In media coverage of climate change, where are the facts?

Study shows New York Times coverage of climate change slights the facts of global warming

University of California – Berkeley

IMAGE: The percentage of climate change articles in The New York Times since 1980 that mention five basic facts about global warming. Credit: Graphic by David Romps, UC Berkeley

IMAGE: The percentage of climate change articles in The New York Times since 1980 that mention five basic facts about global warming. Credit: Graphic by David Romps, UC Berkeley

The New York Times makes a concerted effort to drive home the point that climate change is real, but it does a poor job of presenting the basic facts about climate change that could convince skeptics, according to a review of the paper’s coverage since 1980.

Public polls show that Americans, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the idea that human activity is changing Earth’s climate, lack an understanding of the basic facts leading to this conclusion, says climate scientist David Romps, a University of California, Berkeley, professor of earth and planetary science. A large percentage of the public doesn’t know that global warming is happening now, that it’s caused by record levels of CO2 from fossil fuel burning, that 99% of climate scientists agree on this and that the changes are effectively permanent.

“If The New York Times isn’t doing it, my guess is that it is just not happening across print journalism,” Romps said. “One of the hopes is that, by at least pointing this out, it might occur to people to take a look at what kind of context is provided in news coverage of climate change.”

Romps and co-author Jean Retzinger, the former associate director of UC Berkeley’s Media Studies program, published their analysis in the journal Environmental Research Communications.

After more than a decade of research focused on how climate change affects the atmosphere — in particular, clouds and lightning — Romps became frustrated about the public’s lack of basic knowledge of the science that underlies the 99% consensus among climate scientists.

“The notion that there is a scientific consensus has been referred to as a gateway belief by people who study how the public thinks about climate change,” Romps said. “They find that, if you can get people to understand that fact, it kind of pries the door open and makes them open to learning more and potentially changing their minds.”

Yet, as of 2019, the fact of a scientific consensus is mentioned in a mere 4% of Times articles about climate change, he and Retzinger found. The fact that we are experiencing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that haven’t been seen in millions of years — and never before in human history — is mentioned in only 1% of the paper’s articles.

And the fact that climate change is permanent is mentioned in only 0.4% of articles.

“We are talking about an alteration of the planet’s climate, and in all of my conversations with people, no one has ever asked me how long it lasts,” Romps said. “I don’t understand how people can have any sort of opinion about global warming without knowing that fact: that it is effectively permanent. The time scale for drawing the CO2 anomaly back down to where it was 50 years ago is on the order of 100,000 years, 10 times longer than human civilization. So it is, for all intents and purposes, permanent. And each additional increment of warming is effectively permanent.”

Lack of facts sows confusion

A fourth climate-change fact he looked at — that CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning creates a greenhouse effect that warms the planet — was mentioned in only 0.1% of the articles. Many people confuse the effects of carbon dioxide with the ozone hole, which is caused by chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigerators, or think that warming is due to the heat produced by burning oil and gas.

His data show that, in the 1980s, when the concept of global warming was still new to many readers, the Times often referred to the mechanism of greenhouse warming and did so, in some years, in every article. But 20 years later, this mechanism is seldom mentioned, despite a whole new generation of readers.

The only fact mentioned regularly — in nearly one-third of all articles — is that the effects of climate change are being felt now. But of the 600 news articles mentioning climate change over the 38-year period, the vast majority contained none of the five basic climate facts. This occurred despite the ease with which the basic facts of climate science were embedded in articles that did mention these facts.

“We have this major problem: that people don’t seem to have a solid grasp of the fundamental ideas. And why would that be?” he asked. “There has been a well-funded campaign to spread misinformation and sow doubt about global warming, which has been very successful. On the other hand, climate scientists are not necessarily out there communicating effectively to the public.”

“After you finish school, you learn about science primarily through the news,” he added. “And if you are not getting appropriate context from that news coverage, you are going to be confused.”

Romps is embarking on an experiment to try to change this, partnering with UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism to offer fellowships to student environmental writers to discuss with climate scientists the basic facts about climate change and how best to convey them within news articles. If this proves effective in changing public understanding, it could open the door to a broader national discussion of climate change coverage in the media.

Paper of record

To assess whether the basic facts behind the scientific consensus about climate change are being communicated through the media, Romps and Retzinger focused on perhaps the number one paper of record in the nation, the Times.

