Hot and Bothered (New York Times lies about global warming)

Tech Central Station ^ | 6/21/02 | Howard Fienberg

[Jean S]

In Alaska, "the average temperature has risen about seven degrees over the last 30 years," according to the June 16th New York Times. Discussing the seemingly severe effects of climate change in Alaska, the newspaper of record observed that "rising temperatures... are not a topic of debate or distraction. Mean temperatures have risen by 5° F in summer and 10° F in winter since the 1970's, federal officials say." Unfortunately, this big climb in temperature reported by The Times does not synch with any available data.

The paper quoted oral testimony to the effects of climate change in Alaska. While it also mentioned the recent Climate Action Report from the Environmental Protection Agency in passing, The Times did not appear to have consulted the actual text of the EPA report to check its alarming temperature readings. The report states that "warming in interior Alaska was as much as 1.6° C (about 3° F)" over the last 100 years.

The Times' assertions baffled professor Gerd Wendler and his staff at the Alaska Climate Research Center. In response, Wendler posted to the Internet data analysis of mean annual temperatures at four widely dispersed weather stations in Alaska from 1971 to 2000. The mean temperature increase for Anchorage was 2.26° F and for Nome was 2.28° F. The two other locations were Barrow and Fairbanks. The Times had noted the appearance of mosquitoes in Barrow "where they once were nonexistent" and the rescue of "hunters trapped on breakaway ice at a time of year when such things were once unheard of." Yet while Wendler's data show that Barrow had the highest mean temperature change, it was still well below The Times' estimate, at 4.16° F. The Times had illustrated Fairbanks' warming trends by noting the need for hydraulic jacks to keep houses from falling because the permafrost beneath their foundations "is no longer permanent." Wendler's analysis, however, shows a minimal mean increase of 1.07° F in Fairbanks.

When it comes to climate change, The New York Times is no stranger to getting ahead of the facts. Consider a particularly scorching incident on the front page on August 19, 2000. The paper declared -- complete with color photograph -- that "The North Pole is melting." Tourists on a Russian ice-breaker had seen open water in the middle of the polar ice, clicked the shutter, and rushed right to The Times with "evidence that global warming may be real and already affecting climate." It was a sight "presumably never before seen by humans... the last time scientists can be certain the pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago."

The paper quoted Malcom C. McKenna, who said he didn't "know if anybody in history ever got to 90 degrees north to be greeted by water, not ice." Fellow passenger James J. McCarthy observed that "it was totally unexpected." But water in the Arctic circle was not much of a surprise to experts in Arctic climate, which the tourists were definitely not: McKenna was a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History and McCarthy an oceanographer at Harvard University. The Times started taking some serious heat. On August 29, ten days later, it issued a correction and a lengthy piece in its "Science Times" section clarifying the issue.

It turns out that what the tourists saw was quite typical. The Arctic ice cover is normally riddled with cracks and holes. Ninety percent of the high Arctic region is covered in ice during the summer, but at least ten percent is open water. Experts told the newspaper that "this has probably been true for centuries," caused by wind and ocean currents moving the ice sheet. Climatologist Mark Serreze explained to The Times that "there's nothing to be necessarily alarmed about" and that there was no reason to suspect this was "related to global climate change."

The plural of anecdote is not data. It is all too easy to remember the unusual and forget the typical. That is why interesting stories require justification with scientific data. Twice now in the last two years, The New York Times has failed to adequately verify catastrophic stories of warming in the Northern reaches. This is beginning to look like more than mere carelessness. To ring the false alarm once is unfortunate; to do so twice looks stupid.

[Lazamataz]

Stop getting facts in the way of the New York Slime's agenda!!! Who do you think you are!!

[alloysteel]

Two things here, actually. One is, the jury is still out on the overall long-range trend toward higher global temperatures. And the second is, what, if any, effect does human activity have on climate change? THE EARTH DOES NOT CARE!! This planet has been both much hotter, and much colder, in the past, than it now is, and somehow, life has adapted.

[Constitution Scholar]

The whole thing about human caused global warming is BS. This is because of changes in currents, etc., the climate of parts of the earth is not static.

The best testimony to that human "greenhouse-gases" have not in themselves affected the temperature is to examine satellite data of radiation reaching the earth from space to that which is re-reflected back from the atmosphere. There has been NO significant change in that in the last 35 years.

[Reeses]

justification with scientific data.

The Forest Service is doing their part to generate greenhouse gas spikes for the global warming measurements scheduled for July. Expect lots of falling sky stories next month.

[liberallarry]

Life has adapted but not necessarily human life. And the adaptation has often been very, very painful.

[alloysteel]

No pain, no gain. Perhaps the highly evolved rodents that shall replace humanity will avoid all our nasty experiments with capitalism and judging on merit, and form a fully socialistic society. (Or is that highly evolved cockroaches?)

[Nick Danger]

To ring the false alarm once is unfortunate; to do so twice looks stupid.

