an oncoming tsunami of opacity, waste, fraud, and abuse,” Issa’s report says. “This trend must be met by vigorous Congressional oversight of the massive federal bureaucracy.”

“A Constitutional Obligation: Congressional Oversight of the Executive Branch” is embedded below.

Committee Oversight Gov Reform Doc









Darrell Issa - United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform - Republican - United States - White House


TPMMuckraker

Tagged with:
 

A judge in Virginia has set aside Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s subpoena of University of Virgina documents relating to research by Michael Mann, a former professor who was involved in the “Climate-Gate” controversy last year.

Cuccinelli, a climate change skeptic, said he was investigating whether Mann had committed fraud when obtaining government funds for research into human-caused climate change, but Albemarle County Circuit Court Judge Paul M. Peatross Jr. ruled that “it is not clear what [Mann] did was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia.”

Peatross determined that Cuccinelli could still investigate the fraud, but since his subpoena did not state a “reason to believe” fraud had been committed, he could not have access to the documents.

According to The Washington Post:

Peatross set the subpoena aside without prejudice, meaning Cuccinelli could give the subpoena another try by rewriting the civil demand to better explain the conduct he wishes to investigate.

The judge also determined that Cuccinelli can only investigate one of the five grants awarded to Mann, since only one had been awarded by the state of Virginia. The others were federal grants.

Mann, who now works at Penn State University, left UVA in 2005. As TPM previously reported, Mann was one of several climate change researchers who were connected to the “Climate-Gate” emails that “showed some scientists discussing ways to keep views skeptical of global warming out of peer-reviewed journals, among other things.”

Three major UK investigations have since exonerated the “Climate-Gate” scientists of any wrongdoing. Mann himself was additionally let off the hook after an investigation by his employer, Penn State.

Cuccinelli’s probe had been denounced by climate change believers and skeptics alike as a “witch hunt” and a threat to academic freedom.

Mann himself said in a statement that the Judge’s ruling is “a victory not just for me and the university, but for all scientists who live in fear that they may be subject to a politically-motivated witch hunt when their research findings prove inconvenient to powerful vested interests.”












Ken Cuccinelli - Michael Mann - Michael E. Mann - Climate change - Attorney general


TPMMuckraker

Tagged with:
 

No matter what happens, even surrounding his personal life or his pet cause global warming, former Vice President Al Gore just isn’t going away.

During an Aug. 10 conference call, Gore launched into a critique of the media’s recent coverage of ClimateGate, specifically blogs, talk radio and "biased right-wing media."

"Well I believe Mark Twain often gets the credit for the saying … that a lie runs around the world before the truth gets its boots on," Gore said. "Now I’m not sure that’s the real reason for it, but there is a sad but undeniable truth that those who wanted to try sewing confusion used an echo chamber from blogs and talk show hosts and biased right-wing media to promulgate the distortions of the paid skeptics and professional deniers who tried to undermine the evidence."

Gore, who earlier during the call said he all but given up on cap-and-trade legislation being passed this Congress (audio here), alluded to a handful of "formal inquiries" that he argued cleared the science of any doubt that may have been caused by the leaked e-mails from ClimateGate, despite the questionable circumstances surrounding these inquiries.

"There have been of course multiple, formal inquiries, all of which have dispelled the falsehoods that go under the title of ‘ClimateGate,’" Gore continued. "The three separate inquiries conducted not only cleared the scientists and the organizations involved, but strongly reaffirmed the basic assertions that they have been making."

But this time the former vice president named names. He went after The Wall Street Journal for its coverage of ClimateGate, even though the daily newspaper was one of the few outlets covering the scandal with much vigor.

"I’ll give you one example - The Wall Street Journal wrote upwards of 30 editorials and news stories during the time about the story of the University of East Anglia broke and not a single one of them presented the side of the science. There are many other examples as you know."

In recent months, Gore has had his own public relations problem with media coverage surrounding his personal life, including a divorce and allegations sexual misconduct, which he was later cleared of by Portland, Ore. authorities. But to combat the media, which he alleges has been working against him on global warming, he urged his supporters to send letters to the editor, demand equal time and write op-eds.

"It is our responsibility to demand that reporters, editors and all journalists report the truth," he said. "It is only through consistent and constant pressure from us demanding equal time in local and national media that we will get the truth out. And that is why it’s so critical to write letters to the editor, to post comments online, to draft and write op-eds that share your point of view and use the facts and spread them far and wide. Only when the media hear from enough of us will they change their habits and print the truth about these scientific facts."

A 2008 Business & Media Institute study disputes the idea that Gore’s cause of climate change alarmism has faced an uphill battle as far public relations goes. Over the years, it showed the alarmists have outnumbered the skeptics in airtime, a trend that has been occurring over the years.

NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Tagged with: