The Skeptic Scam Deciphering Disinformation in the Campaign of Climate Change

Alan Journet, ajournet@semo.edu
Conservation Chair, Trail of Tears Group
Also:
Department of Biology & Environmental Science Program
Southeast Missouri State University

NOTE: In order to avoid potential copyright infringement, it has been decided not to publish a series of graphs that illustrate the arguments presented here. For readers wishing to view the images, documentation and URLs (where available) of sources are provided. Follow the numbered endnotes for this documentation.

During the last four decades, a scientific consensus developed about the health consequences of consuming tobacco products and the atmospheric consequences of continuing to release human-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Despite campaigns of disinformation orchestrated by those with economic or political interests and commitments to denying the scientific evidence, public acceptance of the scientific consensus led to national / international action. In the case of tobacco, we now see warnings on tobacco products while in the case of CFCs, the Montreal Protocol of 1987 resulted in global efforts to reduce CFC use and release. As a result recent health reports suggest on the one hand that cancer rates are dropping, and on the other hand that the size of the ozone hole caused by CFCs appears to have stabilized - with recovery this century a possibility (if climate change does not intervene to undo the gains made).

The same campaign of disinformation that for years delayed our addressing the tobacco human health and CFC environmental health problems has been launched against the current scientific consensus regarding climate change. In some cases, this disinformation campaign is being waged by the same individuals employing similar tactics.

When we are diagnosed with a serious health condition demanding immediate medical treatment, our inclination is first - and reasonably – to seek a second and maybe third expert opinion. We recognize that in medicine there is no certainty, and no guarantees - but prudence suggests treatment - the cost of doing nothing is probably greater than the cost of undergoing treatment. So it is with climate change.

The scientific consensus on climate change is identified in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The existence of climate change, the IPCC concludes, is unequivocal. The IPCC also concludes that there is a 90% or greater probability that human activities are contributing.

However, despite repeated scientific findings endorsing the conclusion that climate change is occurring, and that human activities are probably - at least in significant part - responsible, there remain a small, vocal, and well-financed band of deniers. These Climate Change Skeptics, however, are in disarray; they seemingly cannot collectively decide what they accept and what they challenge. Many - as will become evident - cling blindly to conclusions drawn from data of many years vintage, either evidence that has been superseded by more compelling data collected and analyzed during the last five years or updated analyses of and corrections to earlier data.
While the evidence of climate change mounts, those promoting the campaign of denial have become shriller and more extreme in their claims. Jerry Adler noted (Newsweek, April 16 2007): “Global warming deniers have mostly been forced to concede that the Earth is really warming and that industrial pollution is at least partly to blame. They are now reduced to arguing that it may actually be good for you, or that the cost of reducing carbon dioxide pollution will be enormous, and fall most heavily on the developing world - without acknowledging that those are actually the very nations that will bear the greatest burden of drought, disease and famine as the climate changes”. While this is the position adopted by some skeptics, others seem to dwell in a world at least ten years old, as if none of the data gathered in this century exist.

The skeptics’ disinformation campaign consists largely of challenging the scientific consensus by promoting the doubts expressed by a small number of individuals. Among the skeptics only a few are scientists -some even in relevant fields - but many are not even scientists. In order to understand and combat this disinformation campaign, it is worth exploring what the so-called climate change skeptics argue. In this two-part series, I will explore the leading curiosities and myths emanating from the skeptics’ camp.

I. A Paradox of Skeptical Climate Scientists:
Dr. Richard Lindzen, a Meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has testified as a critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) analyses concerning the dangers facing us as a result of climate change. Yet Lindzen himself was a co-author of the 2001 National Academy of Sciences National Research Council report evaluating the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) which concluded: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities.” In relation to the precise cause, this report endorsed the IPCC evaluation that among the gases carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons, released by human activities, the greatest climate forcing is due to the carbon dioxide. The report also acknowledged a temperature increase during the 20th century of between 0.40C and 0.80C (0.70F - 1.50F).

This Lindzen co-authored review also concluded that: “The full IPCC Working Group I report is an admirable summary of research activities in climate science, and the full report is adequately summarized in the Technical Summary.” In short, in his 2001 scientific judgment Lindzen endorsed the IPCC evaluation of climate science evidence. It is somewhat paradoxical, then, that Lindzen now, as the evidence regarding climate change and its human causes has grown more conclusive, now argues that the IPCC is inaccurate in its assessment.

