NPR's Harris faulted Gore's global warming "facts," while getting "facts" wrong
On the March 21 edition of National Public Radio's (NPR) Morning Edition, science correspondent Richard Harris reported that "scientists do quibble a little bit about some of the facts that" Vice President Al Gore has cited while discussing global warming both in his film An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, 2006) and elsewhere. As an example, Harris asserted that in December 2006 "Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years," which, according to Harris, "no one can say" with such "certainty." In fact, in his speech, Gore was apparently citing a research study released three days prior, which found "that the "recent retreat of Arctic sea ice is likely to accelerate so rapidly that the Arctic Ocean could become nearly devoid of ice during summertime as early as 2040," or 34 years from when Gore made his remarks.
Further, in introducing the segment, host Renee Montagne stated that because Gore "is firmly in the spotlight on this issue, so are his detractors. They include some scientists who are concerned about global warming but have raised questions about Al Gore's data and some of his conclusions." But neither Montagne nor Harris provided any examples of specific scientists who "have raised questions about" Gore's "data" and "conclusions." As Media Matters for America noted, The New York Times asserted in a March 13 article that critics of the film and of Gore's work are not confined to those on the fringe. But the Times then proceeded to cite a parade of well-known global warming skeptics who have made statements questioning global warming that have either been debunked or discredited by the scientific community.
Arctic ice melt
Harris asserted that during a December 14, 2006, "talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting ... Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years, and he made it seem like a really precise prediction." Harris added: "[T]here are scary predictions about what's going to happen to Arctic sea ice in the summertime, but no one can say '34 years.' That just implies a degree of certainty that's not there. And that made a few scientists a bit uncomfortable to hear him making it sound so precise."
But according to a San Francisco Chronicle article on Gore's presentation, Gore himself did not assert that the Arctic ice "could be gone entirely in 34 years." Rather, he cited a recent scientific study estimating that by 2040 the Arctic ice will melt almost entirely during summertime. It is unclear whether Gore explicitly claimed that the "Arctic ice could be gone entirely," as Harris asserted. From the December 15, 2006, article:
Even after 40 years of following the science of climate change, he said he was surprised to learn this week about new, earlier projections for when the Arctic sea ice will completely melt during the summertime. That research came from scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado.
"I was shocked that their horizon was 34 years under a business-as-usual scenario. If we allow it to go, it won't come back under any timetable relevant to the human species,'' Gore said.
While the Chronicle reported that Gore was citing research "from scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado," Gore actually appeared to be referring to a joint research project, funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA and conducted by researchers from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the University of Washington, and McGill University. Contrary to Harris' claim that "no one can say" that the Arctic sea ice could be gone in "34 years," these researchers found that the "recent retreat of Arctic sea ice is likely to accelerate so rapidly that the Arctic Ocean could become nearly devoid of ice during summertime as early as 2040". As a December 11, 2006, NCAR article on the study noted, the researchers ran "scenarios ... on supercomputers," which "show[ed] that the extent of sea ice each September could be reduced so abruptly that, within about 20 years, it may begin retreating four times faster than at any time in the observed record." The article further noted that one "model simulation" found that "[b]y 2040, only a small amount of perennial sea ice remains along the north coasts of Greenland and Canada, while most of the Arctic basin is ice-free in September."
This projection appeared to be bolstered by a recently released study by researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. According to a March 15 NASA "media alert," the researchers found that "[b]ecause temperatures across the Arctic have risen from 2 degrees to 7 degrees F. in recent decades due to a build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases, there is no end in sight to the decline in Arctic sea ice extent."
From the March 21 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
MONTAGNE: Former Vice President Al Gore goes to Capitol Hill today to testify on climate change. Gore has championed the issue of global warming for decades, and he has books and an Oscar-winning documentary to his credit.
Now that he is firmly in the spotlight on this issue, so are his detractors. They include some scientists who are concerned about global warming but have raised questions about Al Gore's data and some of his conclusions. We've asked NPR science correspondent Richard Harris to help us sort through some of the questions. Good morning, Richard.
HARRIS: Good morning, Renee.
MONTAGNE: Would you say that Al Gore -- given all of his history with this subject -- is a credible voice on global climate change?
HARRIS: Well, he is a layperson, he is not a scientist, and he's careful to say that. But that said, he does get the big picture very well. Most scientists say he really can see the forest for the trees, as one person put it.
Human activities are contributing to climate change, those changes will become more pronounced as the time goes on, and it is possible that those changes could be severe. But that said, scientists do quibble a little bit about some of the facts that he draws to make those arguments.
MONTAGNE: Give us some examples, then, of some of the concerns that scientists have.
HARRIS: OK. Well, for example, I saw Al Gore give a talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco last December, and he was cheered by this enormous audience of scientists, who were really excited to hear his message that, you know, it's time to take global warming seriously, et cetera, et cetera.
But after the talk, a couple of them came up to me and said, you know, "He didn't exactly get the science right," in the sense that, Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years, and he made it seem like a really precise prediction. And there are scary predictions about what's going to happen to Arctic sea ice in the summertime, but no one can say "34 years." That just implies a degree of certainty that's not there. And that made a few scientists a bit uncomfortable to hear him say that, making it sound so precise.
Well there you go again citing those darned facts! Asking talking heads to have a clue what they are talking about is unfair!
The 34 years is clearly stated as a possible "worst case scenario". You'd think Republicans would understand that...sort of like "the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud".
The AGU attendees made valid points, although they're minor quibbles and probably don't merit an "is Al Gore credible?" story. Still, it's refreshing to hear something other than "Al Gore's a hypocrite so there's no such thing as global warming."
Keep in mind that skeptics attend AGU meetings as well, so not knowing who Harris spoke to, I don't know their credibility or credentials to comment on the matter.
That is very true, but the nature of their criticisms - that they were uncomfortable with the degree of precision they felt Gore was using - did not seem to me like that of the knee-jerk deniers like Inhofe.
NPR ran this stuff again on All Things Considered only the take was Gore's business dealings with the Global Warming people. My goodness, I'd really love it if the folks at NPR spend more time and money of good fact checkers so they don't have to apologize so much every day. oh well.
Here is the best article on man-made global warming I've seen. It's facts are hard to argue with if you really take the time to read it.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e
That must be the only "article" on man-made global warming you've ever seen.
Say, has Inhofe accepted the theory of a heliocentric solar system yet, or is he still fighting that one too?
Rusty, Your question about heliocentric solar system beliefs is a good example of how very complex theories like the make up and movement of the solar system or complexities in weather cycles on Earth can be misunderstood. This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism shows how the question about the Earth’s movement or lack of movement presented an assortment of political and religious upheavals. It took centuries to gain enough data and understanding about it to form a consensus. And the truth is, we could still be wrong about that too. The theory of quantum physics challenges many of the things we accept as fact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics and a quick look back in time is full of examples of “facts” that turned out to be absolutely false. This phenomenon is exacerbated when those in charge of presenting “facts” stand to gain financially for their opinions.
I don’t doubt that the Earth is in a warming period…the data supports that. What the data does not support is the absolute fact that man is causing it to warm. Please follow the link http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e , scroll past the table of contents and actually read Inhofe’s floor speech. Then please list all of the inaccuracies or facts that you dispute. If you choose to support you findings with scientific proof, please do so with scientists who are not on the “church” payroll.
The IPCC is on the "church" payroll?
The simple (and obvious) answer to your question is yes.
I'm still waiting for list of inaccuracies.
Why don't you rebut all of the IPCC's claims. Then we'll move on to Inhofe.
I'm waiting.
Briefly, because I don't have the time to point out all of Inhofe's distortions:
1. He claims the media has gone through many scares, but fails to note the overwhelming scientific consensus as expressed by the IPCC and the vast amount of literature on the subject.
Global Cooling Myth
2. Inhofe's claim that the "hockey stick" graph was borken is false. The NAS report on reconstructions stated that they had confidence in Mann's conclusions. In addition, there are dozens of other reconstructions that show the same pattern as the MBH98 graph.
