I’ve been very critical of statements made by Dr. Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. It seems that I’m not the only one critical of his statements to the press. – Anthony
Excerpts from The Times, UK story:
Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions, scientists warn
Mark Henderson, Science Editor
Exaggerated and inaccurate claims about the threat from global warming risk undermining efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and contain climate change, senior scientists have told The Times.
Environmental lobbyists, politicians, researchers and journalists who distort climate science to support an agenda erode public understanding and play into the hands of sceptics, according to experts including a former government chief scientist.
Excessive statements about the decline of Arctic sea ice, severe weather events and the probability of extreme warming in the next century detract from the credibility of robust findings about climate change, they said.
Such claims can easily be rebutted by critics of global warming science to cast doubt on the whole field. They also confuse the public about what has been established as fact, and what is conjecture.
The experts all believe that global warming is a real phenomenon with serious consequences, and that action to curb emissions is urgently needed.
They fear, however, that the contribution of natural climate variations towards events such as storms, melting ice and heatwaves is too often overlooked, and that possible scenarios about future warming are misleadingly presented as fact.
…
“When people overstate happenings that aren’t necessarily climate change-related, or set up as almost certainties things that are difficult to establish scientifically, it distracts from the science we do understand. The danger is they can be accused of scaremongering. Also, we can all become described as kind of left-wing greens.”
Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “It isn’t helpful to anybody to exaggerate the situation. It’s scary enough as it is.”
She was particularly critical of claims made by scientists and environmental groups two years ago, when observations showed that Arctic sea ice had declined to the lowest extent on record, 39 per cent below the average between 1979 and 2001. This led Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, to say that Arctic ice was “in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return”.
Dr Pope said that while climate change was a factor, normal variations also played a part, and it was always likely that ice would recover a little in subsequent years, as had happened. It was the long-term downward trend that mattered, rather than the figures for any one year, she added.
“The problem with saying that we’ve reached a tipping point is that when the extent starts to increase again — as it has — the sceptics will come along and say, ‘Well, it’s stopped’,” she said. “This is why it’s important we’re as objective as we can be, and use all the available evidence to make clear what’s actually happening, because neither of those claims is right.”
…
“In 1998, people thought the world was going to end, temperatures were going up so much,” Dr Pope said. “People pick up whatever makes their argument, but this works both ways. It’s the long-term trend that counts, which is continuing and inexorable.”
Read the entire article here at The Times
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“It’s the long-term trend that counts, which is continuing and inexorable.” “ Dr.Pope
Huh? ! Who knows if the long-term trend is continuing if the PRESENT is DOWN?
Can I be a scientist too?
Anthony,
Just like the Wall Street Journal Article this article is an attempt to deflect from the problems caused by the cooling trend we’re in at the moment and the alarmist reporting in the media without compromising the original targets for CO2 emission control in any way. I fact, the lies and the deceit continue:
Just look at this quote:
“The experts all believe that global warming is a real phenomenon with serious consequences, and that action to curb emissions is urgently needed”.
Thanks to this quote I have filed the article under the letter G = Garbage.
Never mind all the thrashing about.
What we all want to see is proper evidence as to the extent to which the absorption characteristics of a specific amount of extra CO2 actually have an effect on global temperatures as compared to the effects of natural variability.
All the real world evidence is that the effects are unmeasurable at present and I and others have suggested natural feedback mechanisms which suggest that the effect could be zero.
Unless the warmists can properly counter that evidence and those possible mechanisms would they please withdraw to their labs until they have something useful to say and stop trying to terrorise our politicians, our children and the global population at large.
And now, we have the University of Manitoba telling us that “Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone”. *Sigh*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091029/sc_nm/us_climate_canada_arctic_1
Even in this artical they are still exagerating. Arctic sea ice has not recovered a little. It has dramaticaly increased at the fastest rate in recorded history!
“Play into the hands of skeptics”?!
It confirms the reasonable and rational criticism from the skeptics.
And if “It’s the long-term trend that counts,” then let’s include the long-term in the discussion. In doing so (at least to include the past 1000 years) it becomes clear that the recent warming trend is unremarkable in the context of the historical climate in the Common Era portion of the Late Holocene. The recent warming is even less remarkable if one includes the entire Late Holocene Interglacial. To be fair, the same is true for the recent decadal cooling—unremarkable.
What’s pathetic is that all of the scaremongering (An Inconvenient Truth, anyone?) was just fine as long as it looked like it was driving a friendly political resolution.
But now that some of the brighter warmists are starting to realize that they’re just shooting themselves in the foot, it’s “hold on! We know that story was way overhyped, don’t blame us it was those other guys that did it!!!”
They’re just trying to figure out a way to regain the trust they forfeited with their lies. Too late.
Back2Bat
Can I be a scientist too?
Of course you can but please leave your brain by the door as you come in as we don’t want any thought going on inside the room.
“Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “It isn’t helpful to anybody to exaggerate the situation. It’s scary enough as it is.””
