A December 5 Washington Post article on climate change and the East Anglia University hacked email ”scandal” likely left many readers with several, critical, mistaken impressions.
This may include the headline and subheading as well: “In e-mails, science of warming is hot debate: Stolen files of ‘Climate-gate’ suggest some viewpoints on change are disregarded.” The headline may give the impression that the “debate” among scientists is the same one that the country, led by a lot of misinformation, seems to be having. Namely, is the climate changing, and are our anthropogenic emissions of greenhouses gases very likely contributing to this.
Within the scientific community, any “debate” on this topic is not only not “hot;” it barely exists. How much effect, how to measure it, how much models should predict, why they do or don’t predict this or that, what the most likely results will be, etc. are debated. But the general relevant consensus, among non partisan, non industry driven scientists, for the most part, is not [see endnotes i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xii, xii]. More importantly, the reasons are based upon incontrovertible facts, along with basic physics and atmospheric chemistry [xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii].
The article headline and subheading together might give a different impression.
The real issues, however, are with the “assertions” that appear to strongly bolster and broaden this headline and subheading impression, based both upon unnamed sources, and basic scientific misconstruction of what those sources are saying.
The following letter, sent December 11 to the article’s two authors (along with, a few days later, to the paper’s ombudsman — see his response below), addresses a few of the other problems in the article by way of asking two very specific, and relevant questions regarding the “sourcing” of some rather misleading claims. [Note that the major of these two issues comes from a chart box accompanying the piece, which may not have been done by the article's authors]
[Greeting and introductory information]
Regarding your December 5 article on the hacked climate emails scandal, I would like to briefly point something out that may be misconstrued from the article itself, and follow up with a very specific question regarding an assertion from it.
I know (or believe) you don’t write the headlines and subheadings, but note that in this case both are somewhat misleading. (In the interests of brevity, I’ll leave why to another time.) I also do not know if you are responsible for the information in the prominent chart box to the right of your article — but it does directly reflect upon your article.
As noted in a piece I am currently working on involving the Post editorial page review process and Sarah Palin’s expert climate piece that relies upon (and links to), your article, I noted the following. (Leaving out more complicated future analyses that might include threshold effects, tipping points, shorter term amplified feedback effects, all of which are largely learned after the fact anyway.)
“In the prominent box chart accompanying the piece, it states in larger, bold type that ‘global temperatures have not risen each year, leading some to question whether climate change has been exaggerated.’ This is technically true (”some” question everything). But also wildly misleading. No competent scientist in their right mind would expect temperatures to rise each year, as if climate was monotonic, when it is anything but.”
Who are these “some”? Since the chart box conveys that there is legitimate controversy within the scientific community as to whether or not the fact that global temperatures have not “risen each year” means climate change has been exaggerated, this would seem to be a major error. An article correcting it (and some other things) might be a solid idea. [Reference to a comprehensive piece to be posted shortly regarding the science of climate change, along with sources, that may be helpful, as well as a brief introduction to the idea that sometimes simply covering the facts may appear biased when it is not, because the facts often don't line up equally with what all parties are claiming.]
As for the specific question. Separately — and as a far different assertion than the one noted from the chart box accompanying the article — your piece asserts: “But recent debate — some scientists say the Earth hasn’t warmed as predicted over the past 10 years.” Since this is clearly not proprietary information, I think it is fair to ask who specifically these scientists are, so that we can see if they were just speaking from a known, high guestimation model, or, more unlikely, themselves putting too much into the significance of that model.
I also would suspect that not too many mainstream scientists not otherwise clearly tied, say, to industry or fervently driven ideological interests, are actually saying this, or certainly not in the sense of this being a source of debate relevant to the manufactured controversy that “climate gate” has raised – namely, is climate change over blown hype. At any rate, can you name names, and provide an estimate for just how much of the scientific community that has addressed climate change, is saying such a thing?
[Ending]
We probably could have left out the “an article correcting it might be a solid idea,” assertion, but overall this seems to be a fair inquiry. It was never responded to by either author.
On December 15 the email was forwarded to Ombudsman Andrew Alexander, with the following addition:
[Greeting]
Need to get an answer to the question as to which “some scientists,” as noted in forwarded email below. Also, in the online box that accompanies that dec 5 article (It has a temperature chart over last several years, question of whether climate change exaggerated), who is the “some” there referring to? Also, who is reponsible for the content of that box? Need answers to these questions. Thanks.[Separate matter regarding a memorandum on media standards sent to the Post's editors and publisher...]
Again, thanks
Alexander’s response back:
I’m afraid I would simply be querying Mr. Fahrenthold and Ms. Eilperin, which you’ve already done. As you may know, I operate independent of The Post’s newsroom and have no authority over them. Thus, it’s up to them as to whether they wish to respond to your earlier e-mail. [Similar response regarding the separate matter of media standards.]
Update I: In the interests of fairness, shortly after this article was posted (including the posting of this update as well, so that they could see it), a link to it referencing its contents was also sent to Fahrenthold and Eilperin, allowing for another opportunity to respond.
These are not enormous questions being asked; yet perhaps the reporters are under some pressure to conform to what is now perceived to be “balance” rather than what really is balance; perhaps there was some other influence on the story; and perhaps they were not involved with the prominent chart box which really contained what was may have been the most misleading aspect of this piece.