“We chose The New York Times because it certainly has this reputation of being excellent in covering environmental issues and climate change, and I personally think it’s one of the best,” he said. “At the same time, I had this feeling from having read stories on climate that they didn’t convey the basic facts to readers, and that that might be a problem.”

They enlisted the help of a dozen undergraduate students to review New York Times articles mentioning climate change that were published between 1980 and 2018, in search of the key words employed when mentioning five basic facts: the consensus, mechanism, longevity, magnitude and immediacy of climate change.

They then searched for all articles that included these key words, and Romps read each one to judge whether or not it mentioned these five facts.

“I don’t think that everyone learning the basic facts I have outlined here is a solution in itself. But I do believe it is a necessary condition,” he said. “We are not going to make the progress we need until everyone from both political parties, from rural and urban areas, from all states, accept the fact that global warming is happening, it is caused by us, and that the solution is to stop burning fossil fuels. These are the basic facts that climate scientists know, policy wonks know, but somehow the broader public does not quite appreciate yet.”

In addition to his efforts to better communicate the facts of climate change, Romps hopes to set an example for those wanting to reduce their carbon footprint. Last year, he refused to fly to an awards presentation, and since January has not flown to any scientific meetings — a big drop from his typical yearly air mileage topping 100,000 miles. He’d like to deliver scientific papers to colleagues via video streaming, but this is not yet an accepted practice at annual meetings.

Nevertheless, he is heartened by younger people speaking out, and he supports the Sept. 20 worldwide climate strike, including a UC Berkeley rally at 11 a.m. in Sproul Plaza with talks by students and faculty. While Romps that day will be teaching his undergraduate course on the science of climate change, he plans to attend the rally and encourages his students to do the same.

“Being a climate scientist can be a fairly depressing occupation,” Romps said. “But seeing young people stand up and make their voices heard is really quite encouraging. There is hope. The youth have been heeding the call, and we need grown-ups to start heeding the call, too.”

###

This study was supported by the National Science Foundation (1535746) and the National Institute for Climate Education.

From EurekAlert!

Advertisements

71 thoughts on “In media coverage of climate change, where are the facts?

    • “The youth have been heeding the call, and we need grown-ups to start heeding the call, too.”/b>

      He means the gullible heed the call but the non gullible think it through.

      The fact is that no real scientist because they would or should be trained in Karl Popper early in their education.
      Here is Richard Feynman doing just that with a class of under graduates.

      https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/

      Also the article shows how Karl Popper’s work gives a scientific opinion about Human Induced Global Warming

    • “Right, and “the changes are effectively permanent”?
      So that’s the end of climate change, then? Forever.
      What drivel, criticism of propaganda which is more extreme than the propaganda itself.

      • I reckon all ‘media studies’ course, degrees and professorships etc are absolutely pointless. This part of ‘academia’ really is rubbish in rubbish out. Especially when the majority of readers are only interested in the sports pages anyway.

      • If they believe the changes to be permanent, are they then denying climate change? My somewhat limited understanding of the climate is that it is always changing, has always been changing and will continue to change regardless of the desires of politicians or how much tax we all pay. To claim that anything is permanent is a bit absurd.

    • Third world dictators usually get 99% of the vote not 97%. As long as they are spewing crass agitprop they may as well fall in line with the agitprop norms. Only 9 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas leaving some room for doubt.

  1. If we can have coal fired power plant with Clean Coal Systems emit into the atmosphere less CO2 than a natural gas fired power plant, should we then be converting the natural gas power plants to combust coal?
    America has over 600 years of good quality coal available. Lets use our natural gas for building space heating and by industry to produce all those other things we consume daily.
    The Time Of Clean Coal Is Now Here! Lets do it.

    • Pls stop shilling here for your scam Sid.
      CCS is almost as stupid as Wind and Solar energy for grid power.

      Get a clue Sid: The Libtard Left doesn’t want any fossil fuel to be burned no matter how clean the CO2 because coal requires extraction from Gaia – their pagan god. And the clear thinking sane people who realize the value of our natural resources realizes that burning an extra 40% just to deny the biosphere more fertilizer is really dumb.

      • Good summary of both sides there Joel. CCS is the most stupid waste of natural resources imaginable. For a movement based on frugal use of our planet’s finite resources it is unthinkably stupid.

        Since CO2 is nothing but beneficial to the biosphere the only ones interested in this scam are the ones hoping to make a killing from inflated energy prices.

        • It doesn’t seem to occur to CO2 capturers that it can greatly benefit agriculture. At preset we operate farms in the “open air”. Perhaps that is not how best to use land.

