Has Scientific American jumped the shark on climate change? That’s the contention of Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm (10/26/10), who accuses the magazine of treating human-caused global climate change as an open question.
Romm points to an article by Michael Lemonick (11/10) about Judith Curry, a climate scientist whose critiques of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are often cited by non–climate scientists who (unlike Curry herself) deny that people are dangerously warming the Earth. The articles seems to leave the impression that the truth on climate change is somewhere in the middle:
Climate scientists feel embattled by a politically motivated witch hunt, and in that charged environment, what Curry has tried to do naturally feels like treason—especially since the skeptics have latched onto her as proof they have been right all along. But Curry and the skeptics have their own cause for grievance. They feel they have all been lumped together as crackpots, no matter how worthy their arguments.
So there are “worthy…arguments” against the idea that human alteration of the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm up? If so, Scientific American is sitting on the scientific scoop of the decade.
Perhaps worse, the article was accompanied by an online poll to determine, in Lemonick’s words, whether Curry is “a heroic whistle-blower, speaking the truth when others can’t or won’t,” or someone who has “gone off the scientific deep end, hurling baseless charges at a group of scientists who are doing their best to understand the complexities of Earth’s climate.” Among the specific questions the Web poll asks is, “What is causing climate change?”
There’s something strange about any kind of poll on questions of science, as if the laws of nature responded to public opinion. But the adjective often used alongside of Web polls—which record the opinions of a non-random selection of Web surfers—is “unscientific.” So why is Scientific American using one to gauge opinion on climate questions?
Stranger still, the magazine’s website also features an “Energy Poll” conducted “in association with” the Shell oil company. It’s hard to say whether this is an ad disguised as content or content that is underwritten and influenced by a self-interested advertiser—but either way, Scientific American has a major ethical problem. Simply taking money for science journalism from a company with a critical interest in denying science is inherently problematic—just as it’s dubious for Nova, the closest equivalent to Scientific American on TV, to be dependent on funding from climate change deniers (FAIR Blog, 9/14/10).
Scientific American has a proud tradition, and signs that it’s falling short on the most critical scientific issue of our time are distressing. I’ve been concerned about the magazine’s take on climate since last year’s article, “Another Century of Oil? Getting More From Current Reserves” (10/09), which discussed techniques for pumping ever more oil without ever mentioning climate change. It was written by oil company executive Leonardo Maugeri.
As a Ph.D. scientist myself, and certainly no climate change denier nor an opponent of the prevailing view that human contributions to climate change are significant and a cause of great concern, I think you’re being too harsh on SA (NOT on the point regarding the poll, which is ludicrous). Human-caused climate change is “consensus science,” but not “proven fact” like, say, gravity (or climate change itself). Human-caused climate change is more akin to scientific conclusions in the dietary field, where over the years we have seen that a consensus that X is good for you or bad for you can suddenly find itself not only no longer the consensus, but even reversed. Any sensible person would conclude, given the current evidence and theoretical explanations, that assuming that human-caused climate change is reality and something we had better address with a high priority. However any serious scientist should also admit that alternative explanations may in fact be sufficient to explain the evidence, given the complexity of the problem, and that there is a finite possibility (albeit appearing a very small one at this point) that the consensus explanation may change.
Jim, it looks as though SA’s a bit confused about the notion of “follow the money”.
That’s what a principled investigative journalist does.
It’s what a principled scientist doesn’t do.
And Eli, I take your point, and I’m certainly no expert, but while there are still open questions as to just how humans are impacting climate change, I can’t see how our species’ actions over the last couple of centuries and the parallel increase in global temperature and other climate shifts can be sheer coincidence.
How else can you explain it? That’s not a rhetorical question – could you lay out other reasonable theories?
It’s largely a moot point, though, isn’t it? It’s undeniable that humans have polluted and degraded the environment to a staggering extent, and we have to repair that damage to survive – if it’s still possible to do so – regardless of what’s responsible for the temperature increase, more severe weather, etc.
If we’re responsible, then those solutions hopefully will rectify our past actions.
If we’re not, then there’s really nothing we can do, other than prepare as best we can for the effects, but we’ll be doing so in a much healthier world.
Does that make sense to you?
The best thing about Romm is his ability to carry people with him in the realm of orthodoxy-obsessed pure silliness.
Joe Romm is a journalist,not a scientist and damages the public every day he is supported by carrying forth the false claim that humans are causing planet warming and anomalous weather extremes.
Myself , being not a climate scientist,because that field has been built on a “Theoretical” belief system because of the suppression of Earth and Universe science, am an Earth Science Phd. that would never get any assistance because my faction is pressured to never inform the public or governments about the actual facts of planet science.
One MUST understand how an agenda driven faction may completely cover up anything with a level of scream even larger than 9-11 for their financial purposes.
Joe Romm ,when asked by myself to provide a counterpoint story that explains,how processes work,virtually screamed and even extracted my ability to comment on his blog because I provided a counter-point,and his paymaster would have none of that.
When men like him scream so much that even Scientific American must submit to his cult, we all have lost a part of our soul to a checkbook.
I am so ashamed of my government and the supposed science departments of the leading universities for continueing to para-phrase chosen agents and wash down any science efforts that do not accept the checkbook mans funding threats.
You should be too,but you cant seem to get out of your loop,or you would not be paying every single day to support the billionaires boys club cult.
Real information is available,but not a one of you has the guts to seek it.
Cretinous AGW denialists like tom and eli are all to willing to believe in the lies spun by the rightist corporate media.
They make themselves even more ridiculous by lying about having any kind of scientific credentials. If they really did, then they would recognise that climate science is a very well studied field with a mountain of data and peer review to back it up.
Which is of course why there is a consensus amongst those that know what they are talking about, (including those well known hippies at the pentagon) and a realisation that this serious anthropogenic threat must by tackled immediately.
There’s no need to call people names. But Romm is in fact a scientist, with a PhD in physics from MIT. He’s also done academic work in physical oceanography at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
As I have previously noted, to any of you readers who might consider taking these climate-change deniers (see above) seriously, first read some of the OVERWHELMING (as in 97% consensus) agreement among SERIOUS climate scientists (NOT medical doctors, NOT weathermen, NOT engineers, but honest-to-goodness CLIMATE scientists) in links such as these:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) or http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
Besides the scientific community, note the corporate and military believers in this listing:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
And as even Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger remarked: “Well, as I said, that I believe the scientists. It is like when my child is sick and has a huge fever, and I go to 100 doctors, and 98 doctors says this child needs immediate medical care, and 2 say no, forget it, go home and just relax, I go with the 98. It’s as simple as that.” (http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/arnold-challenge-arnold-schwarzenegger.html)
You can also read scientific debunkings of these ‘skeptics’ / deniers (including the above) in MANY places, such as
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/
or http://www.logicalscience.com to name just a couple.
Note that the scientists who first began publishing doubts on climate change in the popular press were the very same scientists who also published similar reports to cast doubt on the link between cancer and tobacco, CFC’s and the ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen emissions to acid rain. They have, in internal communications, admitted their reports are only intended to give the impression a debate exists to delay action. They have never been “correct” in their findings because that is not their intention. (see http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/21-6 )
The aritcle is ignorant. All the evidence, from the Club of Rome on down to today, is real crap. A bunchof yuppies in front of computers throwing around numbers out of their heads and producing curves that reflect nothing are not any different from the “quants” who ruined the stock market and housing industry. Where oh where did scientific methodology. they are so stupid they do not accept that, if 70% of the earth is covered by water, then the same proportion of temperature readings should be taken. They have about 32%. Junk scinece is like that.
Curry may be right that only 10% to 1% of what the debunkers on climate change say but let lower echelon people spend their time sifting. Just in case something they find is relevant. Just to be safe and the rest can be cataloged as the propaganda of the CONGs seems fair to me. Those same ones can use that knowledge to counter act them and have it as ammunition for those who would debunk the so-called climate change skeptics. Those scientists shouldn’t be so sensitive of the debunkers. Just be constructive and thoughtful, not mechanically reflexive.
They operate from the same book as those Creation/ID people do to sow fear, distrust, and confusion over Evolution. A curious parallel as if they are using he same guide book.
hello All, I read a bio on Joe Romm and his stats said only journalist, I still consider him and the name callers part of the problem.
My experience in Universe/earth science(One and the same actually) for my contingent of Earth Service folks who do a very different,but necessary task here on the planet and elsewhere has a very different picture of reality to share as we are not controlled by a certain faction that controls the science/universe knowledge for their agenda,as I have already eluded to.
If you joust with me on Earth Science,I love to win, because if you have enough oomph,you are already part,at least,of the way because you have been fed the Universe science and understand ,even if minimally ,the music of the spheres.
Oxygens and and hydrogens and nitrogens are fed to the planet,certainly not made by trees or plants,or anything else on or below the surface.
You see Gentlemen,Carbons or the combined oxides of depleted growth components just do not create heat or provide a green house effect.
I have found that most of you boys dont even have a clue how carbo-hydrate genesis occurs or changes state,or is exhausted by the “Stomata” on a plant,that opens with a tone,yes,a tone.
Knowing how oxygens are drawn to a plant and how the lesser charge carbon that is depleted through its using what can be ingested by the plant,is coupled by the higher charge oxygens and makes “Your” Co2 is the first thing to try to envision.
Now envision,and keeping in mind that oxygens flush into this planet from a gas producing planet,that as the O3 decouples into o2,by being coupled by the negative ion charge of what ever it touches,it continually cleans the air and provides constant breathing oxygen also.
Now,please understand that the planets crystalline ammonia core brings all charges to the planets surface,so oxygens will always be collected near the surface,and when that stomata opens ,oxygens flush into the gas ports and are combining with carbon ions and excess oxygens may actually”FART” when the gas pressure in a plant overcomes the “Stomata” or port,if you will when the sun heats up the plant,which way,way too many science kind of guys and girls theorize that oxygen is made in the plant,and give us the garbage about “Photo-synthesis”
Light frequency from a gas planets spin speed provides the geometry of pure on key musical tone that,as some know and most mis-stake the science at work of the blue light that makes O3 for your hot tub or other dis-infectant that if we did not have the O3 flushing into the “Geometric “Nodes” bacterias would overrun everything and we would have nothing to breathe.
If it sounds too way out there for you,you need more information,not me.
You global warming kooks that say things to me like “Corporate Whore” are jackasses, I am the furthest from being paid by them or anything else you might try to conjur up.
You a-holes have been had,its not my f-ing fault its yours for not going after a proper education,that , like mine, usually tasks a person to be polite and patient and a good citizen that isnt actually working for the same CABAL ass when you believe his garbage. How dare you!!! Attempt to disparage me, for calling a foul in public and having the balls to back it up,with one hell of alot more to say to you GW idiots who are letting this happen to the rest of us and claiming PHD status without even having a full discussion ability.
(re Scientific American which has obviously become unscientific): disgusting
It would be my hope that data and logical reasoning will lead to some definite hypotheses on whether or not climate change is occurring. Can some people who agree with this approach please step up to the plate?
Data Sets are showing heating and warming and storm eevents that are partly because of the “Extra Energy” coming into the planet at this time which is on a specific timetable.
Even after this period abates the mining here will leave some very high wind areas from lack of the metal required to vector the “Juice” into the magma.
Excess mining created Chicago as the windy city,no other reason.
Try and stop it,we did and they are still mining with Govt. assistance.
This country will never be the same from the mining already and if they can get you to believe that you did it, more the merrier.
Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us knuckle-draggers in the world of Science, “Doctor” Tom. From one “a-hole” to another. And Lawrence N.? What in the world are you talking about?