Last year Vicky Pope had an article with this headline…
“Met Office warn of ‘catastrophic’ rise in temperature” (December 19, 2008)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5371682.ece
…she went on to say… “Only an early and rapid decline in emissions gets anywhere near to the 50 per cent reduction in emissions needed by 2050 to avoid large increases in temperature as recommended in the latest IPCC report.”
Since this is supposedly a ‘Global’ issue how are they gonna get China and India to rapidly reduce emissions? Here is a nice image of Northern China only two days ago!
http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/individual.php?db_date=2009-10-28
Pope not immaculate. Headline should read:
Pot Calls Kettle Black in Alarmist Infight
wws ‘s post reminds me of a Mark Twain quote:
” Tell the truth once and nobody will ever believe you again no matter how much you lie.”
Roger Pielke Jr’s Blog has an excellent take on this article too.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/problem-with-exaggerated-and-inaccurate.html
Read the comments 🙂
The Winnipeg Free Press reported this morning that shipping out of the Port of Churchill on the shore of Hudson Bay was not possible until August 12 because of late ice breakup. It’s the latest opening date on record.
“Watts up” with that picture of the ice caps? Isn’t it pretty clear that’s a doctored photo? There’s a six-year gap and everything is identical, except a huge gaping mass of ice gone and some more ice broken up a little? No other shoreline has changed even slightly… that’s GOT to be fake. I’d love to see a higher-res image but can’t seem to find one.
“The experts all believe that global warming is a real phenomenon with serious consequences, and that action to curb emissions is urgently needed”
Hmmm. Yes. The actual subtext of the article –
‘Scientists and politicians are trying to put together a just slightly credible scare campaign but moronic journos (like this one :-o) and loose cannon NGO’s keep stuffing up their sound bites and making all warmists look stupid”
Now the fear mongerers are accusing each other of fear mongering.
Eco terrorists each calling each other out for propaganda. Instead of presenting evidence and evidentiary proof of their great scare they spin out of control.
They can all walk the plank, the tossers, at least one part of the environment would be looked after. Sharks have to eat too.
Personally I have no problem with responsible enviromentalism, but first do no harm. But these fools have wated billions and billions in fraud and terrorism, and it’s been fear mongering.
Only 15 comments in this post. It seems this should have been a hot post with many comments. But Mockton stole the show today!
Did Vicky Pope say “It isn’t helpful to anybody to exaggerate the situation.”
Dr Pope in full swing here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyDmdcPw7Uw
By 2014, she predicts 0.3 dC warmer than 2004. Helpfully, she puts that in the context of only 0.7 dC (globally) over the last century.
And to leave you in no doubt, half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be warmer than the “previous record” of 2008. “Very strong statements” indeed Dr Pope!
I womder of Dr Pope is having a “Nick Griffin moment” – where moderate comments today are haunted by past expressions of extreme opinion caught on camera.
Gene Nemetz (18:24:15) :
Only 15 comments in this post. It seems this should have been a hot post with many comments. But Mockton stole the show today!
Or maybe they are just wearing us down. How long can one keep responding to nonsense?
wws — They’re just trying to figure out a way to regain the trust they forfeited with their lies. Too late.
No. They are trying to stifle opposition, and they’re doing so effectively.
By treating short term cooling as no big deal i.e. “hey we sorta figured this would happen” they can then paint anyone who points to said cooling as foolish, unscientific, and so on.
We who follow this stuff day to day are not fooled in the least, but then again we aren’t the ones a press release like this is aimed at. Its purpose is to plant a seed.
George Orwell would crap if he were alive to see this.
“But now that some of the brighter warmists are starting to realize that they’re just shooting themselves in the foot, it’s “hold on! We know that story was way overhyped, don’t blame us it was those other guys that did it!!!”
“They’re just trying to figure out a way to regain the trust they forfeited with their lies. Too late.”
Did Ms. Pope speak out in 2007 against the alarmism? If not, then she was free-riding on it and is implicitly associated with it.
“(…) erode public understanding and play into the hands of sceptics (…)”
Y’see, we have to keep the debate polarised at all costs… using the time-honoured pseudo-neutral-“balanced” “experts-believe” spokesperson tactic.
Vicky Pope said, exaggerating the situation: “It isn’t helpful to anybody to exaggerate the situation. It’s scary enough as it is.”
The Bard said: ..what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. The tangled web woven by the Warmistas who openly stated that they intended to deceive the public about “global warming” because the people of Earth were unutterably stupid, is now about to destroy the AGW movement. Lying is always a bad tactic.
Sorry, Ms Pope, you are in the camp of the liars and there ain’t no bus headed your way.
Perhaps the real problem is that scientists have become mostly technologists and have little understanding of non-scientific matters. The human condition is not reducible to numbers.
Back2Bat (16:09:35) : “Can I be a scientist too?”
Sure! And for an extra 75¢, you can have a Nobel Prize!
“etract from the credibility of robust findings…”
Is anyone else tired of that word yet? Robust! Robust! Robust!!! Jeez. It’s almost like I can immediately label something as total BS as soon as I see that word.