          Fly into Amsterdam at night and look down. Maybe that is the future of agriculture. Huge areas and managed in both light and atmosphere. That is a large demand for CO2. It could be 100 times larger.

          If we want to manage a future where the Earth is a garden of paradise for 20 or 50 billion souls, we should look to the far future when energy production is unlimited. The present discussion is taking place as if all that could exist already does. Nothing about the past supports such a limiting notion.

          The catastrophists are akin to 21st century Amish determined to lock their society into a particular level of technological development. As Einstein said, we can’t solve new problems with current solutions, we need new ones. We also can’t solve new problems with outdated solutions. An ever-advancing civilization cannot remain in stasis. Adapt or die. I advocate we adapt.

          • Assuming there is still some intelligent life in the future (s/), humanity will look back at upon the era of abundant fossil fuel as a period when life on mother earth was unleashed for a period. Carbon dioxide is the foundation of carbon-based life and adding a small fraction back into the atmosphere will feed mother nature. She will be strengthened. Only an anti-life individual would knowingly deprive nature of this fundamental food source. It is astonishing that CO2 has been labeled a pollutant by the U.S. “Environmental Protection” Agency.

      • If Gaia is the greens God we should ask them: Why it is ok to prick her with millions of permanent windmills that serve to cut up all her feathered creations?

    • Sid, if we lose our fear of CO2, we can burn our municipal waste and stop dumping it in the oceans, or making giant mountains of refuse. That will leave much coal to bridge the gap until an energy technology breakthrough occurs. If the govt would be as interested in combustion technology as they are the phantom climate mitigation doctrine, we could get on to providing affordable energy to the third world.

      • And if we don’t burn our municipal waste to generate power because that would generate CO2 we can dump it and let it decompose thereby generating CO2 and methane without generating power. Not burning it seems to be the Green’s solution.

  2. This recent report about New York Times is as one-eyed as the Times itself. The Report blames the Times for being poor educators of climate change to American Public. I would argue that the Times is watching its credibility shrink year by year, with the last few years being even more damaging.
    Said differently, does New York Times even have one reporter with an objective voice that isn’t politicized on climate?

    It has become hard to read Coral Davenport or other environmental “reporters” without wincing. The mantra of the “debate is settled” has become anti-intellectualism by smart people.

    P.S. Why hasn’t the Times reported on the Bill Gates: “Bill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind and Solar, Let’s stop jerking around with renewables and batteries”.

    • Didn’t the Times win a Pulitzer for their work on Russian Colluuuusion?

      We all know how that nothing burger turned out 😛

    • “I would argue that the Times is watching its credibility shrink year by year, with the last few years being even more damaging.”

      Unfortunately, its circulation has increased by hundreds of thousands since Trump’s election.

  3. Are you kidding me? This is one of the dumber articles I have read her in a long time. The NY Times is “excellent in covering environmental issues”? I don’t know what field this guy has a supposed degree in but it is impossible that it actually has any scientific knowledge if he counts on the NY
    Times.

    • If the public doesn’t know the REAL FACTS about climate change, the fault lies with the actual unbiased atmospheric, meteorological, and geologic scientists who for SOME reason can’t seem to reduce their endless graphs and equations into sound-bites comprehensible by the layman, and KEEP THEM BEFORE THE PUBLIC EYE. Yes, gentlemen, I’m talkin’ to YOU!

      You keep thinking genteely presenting the facts in technical articles of Byzantine complexity on obscure blogs is capable of turning public opinion–trouble is, while you aced Science, you slept through Alinsky 101! We’re fighting a PROPAGANDA war here, so stop taking a rubber knife to a gun fight! THIS is what we need to publish on every platform possible, starting with the President’s Facebook, every single week:

      (1) Earth’s been much warmer and much colder many times in the past without our influence.

      (2) Animals and plants adapted, especially us due to our inventiveness.

      (3) We now produce more food on less acreage for more people, whose standard of living is higher than at any other time in human history. No major wars, famines, plagues, natural disasters ANYWHERE!

      (4) Extreme weather events are actually in significant decline, and blaming AGW is baseless.

      (5) Species gone extinct since 1900 can be counted on your fingers, nearly all confined to small islands.

      (6) The oceans are neither acidifying nor rising at a greater rate than they have for the last 12,000 years.

      (7) Human population has stabilized and is falling, due to increasing prosperity and economic change.

      (8) The wealthier a nation is, the more money it has to spend on insuring clean air, water, land use.