But the point in the article asked about above could also be seen as misleading: the statement “recent debate– some scientists say” suggests a different “debate” than any real debate that the scientific community is in fact having.
This somewhat true in conjunction with the title as well. It is even more so in conjunction with the prominent accompanying chart box. That prominent assertion, ”leading some to question whether climate change has been exaggerated,” along with the article assertion “recent debate, some scientists say the earth has not warmed as predicted“ clearly implies that the “some questioning” whether climate change has been exaggerated are scientists, and that there is real debate over whether climate change is overblown because the earth has not warmed monotonically.
This would be very misleading, as it is not the case (again, see endnotes below). And it would be very misleading on the most basic and important climate change point there is –namely, are our actions ultimately likely to affect climate in a significant way.
The article thus essentially suggests, as a central theme, that because the earth has not warmed each successive year, or for a few years relative to one or two years in particular, there is thus “debate” on this broad issue. But no competent scientist believes that climate is monotonic — or that anthropogenic induced climate change must suddenly make it monotonic — and from a climate perspective the idea is preposterous. And few to no competent scientists even believe that a few years of data not otherwise inexplicably outside of the broader trend is anything more than trivial in terms of drawing inferences from. (Let alone in the case of an effect which is likely to lag decades, if not more, behind its cause.) [xxv]
Therefore, in addition to the points above being addressed, it’s not unreasonable to think that the source of both the “some scientists” as well as the source of the “some” in the accompanying chart box, could and in fact should be disclosed, when specifically asked about, to readers.
Since the authors may have not had much to do with the accompanying chart box (although it is hard to say since, obviously, they have not responded, and Alexander never answered that question either) — a copy of this link, along with the original letter, was also at this time sent to Managing Editors Raju Narisetti and Elizabeth Spayd, specifically asking about; the title and subheading; who the phrase ”some scientists” referred to after the “recent debate” assertion; the accompanying, prominent chart box; and what it was that that box was supposed to convey by asserting that “some” question about exaggeration because “global temperatures have not risen each year,” when such a statement is scientifically meaningless.
For clarity to the Post reporters and editors; it should be noted that scientists expressing frustration, disapointment, or contention over modeling or arguing over predictions or severity is not even a related question to these. There is plenty of debate. Just not on what the Post article implies, which also at the same time happens to be the most important, fundamental point of the climate change issue. And it happens to be one which of course, perhaps ideologically driven, “opponents” of climate change, who seem to be confusing ”wants” and ”beliefs” with basic physics, are fighting tooth and nail against. And one that at the same time again, surveys show the public is extremely misinformed on. [xxvi]
Those last two sentences are the real story, along with conveying what we do and don’t know, and the science underlying it. Yet instead of covering these stories, the Post, under some skewed notion of balance and in effect doing quite the opposite, seems to be trying to narrow the gap between the facts and what many ideologues and vested industry groups are repeatedly conveying. This only further enables the promulgation of disinformation, and also helps to further perpetuate and even contribute to, rather then help correct, the general misinformation and misunderstanding on the topic.
This post will be updated with any responses at all, and/or followed up on with a separate post with a link provided.
[i] American Association for the Advancement of Science, Statement on Climate Change,
[ii] National Academies, Joint Statement on Climate Change
[iii] American Geophysical Union, Position Statement
[iv] IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
[v] Oreskes, Naomi, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?
[vi] The Copenhagen Diagnosis, The Latest Climate Science
[vii] Geological Society of America, Position Statement
[viii] American Public Health Association, Policy Statement
[ix] American Chemical Society, Global Climate Change Policy Statement
[x] Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Summary and Synthesis
[xi] World Health Organization, Protecting Health From Climate Change
[xii] U.S. News & World, Survey Tracks Scientists’ .. Concern
[xiii] IPCC, Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
[xiv] IPCC, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change
[xv] EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2007,
[xvi] NASA Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index
[xvii] NOAA, State of the Climate in 2008
[xviii] U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Revised Research Plan
[xix] EPA, State of Knowledge
[xx] National Academies, Understanding and Responding to Climate Change
[xxi] NOAA, What is the GreenHouse Effect
[xxii] WMO, GHG Bulletin 2008
[xxiii] Bloomberg News, Antarctic Ice Bubbles Show CO2, Methane, at 800,000-Year Highs,
[xxiv] NASA, Climate Change Multimedia Reel
[xxv] In fact, there is more evidence to suggest climate lurches, and shifts, if anything; and many scientists even believe a shorter inexplicable lurch outside of the general trend likely would not mean that much — though it would add to our knowledge — since climate change is ultimately physics, not data, driven. Moreover, any response to increasing concentrations of heat trapping gases, or any climate “forcing,” will almost assuredly be non linear, as well. This means that over time, with each additional input of a particular climate forcing (such as net GHG emissions) the effect will very likely on average be increasingly large, but again not necessarily symetrical, and not monotonic. (If it becomes monotonic over a longer period; that is, heats enough to overcome inherent variability, then we’re pretty cooked. Almost literally).
[xxvi] That is, once again, the consensus that since greenhouse gases trap heat, the amount of our net additions of these gases to the atmosphere will, over time almost assuredly have an effect on climate; and one that is likely to not only be very significant, but increasingly so the more we continue to add to net levels.