NAS report
3.Inhofe claims that sicentists cannot explain warming that occured after the little ice age and cooling form 1940-1970. This is wrong. The little ice age is believed to be caused by a lack of sunspot activity (The Maunder Minimum). Temps rebounded when SS activity returned to normal. The cooling between 1940-1970 was caused by sulphate aerosols, which have been reduced dramatically by pollution standards begun in the 1970s.
4. The 60 scientists Inhofe refers to do not publish in climate journals and many have ties to Astroturf groups backed by the Oil industry. Some of them are economists or have no scientific training at all.
Who are the sixty?
There are dozens--perhaps hundreds--more inaccuracies or logical fallacies. See if you can find them on your own. Make a game of it--try to find the paragraph with the most wrong information!
Well done, Crimson. I'm sure CB will show up any time now with a thorough, cogent rebuttal.
Crimson2,
As to point 1, please read http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipccflap.htm where you will see evidence of deliberate alteration of the IPCC’s report Summaries (the only part of the report released thus far) that directly contradict the actual work of the scientists contained in the study. You will read of many changes that appear in the IPCC Summary that have little or no scientific support at all in the subject chapter.
Your points 2 and 3 show a continued pattern of weakness every time you attempt to support your arguments with “certainties” like “they had confidence in” or the ever-popular “is believed to be caused” arguments. With “case closed”, “decided science” arguments like those I guess you really got me on this global warming.
As far item 4 goes, please read http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipccflap.htm where you can see that use of “guilt by association” works both ways. Here’s an excerpt…
“For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democrat Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz.”
As expected, none of your arguments stand up but the cheerleading was a nice touch Rusty. Next.
SEPP is not credible (they can't even spell "Democratic Party" correctly). They are thoroughly invested in GW denial.
The single letter from the single disgruntled scientist was an amusing read, though.
Try again...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e
Sorry, the link didn't go...here it is.
Maybe MMFA could take a science class that could show them that all the ice melting means it turns into water and therefore qualifies as completely gone.
that is the dumbest post I have ever seen. Hoping others would study science while you spout nonsense. LOL good joke!
It is worth noting that the Canadian Navy is preparing for a seasonally ice free Arctic Ocean within 15 years.
These are the guys that bang their boats agaist the ice every day. They are not much for publishing peer reviewed literature, but they have experience with sea ice.
Gore is not as radical as he seems.
Leaving the snowshoes back in port, bringing the boogie boards along instead.
Proof that Gore is right, by golly.
Thanks for posting this. I was throwing stuff at my clock radio this morning.
Nice Polite Republicans got my day off to a fantastic start, yet again...
I don't think Harris meant his comments to be taken as a slam on Gore; he is clearly a believer. His point (and he took some pains to make it clear) was that Gore was speaking as a very well informed layman but the scientists, no matter how sympathetic, are trained to be precise in the details.
The same charge was levied against Carl Sagan (Cosmos) who actually was a scientist but realized that as a science populizer he had to make things a bit more interesting than your typical physics professor.
So let me get this straight...MMFA believes that no further debate is allowed as to the cause of climate change...
Look, no one can argue climate change is happening - it's been happening for millions of years. But is it all because of "evil" humans burning fossil fuels? Not hardly.
Have you seen this? [link to www.youtube.com] they all on the oil company payroll?
Nice false argument you make.
Do you work for Jim Inhoffe?
What MMFA is pointing out is that arguments need to be based on facts. Mr. Inhoffe has Lomborg to try to discredit Gore, but Mr. Lomborg has already been discredited.
How about bringing someone forward who has not been discredited?
The point here is that NPR, just like all the other mainstream media, slants its reporting to minimize the danger of global warming. NPR does not point out the imminent danger to our species, rather they try to minimize the Gore message and cast doubt upon it.
NPR has changed from an honest reporter of the news to another government outlet for propaganda, that said it is still better than all the right wing hate radio that dominates the AM news and opinion channels.
Wouldn't it be great to have some unbiased reportage again?
Harris wasn't wrong just about the "34 years" thing. Every single critique he listed against Gore was wrong. Here are the two others:
1) Harris said: "...no one's expecting 20 feet of sea-level rise in the next couple of centuries, at least.”
