This letter is in response to the article “Passing the blame for climate change,” which was published on March 3.
It is true that Willie Soon and John Nielsen-Gammon agreed that when compared to the myriad of factors — sun output, La Niña and El Niño cycles, clouds, aerosols, ocean temp, volcanoes — carbon dioxide is a “minimal” contributor to climate change, but what the article did say is that Nielsen-Gammon followed that statement with the qualification, “there are certain circumstances and timescales where (carbon dioxide) matters and matters a great deal.” The crux of Nielsen-Gammon’s position, which was not reported, was that “natural variability keeps temperature going up and down, but if you increase carbon dioxide, temperature keeps going up
A George Mason University-STATS 2008 survey of the American Meteorological Society and American Geophysical Union found that 84% of the surveyed scientists say they “personally believe human-induced warming is occurring,” that “5% believe that human activity does not contribute to GHG warming” and “97% believe that global average temperatures have increased.” | Wikimedia Commons
Nielsen-Gammon based his position primarily on two measurements. The first was radiative forcing, which is the difference between how much energy the earth receives and how much the energy the earth radiates back in to space. He claimed this was “easy” to estimate, and based on the law of physics, if you increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, less heat is released into space. The second measurement was on climate sensitivity, which is how much global temperature changes in response to the first factor. He stated this was “hard” to estimate. Nielson-Gammon rebutted Soon’s attack on climate models.
“You can throw climate models completely out the window, and you are still left with basic physics confirmed with observation. (Carbon dioxide) affects radiation, radiation affects temperature, and all we know about past climate sensitivity is if you change radiation, temperature changes also,” Nielsen-Gammon said. “Right now, the best bet of a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration is a change of 2.5 to 3 degrees Celsius.”
I do not think the writer realizes that a 2.5 to 3 degree change would result in some massive climate disruptions and a planet unrecognizable to the one we live on today. Nielsen-Gammon also went on record to say that 2013 will be the hottest year on record based on current weather cycles and man-made global warming.
When asked what we, as a nation, should do, Nielsen-Gammon said, “I’m just a scientist … but I will tell you that the thing I worry about from a scientific point of view is not just the amount of temperature change, but the rate of change. It is not just an economic trade off … I just think, religiously, we have a responsibility to take care of the Earth and refrain from doing things that endanger it in terms of throwing it out of balance. I would be a lot more comfortable if we had carbon dioxide on a reasonably constrained tract rather than on its continued increase.”
The coverage of Soon’s position ought to have focused more on his scientific arguments rather than his political statements, but the article did not misrepresent his position, so I will not critique the coverage on this point.
Finally, as a journalist covering a debate on a controversial issue, it is important to examine and cover each side objectively. Equal coverage is usually best for fair coverage of a debate. The article not only fails to provide equal coverage, it only contains quotes and paraphrases supporting a skeptic’s viewpoint, which is likely the viewpoint of the writer.
I am curious whether the writer was aware that a group of NASA-affiliated scientists and engineers that call themselves “The Right Stuff on Climate Change,” who hold skeptic and opposite viewpoints of those from NASA scientists such as James Hansen, the National Academies of Science and other institutional bodies, turned out in mass for the event. The group was also planning on having a meeting with Soon after the debate.
I have no problem with a survey of a skeptic’s positions if that is the explicit intent, but when that is not stated, the disproportionate coverage leaves the reader with the impression that the consensus of scientific experts is opposite of what it is in reality. A George Mason University-STATS 2008 survey of the American Meteorological Society and American Geophysical Union found that 84 percent of the surveyed scientists say they “personally believe human-induced warming is occurring,” that “five percent believe that human activity does not contribute to GHG warming” and “97 percent believe that global average temperatures have increased.”
I am not speaking to the strengths or weaknesses of any position on the science of climate change. My problem is with the coverage of the event. If my University’s newspaper is going to cover a debate on climate change, I expect the paper to actually cover the debate.
— Michael Quirke, UH Law Center graduate student