“Doktor” Tom, you wrote this: “Excess mining created Chicago as the windy city,no other reason.” What do you mean? What mining? You mean the gigantic limestone mine in Thorton, Illinois? Seriously. About the mining. Not about this line, which I can’t, for the life of me, decipher: “This country will never be the same from the mining already and if they can get you to believe that you did it, more the merrier.” So what should I believe, and how, and where, and when? To what end? Does the puppet pull the strings, or does the puppeteer yank the chain? Is the chain attached to the puppet, or is it the chain that dangles form the arm of the toilet flushing handle that’s attached to the ball-stopper over the flow-hole?
Dr Tom….Well said- but it is a waste of breath.At least on FAIR.Because the fight is two fold here.First you must put forth the idea that this idea may be wrong.And I tell you in all honesty that no data of any sort will sway the bloggers here who believe that they have it just so.You could say that God handed them down his plan- except most of them don’t believe in God.The earth could cool to a snowball for a thousand years and their only reply would be…SEE I TOLD YA SO…..GLOBAL WARMING!
The second fight is to convince them that this is not sufficient to have government takeovers of all that exists- in order to save us all.On this blog ……you loose again.Good to have you on board DR.At least there is one less -mind numbed, lock stepped robot to read on FAIR.
Hey ‘Dr Tom’, thanks for the amusing break. Maybe tomorrow you can tell us how you’re also an astronaut who went to Mars (shhhh….we won’t tell your secrets), and then about your life as a cowboy.
But if you’re serious, maybe you should side-bar with ‘michael e’ since you seem like kindred souls, and similarly coherent.
Salts are critical to the operation of the energy flowing into the ground pins and crystalline salts collect the charge before the pin and bleed the “Juice” throughout the night to the magma, so when you remove large grown there on purpose salt deposits ,the energy just overflows above ground and we have high wind areas.
Simple,but true, I am the Grid Scientist on the planet. Take that statement for what ever you think its worth, as you do not usually get communiques from us,call me what ever name you think will deplete that fact,and of course,it will not.
To the tasker that says I have been to Mars, I have not, but tasker ,I know things about Mars that none of your experts do,and that is from the tasking school ,I was requested to attend,and your attempts to dis-engage others with your immature outpourings only speaks to your process,not mine.
This whole planet has been and is continually been mined for its ore,and every mountain and mound and little and big lake is a resultant of that mining.
It is extremely short visioned to not understand the geologic facts of life once certai clues for anyone with an ability to logically “Read” the evidence.
The coal on the planet was made only 4000 years ago and the remnants found deep in the coal speaks volumes also to the previous missions here,everything from train parts ,jewelry,modern pots and pans,theodolus,instruments and many,many objects have been un earthed in the coal.
The history of this planet is much more interesting than what has been theorized by all of the high paid “Fellas” taking their favorite gurus wild thoughtsand just running with that,which has the science departments just clucking and clucking and they are all so ensconced in their positions,they do not dare be out of line.
Funding,funding,funding and some one tried to call me a corporate whore, I deeply laughed at that statement when fed here.
Its a bitch isnt it “Fellows” having a noose around your nuts and not even understanding that its there,those IPCC “Fellows” included,as the supposed Doc-tuhs have it all figred out,and they stage their meetings at the best weather and venue for the season,just as we would expect from them and burn thousands of gallons of jet fuel and tell us carbon is killing us,I wonder daily how many others see morons at work in our system from PHD’s being given without even having discussion ability,but they will bally-hoo to all that they do,as their ‘Funding,funding and more funding is completely based on them being “IN LINE”
Its a sad time in history.
Ah Doctor you are a breath of fresh air.Now on with the blow hards……………………
Dr. Tom:
Thank goodness Michael E. leaped to your defense. I was worried that you might be overwhelmed, or that the conglomerate might’ve caught up with your verbiage.
Dennis…lots of folks are with the good Dr.Did you not see the election results?I believe it is you,and your lot that are now bringing up the rear.I believe it is called “pissing in the wind.”