Scientist says: Scientist predicts disastrous sea level riseDr. James Hansen (NASA/Columbia U.): “the potential is for a much larger sea level rise. If we get warming of two or three degrees Celsius, then I would expect that both West Antarctica and parts of Greenland would end up in the ocean, and the last time we had an ice sheet disintegrate, sea level went up at a rate of 5 metres in a century, or one metre every 20 years. That is a real disaster, and that's what we have to avoid… what we see is that the disintegration of ice sheets is a wet process and it can proceed quite rapidly. We see that the ice streams have doubled in their speed on Greenland in the last few years and even more concern is west Antarctica because it's now losing mass at about the same rate as Greenland, and west Antarctica, the ice sheet is sitting on rock that is below sea level. So it is potentially much more in danger of collapsing and so we have both the evidence on the ice sheets and from the history of the Earth and it tells us that we're pretty close to a tipping point, so we've got to be very concerned about the ice sheets.” Full interview here.
Harris himself had even reported elsewhere:“Sea level could rise by one to two feet in the coming century. That's a lower estimate than the group's previous report offered six years ago. But it doesn't include a possible wildcard: Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica can possibly surge and dump large amounts of ice into the ocean.” ,
2) Harris said: : “But he leaves the impression that Katrina was [a result of] global warming and I think scientists don't go that far.”
Scientists say: Increase in Major Hurricanes Linked to Warmer Seas“The increase in major storms like Katrina coincides with a global increase of sea surface temperatures, which scientists say is an effect of global warming… The new study supports another one released in July, in which climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology showed for the first time that major storms in both the Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent." Full story here.Harris himself had even reported elsewhere: “"More likely than not," the increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength seen since 1970 can be attributed to man-made global warming. Scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that it influences the storms that strike the Americas. Man-made factors have "likely" contributed to changes in wind patterns. It also is "likely" that typhoons and hurricanes will become more intense, with stronger winds and heavier rains.”
Now see, I heard this segment on NPR on my morning commute. Without even making an argument for or against global warming or whether it is or is not caused by human action, I was upset by Harris's reckless use of phrases like "no one" and "scientists" in an interview about Al Gore's lack of citing sources and claims to accuracy.Harris provided no real backup to his comments except for to make huge sweeping generalizations about how "scientists" reacted, without even taking the care to use qualifiers like "some" or "many," or even "certain." The media does this all the time, asserting what "experts" and "economists" think, but it's worse when done in an interview such as this one, which is designed to point out a person's lack of citing their information. Furthermore, Renee Montagne didn’t show any recognition of this omission, and just let him continue unchallenged.
What hypocrisy from one of the news orgs that I consider to be more reputable.
Great point. Harris' own reporting can't stand up to the critique he levels at Gore. Harris says, in a critique of Gore: "scientists do care very much about how precise the details are." The problem is just as you write: Harris' own reporting misses "precision" by a long shot and is full of sloppy generalizations, (untrue) categorical statements, and snide innuendo.
If you consider Harris word choice, his comment is actually funny. He reports that Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone in 34 years, but then says it's not that precise. "Could" is precise?
If I told you I had done a study and the world could end in five years, two weeks, three days, 8 hours and 32 minutes would you not takes that as a precise description of when I thought the event would occur? Would you just say “well he did say “could end” and dismiss it as an approximate prediction? If Gore wasn’t trying to be precise, why 34 years?
The thing I really don’t understand is this…if reducing CO2 is the goal of the global warming community why not do it in the name of becoming energy independent and freeing our country from the threat posed by oil rich middle eastern countries instead of creating a cause that must be accepted by faith like global warming. It is a FACT that we need to rid ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil. Developing alternative energy sources would also have the secondary effect of reducing CO2 emissions. That would be a much easier sell to global warming skeptics than the current global warming “the sky is falling” movement. My suggestion…put as much energy in demanding alternatives to fossil fuel as you are currently putting in drumming up support for the global warming faith and do it in the name of national security. The same goals can be achieved and will be based on facts that don’t require a leap of faith. Doing it this way will mean a lot of people (politicians and scientists) won’t get paid and that unfortunately will probably keep it from happening.