      (9) Look at the record of totalitarian and Marxist countries on the environment. Any questions?

      Now wasn’t that EASY? We NEED TO GET THIS OUT THERE–SOMEHOW! If NPR won’t entertain your view, demand to know why not? What are they afraid of? Use their own tactics and expose their funding sources, exposing the key question, “Cui bono?”

      See who’s got the ratings–millions of views or listeners–GET ON THESE SHOWS and lend your scientific authority to the skeptical argument:

      Rush Limbaugh
      Sean Hannity
      Mark Simone
      Tucker Carlson
      Joe Concha
      etc. plus every Christian preacher, investment guru and even “health” promoter who’ll give you time!
      THAT’S how you fight a propaganda war–not preaching to your fellows in a spider hole. Let’s DO it!

      • You are spot on, but why did you leave off the following:
        “The oceans are rising about the same rate as the past 500 years. That is about 7-9 inches/century

      • “(3) We now produce more food on less acreage for more people, whose standard of living is higher than at any other time in human history. ”

        True

        I am only pointing out that progress in almost every field is to produce more with less. Less labor, less materials, less energy consumption, smaller footprint – this includes products such as auto’s, food, computers, machinery, etc

        Yet the solution to global warming is renewables – producing less with more, – more labor, more materials, higher costs, bigger footprint, etc

        A progressives idea of progress

  4. I’m a researcher at a major university that is dab smack in the middle of this and I didn’t hear anything about the climate strike today. Strike out I guess.

  5. “Planet Ithaca” sits at the South end of Cayuga Lake one of the eleven of NY’s picturesque Finger Lakes. Without “Climate Change”, Cayuga and it’s 10 other bretheren (some as deep as 450 feet) and was once under ice about 2 miles thick!!
    Obviously this all happened long before the invention of the internal combustion engine…how come they deny this “science”???

  6. Soooo, “it’s not that our facts are wrong. It’s just that our marketing has been ineffective.”
    Horse-s++t!

  7. Could one ask Professor Romps to state in a few words what he understands by the Theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) and whether there is any difference between that theory and the Theory of Dangerous Anthropogenic Climate Change?
    Further if Wallace Broecker first used the expression “ global warming” in 1975, who first employed the expression “ climate change” and when?
    Further, could Professor Romps comment on whether Climate Change existed before there were “record levels of CO2 produced from fossil fuel burning.”
    Also, when in geologic history was the highest level of CO2 present in the atmosphere?

  8. It’s a shame, really.

    There are still good scientists at Berkeley, like Carolyn Bertozzi (though I now learn she moved to Stanford in 2015). Such grand institutions with a great history, now having their name dragged through the muck and the filth by global warming unter-intellects and their hangers-on.

  9. “The New York Times makes a concerted effort to drive home the point that climate change is real” ?
    I have never heard any “skeptic” claim that climate change isn’t real…
    But, I do hear lots on the left claim that only man causes climate change !
    Soooo, who are the real climate change D’NIERS ? (sic)

  10. The concept of ‘global warming’ caused by CO2 appeared in the early days of the campaign but as the concept began to be disproven, it was gradually replaced by ‘climate change’ because everyone already knew that the climate changed. The major problem was that the idea hat ‘global warming’ would cause increased CO2 was shown by simple experimentation but the reverse was not. The sleight of hand was switching to CO2 as the cause of ‘climate change’. No one had ever said that general climate change was solely due to increased CO2, but so it emerged as the new watch-cry with no science in tow. Thus the new alarm campaign was launched with CO2, almost exclusively burning coal, as the new demonic force.

  11. In the fifth century B.C., Greek dramatist Aeschylus said, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” Yep. Looks like war to me. The useful idiots probably think it’s war on fossil fuels. It’s really war on western civilization.

    I did a little thought experiment today. What would I have to do to avoid anything that uses, is produced, or is transported by fossil fuels for a whole day. The best I could do is to spend the day huddled naked in a cave. There’s my challenge for our young climate strikers. Try going totally without anything produced by fossil fuels for a whole day. Where I live, caves are in short supply. Good luck kiddies.

  12. Grammar Police on duty on this Friday night.

    Slight:
    Definition of slight
    1a : having a slim or delicate build : not stout or massive in body
    b : lacking in strength or substance : flimsy, frail
    c : deficient in weight, solidity, or importance : trivial

    Sleight:
    sleight noun
    \ ˈslīt
    Definition of sleight
    1 : deceitful craftiness

    ==========

    The NYTimes is being deceitful (although the beta-male Libtard journalists and editors there probably all have “small ‘slight’ hands”).