I don't think it's stupid. I think it's quite deliberate. The Times regularly reports things that are not so, on a number of topics, to promote the political agenda of its editors and reporters. Its major use today is as a guide to the political thinking of the New York liberal chattering class. As a newspaper, it has become quite third-rate because of all the errors and omissions (many of which are also politically motivated).

[liberallarry]

If human pain and problems mean so little to you, why bother posting to a political site?

[bandleader]

We All Know That When "THE FACTS"Get In The Way Of"The Old Gray Lady's"LIBERAL-LEFTIST AGENDA,THEY(Like Your Windows"SEEM TO DISAPPEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[alloysteel]

Huh? MY pain and suffering mean a lot to me. As to the pain and suffering of others, I take care not to cause it, but if others are in pain and suffering, my concern is directly proportional to my distance from and personal involvement with the afflicted parties. I simply do not have enough emotional resources to extend more than a mild regret at the plight of strangers far away.

[Grampa Dave]

You are right on target.

These constant enviral lies about the enviroment by the NY Slimes for 2 decades are intentional and not dumb!

One of these days we might even find a connection from the Opecker Princes to the enviral groups, the NY Slimes and other fishwraps who have been lying for 2 decades. Their lies have helped to increase our dependence on Opecker Oil. No one wants to drill for dirty oil in the US.

[moneyrunner]

"Life has adapted but not necessarily human life. And the adaptation has often been very, very painful."

Is it your contention that human life has not adapted to climatic changes in the past or is in capable of doing so in the future?

[spqrzilla9]

Since the global climate was as warm or warmer 1,000 years ago than it is now, perhaps you'd like to describe the "pain" of human adaptation to that climate change?

We'll wait.

[liberallarry]

Of course human beings have adapted in the past and will continue to be able to do so in the future. The ability to adapt is almost synonymous with the definition of life.

But the more dramatic and sudden the change the more difficult and painful the process of adaptation. Try adapting to a hurricane or a major earthquake in the heart of a megalopolis. And there are limits. If the entire earth turns into an 800 degree oven, forget it.

We are now witnessing some kind of significant climate change, perhaps caused by human activity (There are the usual uncertainties inherent in all human attempts to understand reality). If you don't believe in the reality of the change then no action is called for. If you don't believe human activity is responsible then adaptation is the best course. If you believe that human activity is responsible then it is reasonable to try to mitigate it.

[liberallarry]

Since the global climate was as warm or warmer 1,000 years ago than it is now...

What change?

More reasonably the change to the little Ice Age was no picnic...and the greater Ice Ages involved significant, presumably quite difficult, migrations.

[liberallarry]

A response to your sarcastic #7.

If there is global warming...and if human activity is responsible - very big ifs - then your post would seem to indicate very little concern as to whether human beings or socialistic insects are the ones to successfully adapt.

[MonroeDNA]

Larry, I'm not trying to get on a soapbox, but would you indulge me for just a minute?

The earth is warmed by the sun. Radiation from the sun heats the earth to a certain temperature. The warm earth radiates heat, too. Mostly invisible infra-red (just like you feel on your face when stepping out into the sunlight).

If you radiate something, it gets hot. Then it radiates, too. The sun radiates all the way around it, and the earth catches a small part of it. The warm earth then radiates (all around, to a much lesser degree).

If the earth, with a steady supply of radiation, started "keeping" more radiation, it would get warmer. If it "kept" more radiation, less radiation would be given off by it--it is "keeping" it.

If you saw the earth giving off less radiation, it would be warming. If you saw the earth giving off more radiation, it would be cooling. The infra-red energy would go off into space.

We can measure both amounts of radiation with accuracy way beyond your wall thermometer. Sattelites have the most advanced sensors that mankind can produce. Sattelites have been measuring the amount of radiation given off by the sun, and the amount given off by the earth, for 35 years.

The satellites show no difference in radiation from earth. No warming or cooling has occurred in the past 35 years.

Some areas have gotten hotter, and some colder, but the earth itself has stayed the same.

[MonroeDNA]

Also, the sun gives off radiation differently each year. Some years it gives off more, some years it gives off less.

What is strange is that the radiation seems to cycle back and forth. There are sun cycles as little as 11 years, and sun cycles much longer.

What is really interesting is that the earth's temperature seems to follow these cycles. As it should. The more radiation the oven puts out (sun), the more the chicken in the oven (earth) gets hot.

[MonroeDNA]

Finally, the average surface temperature on earth over the last 100 years has increased by around 1-1/2 degrees. There were good scientists back then, too. ;)

But almost all of that increase occurred in the first 50 years (1900-1950). In the second 50 years (1950-2000), almost no change was recorded. Actually, this kinda scares me.

What that means is that the earth was warming, but stopped. When you get to the top iof a roller coaster, and stop climbing, you usually go down.

When I was a kid in the '60's, they told us that the earth was cooling, and that we were entering into an ice age (believe it--that's what they taught us). What if they were right?