Well then, who the heck is causing the global warming on Venus? Huh? What, did we send up some freon and CO2 there????
Exactly, Mr. Ed, Tell Wilbur Hello
Jim, according to the Wikipedia, you have absolutely no scientific credentials. None, nada, zip, bupkis.
Who are you to write an article stating emphatically there are no worthy arguments against global warming? You have no basis to rely on anything you have heard or read.
Your degree is in political science. Your career is in the media.
On what basis can you rest your claim that there are no worthy arguments against global warming?
What are your scientific credentials?
“For Scientific American to suggest that climate change skeptics should be given a respectful hearing is to say that–given the current, nonhypothetical state of science–skepticism is a respectable scientific position. I don’t believe that’s the case.”
Who cares what you think? That’s not a put down. What is your scientific background that suggests you have any way to understand the competing claims?
If you have none, on what basis can you say, as part of FAIR, the SciAm, one of the leading popular scientific publications for the past 150 years, is falling short?
Aren’t you, isn’t FAIR, out of your depth, out of scope here?
What’s worse, haven’t you missed that the SciAm article is an attack on Curry? Just look at the online poll that attacks her personally: “Judith Curry is a dupe”. And check out what the author of that article has said about Judith Curry elsewhere.
I think you are out of your depth, and you, just like Arnold, have no way of understanding the science, and are relying on proxies, just like all layman are in this exercise.
But on the basis that you have no actual way of understanding the science, are relying on proxies and trust, then your claim here that SciAm has made claims that YOU think are baseless, is itself a totally baseless claim. As I said, who cares what you think? Why should anyone care what a political science major and journalist has to say about global warming?
“On what basis can you rest your claim that there are no worthy arguments against global warming?”
On the consensus of scientists in the relevant field.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Jim, your reply is filled with the suggestion that you were either tired and hasty, or really are out of your league.
What you first claimed:
“So there are “worthy…arguments” against the idea that human alteration of the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm up? If so, Scientific American is sitting on the scientific scoop of the decade.”
I asked what basis do YOU have to say that, and you said,
“On the consensus of scientists in the relevant field….”
So….
1) You shifted the goal posts. You first claimed that SciAm was wrong to state there are worthy arguments against AGW to the claim there is a scientific consensus.
2) I didn’t say there was no scientific consensus.
3) Look at the diagrams in your linked pdf. A consensus does not mean unanimity. A scientific consensus does not mean there are no worthy arguments against. You have some theories and observations and experiments that point to, and some theories and observations and experiments that point con. The consensus forms when the majority of the theories and observations and experiments point to. Not when there are no longer any con.
4) It is not clear at all you understand what a scientific consensus is. Judith Curry would very likely agree that AGW is taking place, but she can tell you about all sorts of worthy arguments against it. It is just that the rest of the evidence points to it taking place.
5) Worse. If what you have as your basis is not your own ability to read the scientific journals, but just pointing to proxies that tell you what to think, than you, YOU Jim, have no basis to be making the claim that SciAm is wrong to say there are no worthy arguments against. I am not a reporter or a FAIR analyst. I think your claims about money influencing SciAm are within your ballpark. But on SciAm being out to lunch on the science, I think the best you should be doing is quoting actual scientists making that claim.
6) If Gavin Schmidt wrote at Real Climate about the horrible nature of Robin Givhan’s fashion reporting, would you pay any attention to what Schmidt had to say? If the answer is no, then why should anyone care what your opinion is on the science of global warming? If the answer is yes, why?
FAIR should most likely hire a science reporter of any sort — I don’t think you’re that guy.
I think you’re just as arrogant if not more so as any “denier” in your ignorance in the science, but your willingness as Joe Random Layman to insist you do understand the science and put forth your naive and ignorant and valueless opinion.
First, every single citizen has to make a judgment about the science when they cast their vote for candidates who either do or don’t advocate taking action against greenhouse gases. So if lay people have no ability to meaningfully interpret what scientists are saying, it’s unclear how society can proceed in any way.