    Thus “sleight” (as in “sleight of hand”) is the appropriate form for attempting deceit..

  13. Of course, climate change is as real now as it was when glaciers buried what is now Chicago. What is not real is any empirical proof that CO2 is a driver of anything except plant growth. All they have is cherry-picked correlations of adjusted data and a Papal stamp of approval.

  14. “After more than a decade of research focused on how climate change affects the atmosphere — in particular, clouds and lightning”

    That sounds like BS when you consider the effects of CR flux. Those were shown at CERN, where have the effects of CO2 been demonstrated?

    • It also sounds backwards.
      I thought the claim and impression they push was that Man’s CO2, and only Man’s CO2, in the atmosphere is what is causing “Climate Change”. (Previously known as “CAGW”.)

  15. On the matter of the NY Times…

    Each passing the “Paper of Record” is a demonstration it has traded journalism for activism, with the truth being tossed aside for partisan issues.

    The NYT’s latest Brett Kavanaugh hit piece was a prominent example of a NYTimes editors tossing journalism standards under the rear wheels of the 18 wheeler in order to press an agenda for the Democratic Party.
    The NYT clearly deceived by omission of exonerating facts on Justice Kavahaugh. Par for the course with today’s TDS-afflicted Democrats.

    The “Paper of Record” clearly no longer cares about the truth. Whether it is politics or climate stupidity. The NYTtimes lies its ass off as it sees fit.

    Anyone who reads the NYTs without fact checking their articles’ claims is asking to be misled.

  16. Of all the media lies, nothing compares to their cover up of the H20 feedback. When you try to tell people that the ACTUAL theory is not that CO2 will produce 6 degrees of warming, but that CO2 will product at most 1 degree of warming, and that 1 degree warming then increases water vapor (which is a much stronger GHG). That increase in water vapor then increases temperature. etc etc. Most of the predicated warming comes from the water vapor feedback loop. When ever I have tried to explain this to AGW believers they simply tell me that it is not true and that either I am lying or I don’t know what I talking about. NOT ONE person I have told this to has believed it, or ever heard about it. The AGW hoax can easily be exposed. Step 1, is to make a BIG deal about the media cover up of the “forcing/sensitivity” (or whatever made up word they use now for the H2O positive feedback loop). The lying politicians, academics, media will not be able to challenge it, because THAT IS THE ACTUAL THEORY. Once people realize they have been lied to all along about the basic theory, then we will achieved the first step in exposing this hoax. Exposing AGW has to be done in steps.

    • And the water vapor feedback depends on a perturbation of temperature in either direction from any cause. It does not rely on CO2. It does not ratchet upwards only. The examples we see daily show that this feedback tends to be negative.

  17. “Being a climate scientist can be a fairly depressing occupation,” Romps said. “But seeing young people stand up and make their voices heard is really quite encouraging.

    My cure for his depression is to consult 16 yr old meteorologist Chris Martz and be administered a dose of climate and science reality.

  18. I don’t think there is a lack of knowledge driving skepticism about CO2 in the “unwashed”, it’s instead the extra knowledge we possess in comparison to blind faith believers as a result our own quests for empirical facts concerning such a grave threat.
    When one searches for facts on climate change, there is mostly the political propaganda of “climate myths” and the relentless smearing of the contrarians.

    Thank you Anthony Watts for providing a lamp in the dark.

  19. Yes. I am seeing a lot of stuff about “those suffering the effects of climate change”. It pisses me off the way politicians slide nonsense like this into their speeches and nobody challenges them on it. WHO!

  20. As I read through the piece it became clear he was not concerned so much about the lack of science awareness as the lack of drum beating by the print media. His constant none science stance demanding the NYT tell people about the consensus, tells us all we need to know about his objectivity or lack of from this Prof..
    Academia was always awash with “individuals” these tend to be people that span the entire character spectrum. It would seem the most bizarre favour the arts, while the more rational favour the sciences. I am struggling to understand how Michael E Mann crossed the divide.

  21. “I don’t understand how people can have any sort of opinion about global warming without knowing that fact: that it is effectively permanent. The time scale for drawing the CO2 anomaly back down to where it was 50 years ago is on the order of 100,000 years, 10 times longer than human civilization. So it is, for all intents and purposes, permanent. And each additional increment of warming is effectively permanent.”

    I don’t think I have ever read that the ‘excess’ co2 is in the atmosphere for 100,000 years. Has anyone got a proper reference for that time scale?

    Our (thankfully) former Prime Minister Theresa May pledged 1 trillion pounds to combat ‘climate change’. As our contribution to co2 is so small, according to Nature magazine it would reduce temperatures by 3 hundredths of a degree. (No reference to sensitivity)

    Its a great chant in the climate strike;

    “What do we want?”
    “300th of a degree temperature reduction for1 trillion pounds!”
    “WHEN do we want it?”
    “In 100,000 years!”

    A Proper Reference for this longevity ‘fact’ anyone?

    tonyb

    • You’ll be pleased to hear the UK govt just approved another 7GW capacity of offshore wind… all of which will be at lower cost than before.

      • griff,

        I am outraged that the UK govt just approved another 7GW capacity of offshore wind… all of which will be far, far more expensive and less reliable than onshore gas-fired electricity.

        Richard

      • griff, you do know that “The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind. The answer is blowin’ in the wind.” are just song lyrics. Right?

      • griff

        can you confirm this 100,000 year long longevity?

        Will you volunteer to be switched off at your smart meter when renewables fail to deliver the promised goods?

        tonyb

    • That’s a new one on me, they usually claim 100 years to 1000 years.
      Of course experiments in the real world put the number closer to 10 years.

      • mark

        yes I have heard all those figures but never 100,000. I must assume he put the commas in the wrong place and added too many noughts

        tonyb

  22. Many speak of Climate as if it were a single thing that one can by turning some kind of knob move up or down
    This is totally misleading. There are various climates in different parts of the world that have been called climate zones – a simplification. It would be great if we could raise the temperatures in some of the coldest areas while lowering them in the hottest. It would be great if we could increase rainfall in some areas and reduce storms in other areas. However, what happens in one area impacts the adjacent one and further afield.

    If we were able to “modify” the climate in one area do we have any idea what would happen in the neighboring areas let alone globally? We can certainly help reduce the urban heat effect in cities in summer but would this not contribute to increasing the cold in winter? However, would this lead to a significant change in the area around? Man has since the beginning of recorded history tried to play God – unsuccessfully. I do not think man is anywhere near achieving this with respect to something so complex as climate. Perhaps he needs to show some humility and stick to using his God given human ingenuity and ability to adapt?

  23. it could open the door to a broader national discussion of climate change coverage in the media.
    Me thinks he doesn’t want any discussion at all. He wants everyone to follow the heard and have no dissenting opinion. That is not a discussion. We’ve gone from 97% to 99%, pretty soon we’ll be at 150%. They should be able to model that.

  24. A large percentage of the public doesn’t know that global warming is happening now

    Because you can’t actually see it on a thermometer.

    that it’s caused by record levels of CO2 from fossil fuel burning,


    that 99% of climate scientists agree on this and that the changes are effectively permanent.

    David Romps…

  25. “I don’t understand how people can have any sort of opinion about global warming without knowing that fact: that it is effectively permanent. … And each additional increment of warming is effectively permanent.”

    This is the kind of idiocy that gets articulated by otherwise intelligent human beings when their minds become captivated by a false paradigm, i.e., CO2 is equivalent to heat. This distorting lens causes facts to be ignored, like the fact that CO2 increased over the past 20 years while temps remained flat, and even decreased during the last 3 years.

    Similarly, a wacko climate journalist recently claimed that the Greenland ice sheet would never recover from its recent melt that lasted mere days, and that a subsequent rise in sea level would cause a drop in coastline property values worldwide. According to the DMI the Greenland SMB has already recovered to its 30-year mean.

    It’s really a lesson for all of us to be careful about what we believe. Doubt thyself, and test everything.

  26. What is remarkable about this article is the sheer ignorance it displays about the topic of climate change. Most of it is about “messaging”, not facts or explanations. They clearly want people to “believe”. The thinking shall be done by others.

    The arrogance of the authors is also stunning. They want to mediate truth between research and readers, as if a) they have the capacity to do so and b) they were give this task and c) there are not far better ways to broadly educate the public.

    It is a good thing, by their own admission, they are failing in all aspects of their self-appointed tasks. Good riddance.

  27. Let’s accept the conclusion that warming is permanent.
    Now, all public policy discussions on climate change ought to center on how to cope with the worst effects and take advantage of the best effects.
    No more talk about banning fossil fuels. All that would do is make life more miserable for the poor.

Comments are closed.