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.
<cite"The experts all believe that global warming is a real phenomenon with serious consequences, and that action to curb emissions is urgently needed."
Notice this quote from the article….violating the VERY thing the authors are trying to caution against: EXAGGERATION.
NEW FLASH: The “experts” don’t “all believe”. To say they all do is an egregious exaggeration.
DUH! How stupid do these paper editors think we are??
This article has a good point…but is ultimately nonsense….because no matter how one dresses up or tries to prop up junk science…it is still just putting the proverbial lipstick on the proverbial fat pig!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Exaggerated and inaccurate claims about the threat from global warming risk undermining efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions…”
Forkin’ Idjits. If the exaggerated claims aren’t real, there’s no need to curb CO2 emissions.
The watermelons are now trying to go from Global Warming to Climate Change to simply rationalizing for the eco-lemmings that “going green” must be imposed, even if there isn’t catastrophic (or any) climactic justification.
Please note that the current promotion of “green” everything no longer bothers to even include a mention of Global Climate Sea Level Polar Bear Death doom; modernity is the de facto demon.
“…climactic justification.”
Oops, that should be “climatic justification”, but I kinda like my own typo here 🙂
So the process of distancing has begun. I’ve often wondered what form the return of sanity would take. First those trying to regain their professional dignity will say ‘the extremists have overstated the case’. Then it’ll be, ‘climate has always varied and there’s really nothing to be alarmed about’. And finally we should expect to hear they were skeptics all along.
Two weeks ago live on BBC news Dr Pope didn’t even acknowledge that the summer ice extent had increased.
Looks like a lot of back peddling here 🙂
“”use all the available evidence to make clear what’s actually happening””
I am still waiting for published evidence on how CO2 gas in the atmosphere can cause this “tipping point”. Link anyone?
“JohnD (21:22:18) :
Forkin’ Idjits. If the exaggerated claims aren’t real, there’s no need to curb CO2 emissions.”
Correct. However, there are parties interested in controlling energy (Even if it isn’t from burning fossil fuels). Control that, you control everything.
I agree with Sarah. Looks like a f****d photo.
“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.”
Well, Dr Pope seems to have made her mind up! LOL – so much for evidence and objectivity!
You have to check this one out.
“The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years,” he warned.
If the North Pole were to melt it could increase sea levels by 67 metres, Gore said, speaking in the heart of an oil-rich region not known for its regard for the environment.”
http://business.maktoob.com/20090000389134/Gore_beats_climate_change_drum_in_Dubai/Article.htm
With regard to Jordan’s comment above and the link to the youtube video: Anthony, is there space on this site for a section where we can permanently group all the statements made for the immediate future, just like Pope’s? We could add Serreze’s too, and others like Gore’s. The section would only have to contain the link to the video or, in the case of a statement, the wording itself. What do you think?
Sara (17:33:03) :
“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.
Good eyes. I believe those (probably) photoshopped images were the subject of a discussion here on WUWT a while back. Other than removing some ice, the outlines of the remaining ice are unchanged and, to top it off, snow cover patterns on land are the same.
Playing into my hands? Wow, what did I say to deserve such an honor !! ??
I have my reply:
You ain’t kidding the alamism went way over the top.
It should never have come to this level on such shaky evidence.
If you wanted structured conversation on why the Planet was warming, you should have pulled the plug on Al Gore and James Hansen years ago.
But no, instead a huge hole was dug at a feverish pitch by the whole lot of you, and now you want us skeptics to toss you a rope.
Fine. Plop Mr. Gore down at the debate table with Monckton of Benchley.
Then we’ll talk about Mr. Hansen’s problem.
So it was the fault of just a few NGOs and a few individuals, and not the field ? Hah.
To save the theory, all they can do now is simply reaffirm that climate change is ‘real’ and ‘happening’ and ‘serious’—but no mention of specifics.
Is they mention specifics, then they can be called on it when the supposed thing doesn’t happen.
But the public has common sense and they already knew from the start that scientists make all sorts of wild predictions that never come true.
“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.”
There isn’t a long term trend. There are long, medium and short term cycles. Who are these buffoons who can only do linear regression?
“With regard to Jordan’s comment above and the link to the youtube video: Anthony, is there space on this site for a section where we can permanently group all the statements made for the immediate future, just like Pope’s? We could add Serreze’s too, and others like Gore’s. The section would only have to contain the link to the video or, in the case of a statement, the wording itself. What do you think?”
If you want a site to track predictions, go to:
http://wrongtomorrow.com/
Sara (17:33:03) :
“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.
Here it is, with 50% transparency as well.
http://tinyurl.com/yh3szr6
“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.”
I assume this is a reference to former chief scientist, Sir David King
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3348516/Former-chief-scientist-Sir-David-King-attacks-new-coal-power-station-plans.html
“Professor Sir David King, who stood down at the end of last year, warned that a return to coal-fired power risked returning the planet to the pre-ice age era, when “the Antarctic was a tropical forest”.”
People in glass houses????????
So AlGore says that each meter of sea rise=100 million refugees, and then states that the sea level could rise 67 meters. That makes 6.7 billion refugees.
/Just sayin’.
“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.”
http://www.jamestown-ri.info/Temperature_swings_11000_yrs.jpg
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/450000-with-green-line.jpg
Spot the trend(s). (temperature not ice extent)
Allan M (03:50:43) exactly, there is no long term data from which to extract any trend.
The photos are faked, at least the bottom one is. It would take about ten minutes or less to make the bottom photo from the top one.
Hang on a minute. Aren’t all these exaggerated claims the result of peer-reviewed science?
Found on icecap
http://business.maktoob.com/20090000389134/Gore_beats_climate_change_drum_in_Dubai/Article.htm
“If the North Pole were to melt it could increase sea levels by 67 metres, Gore said, speaking in the heart of an oil-rich region not known for its regard for the environment.”
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.”
This is a wonderful statement. It reminds me of a classic one by Tony Blair. He gazed into the camera and said that this is not the time for sound bites. But his next sentence was – you guessed it – a perfect sound bite, something about the hand of history if I recall correctly.
Vick Pope’s statement is similar. In her first sentence she says it’s wrong to exaggerate. And her next sentence is a piece of gross exaggeration.
She made similar comments about the dangers of exaggeration earlier this year. Just a few weeks later I heard her on the BBC Today program. She was asked for the proof of AGW. Her answer was the French heat wave a few years ago. Well, really. Obviously the Today interviewer didn’t have the wit to point out that there have always been heat waves, so how can it prove anything? Anyway, as her ‘proof’ was so weak it does tend to suggest we’re on the winning side!
Just a small OT comment. The UK Sunday Telegraph has always had excellent and balanced coverage of climate change. Last Sunday it carried a very good two page piece by Christopher Booker. But its sister publication, the Daily Telegraph, has climate change coverage that is 100% biased and one-sided. Recently even the BBC has carried sceptical material e.g. Clive James and Andrew Neil. I remember thinking to myself: if the Daily Telegraph prints anything that has a remotely sceptical tone, then maybe the tide really is turning.
Well, this morning I almost fell off my chair as I read the Telegraph. Simon Heffer is one of their regular columnists. This is how his column starts today: “I know it is rather like saying that the Earth is flat, or that I have fairies at the bottom of my garden, but I simply don’t believe in man-made global warming”.
You couldn’t put it more bluntly. His next point was about observed global warming on Mars and the (assumed) lack of 4×4’s on Mars. To read this in the Daily Telegraph, which is probably as AGW-obsessed as the Guardian, is remarkable. Maybe there is hope after all.
Chris
I wonder which NGOs they’re referring to.
http://www.stopclimatechaos.org/
This group claims to represent over 100 NGOs.