Secondly, Scientific American and other media outlets should not be basing their reporting on climate change on what I say is happening with the climate. They should base it on what scientists say is happening with the climate. As a media critic, I say that they are not doing this consistently enough. If they want to prove me wrong, all they have to do is quote climate scientists saying that there is in fact a legitimate scientific debate over whether anthropogenic global warming is happening. And, no, finding a handful of scientists in a field of thousands whose views are only noteworthy because they are such outliers is not the same as reporting what scientists say.
Scientists are only as adept as the institute that trained them. AGW is the biggest scam in the last decade,easily proven ,but first you must have the ability to look objectively at all of the evidence,not just take the media/science spokesman talking points that are purpose fed.
If you think that is not the case,you are not doing any homework.
Agenda driven psychology is a simple Hegelian Dialectic Institutional policy,rampant throughout any media,and works wonders for most brain entrained people,and that is not as difficult as you might imagine.
Constant reinforcement has provided the paradigm that was designed,but you are not quite awake enough to realize that,but your pavlovian response will anger and
thrust and thrust out against your program.
Without an understanding of the long mission against the US,you are disabled to do anything positive,and very,very little has been done,no matter what green lobbying has occured to change the fuel paradigm,remember only about 1 percent of energy is green or alternative.
The theft and deaths 6 years ago of our complete science/engineering case of components we kept in a hardened safe that completely fixed the fuel paradigm, just before the planned release is very indicative of the policy of some very,very negative nasties in big business.
Hydrogen power and turbines were completely engineered to provide large guns to either build new plants or just guns to retrofit old plants.
High flow de-salinators were a part of our system to fit and retrofit our turbines into ships,along with units for big trucks.
Our very neat battery could power a car all day and we used a non metallic inner matrix and changed out the electrolite,versus direct charging of the battery system.
The electrolite was recharged in a special processer,of course running off our hydrogen system.
When the Cabal can kill and kill our remaining personell without punishment,it will not be long before its your turn.
The NASA folks are not given tier 1 information,just what make the agenda here be acceptable.
We could also change the way people travel in space,but we would upset the Aerospace/science paradigm,and they are very powerful.
We,as scientists also understand how the frequency fences at 48 thou and further on up at 48 intervals keep our gases in,so we lose that ozone layer every day as mission after mission runs through them with their jets and rockets.
It takes time before they re-complete,but NASA does not have a clue, THEY ARE TIER 3,on purpose,they are just not given anything except garbage for that very specific agenda here.
Any infomation we have shared gets no traction because of folks continually relying on their best science fellows theories and continueing to parrot out their pavlovian response.
This is a sad time in the history of the world.
How did you contain the hydrogen. In gaseous form it leaks readily. Is it under pressure, low temperature? Was it in solid from? Just curious.
Why do we need to contain hydrogen? What logic would have you assume that?
I will not engage to let out proprietary information,but I assure you there is a reasonant frequency that assists with the release of the bound hydrogens and oxygens of water.
I am skeptical of Scientific American’s claims to skepticism. When certain “skeptics” make too much of a show of their “skepticism,” as they often do, hidden agendas are not too far behind, and I don’t trust them.
If the word ‘skepticism’ has to do with not having enough information to commit to believing something, or having found other compelling facts that were deliberately ignored or left out (like in the case of pilots, architects & engineers for 911 truth), then that’s what the word ‘skepticism’ should be used to describe.
But when certain key pieces of evidence are deliberately ignored and left out (as Scientific American is clearly guilty of in their reports on autism and Andrew Wakefield) then it ceases to ‘skepticism’ and becomes…well, closed-mindedness, or even propaganda lies. And from there it is easy to understand the reason for renaming them Unscientific American.
I’ve been surfing online more than 3 hours nowadays, but I never found any fascinating article like yours. It is lovely price sufficient for me. In my view, if all webmasters and bloggers made just right content as you probably did, the web might be much more useful than ever before.