Another player in the skeptic game is Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama (Huntsville). He is a noted researcher in the arena of upper atmospheric temperatures. In the early 1990s Christy published data that challenged the expectation from climate change theory that the temperature of the upper troposphere (some 10 -15 km above us) should be increasing. Christy’s data have since been re-examined and adjusted - not once but many times - as our understanding of the techniques employed improves. Indeed, Christy himself co-authored a paper in 2006 that stated in part: “…current upper air climate records give reliable indications of directions of change (e.g. warming of the troposphere, cooling of the stratosphere). Despite the fact that the apparent discrepancies reported 15 years ago have been negated, the skeptics continue to employ the discredited earlier reports to justify the claim that upper tropospheric temperature patterns challenge global warming theory.

Somewhat surprisingly, Christy recently appeared in a favorite vehicle of the skeptics. In the 2007 British Channel 4 ‘documentary’ entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle” Christy argued the line suggested by his 1990s data as though the corrections had never been performed and accepted by him.

Thus both Lindzen and Christy are examples of scientists who appear willing to use old and poorly interpreted data to encourage skepticism on global warming trends.

But even they are a outdone by skeptics such as novelist Michael Crichton (2004”A State of Fear”, whose credentials as a science fiction writer rather than scientist have not kept him from weighing in forcefully with misinformation on global warming. Amongst other criticisms, Crichton has claimed there simply is no global warming trend.

II. There Is No Warming:
Crichton has claimed that only long term temperature data from the U.S. are reliable - and these don’t show any warming. But the NASA data that Crichton used to make his case ended in the early 1990s and were already outdated when his novel appeared [1] While these old data suggest, as Crichton claimed, that 1934 was the warmest year, if we look at current data including years past 1990 [2] it is evident that the U.S. climate change is entirely consistent with the global pattern of warming. The years 1990 to the present have included many warmer years. Those who argue that the U. S. data do not support the claim of global warming are displaying either ignorance or a lack of intellectual honesty.

III. It’s all driven by Solar Radiation Anyway:
In ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ Martin Durkin argued that solar activity is the cause for recent climate fluctuations (called ‘the temperature anomaly’), and argument repeated by many skeptics. But data he utilized to depict that relationship terminated in about 1975 [3]. However, the corrected updated solar activity - temperature relationship holds only through the early 1900s [4] - not even to the year 1970 as Durkin portrayed it using incorrect 1991 data. During the second half of the last century the temperature anomaly exhibits a marked departure from solar activity. Again, the skeptics’ claim is based on outdated and uncorrected data.

It should be noted, however, that solar activity is not dismissed by climate scientists. Indeed, it has been implicated in many climatic fluctuations in the historic and geologic past. The onset of glaciations of the last millennium may well be a consequence of solar patterns.

IV. Post WWII Cooling Falsifies the Climate Change Theory
The standard depiction of the carbon dioxide temperature relationship shows temperature increasing along with increases in carbon dioxide starting with 1880 [5]. But the immediate post WWII period shows a break in that relationship in that carbon dioxide increases while temperatures do not [6]. Skeptics argue that this means carbon dioxide cannot be influencing temperature. But criticism of climate change theory, exaggerating the post-war temperature decrease (as depicted the ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ [7]), is founded on the false claim that carbon dioxide is argued by climate change theorists to be the only cause for climate change.

A review of the IPCC 2007 report clearly shows that it is generally accepted among climate change theorists that many factors conspire to influence global temperatures [8]. Many factors have positive impacts on temperature, such as halocarbons, tropospheric ozone, water vapor and solar radiation. Meanwhile negative impacts are exerted by albedo (clouds) and aerosols. It is well know that following WWII there was an increase in human made aerosols in the atmosphere - sufficient to negate the impact of increasing carbon dioxide. The post-war discrepancy has been adequately explained – but this explanation is simply ignored by the skeptics who continue to make the simple minded and deceptive claim that - according to climate change theory- only carbon dioxide influences global temperature.

In summary, the global warming skeptics described above have used various techniques to distract the public and lawmakers from reliable and comprehensive information regarding climate change. They have selected the data to consider, leaving out available data that do not support their point of view. They have tried to divert attention to factors, such as solar radiation, that have already been accounted for in current assessments. Finally they have distorted and simplified the climate change argument so as artificially to narrow issues under consideration. Although these skeptics still try to make their case, overwhelming evidence, such as that recently summarized by the IPCC, is finally receiving the attention from lawmakers and the public that it deserves.

Endnotes: