About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fred Barnes still mired in sea level misinformation

June 05, 2007 7:44 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

27 Comments

On the June 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes falsely claimed that there is a "difference between [former Vice President] Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] of the United Nations" because "Al Gore says that over the next century sea level rises 20 feet" but the IPCC "says, 'Well, maybe 17 to 23 inches.' " In fact, Gore never said in either the film or book version of An Inconvenient Truth that the potential 20-foot rise in sea levels would happen "over the next century," as Barnes claimed. Indeed, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the supposed "difference" between Gore and the IPCC on the issue of sea levels relies on a false comparison. While the February 2007 IPCC report projected a maximum 23-inch sea-level rise before 2100 as a result of rising temperatures, Gore's statement predicted a 20-foot rise in sea levels if the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets were to melt completely or collapse at an indefinite point in the future.

The IPCC estimate cited by Barnes pertains to the gradual sea level rise that could result from increases in global surface air warming over the next century. The IPCC report offered high and low scenarios warming and resulting sea level rise. In the "high scenario," the IPCC estimated a "likely range" (the report defines "likely" as a greater than 66 percent probability of occurrence) of temperature increases from "2.4°C to 6.4°C," and estimated that the corresponding sea level increase would be between 0.26 m and 0.59 m (which converts to a range of 10.24 to 23.23 inches). But the IPCC further stated that "[c]ontraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100" and that "[i]f a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m," which is equivalent to approximately 23 feet. The IPCC also supports Gore's claim that a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would result in a sea level rise as high as 20 feet. From the IPCC:

Recent satellite and in situ observations of ice streams behind disintegrating ice shelves highlight some rapid reactions of ice sheet systems. This raises new concern about the overall stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the collapse of which would trigger another five to six metres [approximately 16 to 20 feet] of sea level rise. While these streams appear buttressed by the shelves in front of them, it is currently unknown whether a reduction or failure of this buttressing of relatively limited areas of the ice sheet could actually trigger a widespread discharge of many ice streams and hence a destabilisation of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

In the book An Inconvenient Truth, Gore wrote that if the West Antarctic ice shelf "melted or slipped off its island mooring into the sea, it would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet." He added that "the West Antarctic ice shelf is virtually identical in size and mass to the Greenland ice dome, which also would raise sea levels worldwide by 20 feet if it melted or broke up and slipped into the sea" (Page 190).

Further, Barnes claimed that "we don't know whether humans are causing" global warming and that "we don't even know whether global warming's bad." He added: "Me, I like warmer weather." As Media Matters has noted, Barnes has previously questioned whether humans are the cause of global warming. However, the 2007 IPCC report -- which Barnes earlier used to smear Gore -- described the probability that "[m]ost of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is ... due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" as "very likely." (The report defines "very likely" as a greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.) The report further noted that "[c]ontinued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century."

This is also not the first time that Barnes has falsely accused Gore of exaggerating the projected rise in sea levels. Citing a highly flawed New York Times article by William J. Broad, Barnes asserted on the March 24 edition of The Beltway Boys that "scientists are increasingly embarrassed by the wild exaggerations of Al Gore, where he says ... the sea level will rise 20 feet, and the U.N. [United Nations] group that's looked into this says it'll be 23 inches."

From the IPCC Summary for Policymakers:

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR's [Third Assessment Report] conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

From the complete IPCC report:

It is very likely that heat waves will be more intense, more frequent and longer lasting in a future warmer climate. Cold episodes are projected to decrease significantly in a future warmer climate. Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range.

[...]

Globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.

[...]

Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase, particularly in tropical and high latitude areas that experience increases in mean precipitation. Even in areas where mean precipitation decreases (most subtropical and mid-latitude regions), precipitation intensity is projected to increase but there would be longer periods between rainfall events.

[...]

As the climate warms, snow cover and sea ice extent decrease; glaciers and ice caps lose mass owing to a dominance of summer melting over winter precipitation increases.

From the June 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

JIM ANGLE (guest host): Now, Fred, one of the interesting things about the European proposal is it would cut by 2050 -- it would cut everybody's emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels, which was the year used in Kyoto.

Now, according to some studies we are, the U.S., is 18 percent above 1990 now, we would have to cut 50 percent below the 1990 levels. What kind of impact would that have on the economy?

BARNES: Well, probably not that much because those goals would never be reached. I mean, that's really pie in the sky; it's ridiculous. You know -- and I notice that [Rep.] Ed Markey [D-MA] said this is a red-hot issue, red hot, have to act right away. Well, we know -- look, there's only one thing that we know for sure, and that is that the temperature has increased one degree over the last century. One degree. Now, that to me doesn't make it a red-hot issue. We know -- although Mort will -- who believes in this fad, will tell you that there's a scientific consensus --

MORTON M. KONDRACKE (Roll Call executive editor): There is.

BARNES: There is --

KONDRACKE: Oh, please.

BARNES: No, Mort. You've been in Tibet for three weeks. Believe me, every day you were gone, some new scientist came out and said he didn't believe in the extravagant tales that are told by people like Al Gore. Al Gore -- remember the difference between Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations? Al Gore says that over the next century, sea level rises 20 feet. This panel on climate change says, "Well, maybe 17 to 23 inches," which I think we can live with. Look, we don't know whether humans are causing this -- we don't even know whether global warming's bad. Me, I like warmer weather.

ANGLE: OK, got to stop here. Mort, that'll teach you to leave town.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by valentinian (June 05, 2007 7:55 pm ET)
         

      Me, I like droughts and increased water scarcity.

      Me, I like the spread of tropical diseases.

      Me, I like the destruction of ecosystems and loss of species.

      Me, I like wildfires and deadly heat waves.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 05, 2007 8:14 pm ET)
         

      Broken legs can be fun, you can barrow my hammer after I'm though with it.

      Self flagulents to the right, auto flagulents on the left,the great mass, up against the wall.

      There maybe a waiting period while the required walls are produced.

      You're on camera, keep smiling.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by DorisRussell (June 05, 2007 9:21 pm ET)
         

      Fred Barnes is biased , he is the talking point for anti Al Gore speech.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (June 05, 2007 9:27 pm ET)
         

      anyone see the story about the "rare" tropical cyclone hitting the saudi peninsula.  a couple years ago a hurricane formed in the south atlantic for the first time and hit brazil.  just a couple more of those coincidences that just happen to be in line with predictions of global warming.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by leatherhelmet (June 06, 2007 12:20 am ET)
           

        And there were predictions of a monstrous hurricane season last year thanks to heated oceans.

        Oh wait, we had zero. Psychics and tarot card readers are more accurate than climatologists. 

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (June 06, 2007 7:22 am ET)
             

          "we had zero"  check again genius. there were still hurricanes, none hit this country. it was an el nino year, which occur without warning, and the number of storms for an el nino was above the average.  the pacific also had an extremely active season.  you know, "global"  warming, rocket scientist?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (June 05, 2007 10:36 pm ET)
         

      Glub glub, glub glub.

      Makes you wanna say holy crap!

      Where are their thinking brains at!

      Glub glub, glub glub!

       

      I like heat and a local bar

      Where I say libruls are a tool!

      Makin friends as I buy them beer!

      Air conditioning keeps us cool!

      Putting on our speedo trunks,

      Glub glub, and our flippy flops!

      now we swim in the parking lot,

      Umm, I really can't swim.

       

      Glub glub, glub glub.

      Makes you wanna say holy crap!

      Where are their thinking brains at!

      Glub glub, glub glub!

       

      Pelosi left the other day

      to a trip to the greenland shelf

      like she's gonna learn about global warming

      from a country named greenland!

      Just because they gots a little ice

      hey that's really nice!

      If I went there I'd have a plastic cup,

      full of beer and greenland ice

      Brrr! that tasts real nice!

       

      Glub glub, glub glub.

      Makes you wanna say holy crap!

      Where are their thinking brains at!

      Glub glub, glub glub!

      Any Roger Miller fans out there?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by juliajayne (June 06, 2007 9:15 am ET)
           

        Roger Miller. My Dad used to listen to him all the time. I know all of his songs. Makes you wanna holla hidey ho. Fred Barnes certainly burns my tummy, don'cha know.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (June 06, 2007 9:49 am ET)
           

        Pundit for sale or rent.

        House trained add 50cents.

        I'm a, man of spleen by all means.

        King of the shills.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (June 05, 2007 10:39 pm ET)
         

      "we don't even know whether global warming's bad. Me, I like warmer weather."

      This passage pretty much sums up why people like Fred Barnes should not be on TV talking out their behinds about things they know absolutely nothing about.

      As to "whether global warming's bad", scientists have long been researching and studying what effects climate change can have on ecosystems.  These effects can include drought, loss of wetlands, species extinction, changes in migration and hibernation cycles, failure of watersheds, increased flooding, etc.   The list is practically endless. 

      As for Barnes liking warm weather, this feeds right into the prevailing rightwing bobblehead belief that our only concern is how warm the weather will be.  The whole concept of global warming is not about weather, it's about climate.  Change the climate, even slightly, and the effects can be enormous. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jymiek (June 05, 2007 10:50 pm ET)
         

      Anyone read about what's going on in Australia?   Water is getting to a critical level there.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jscott (June 05, 2007 11:36 pm ET)
           

        Yeah, but they no longer need a barby to grill their shrimp.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (June 06, 2007 12:22 am ET)
         

      I think Mr Science guy Barnes doesn't know ice floats on water and melting doesn't change the level. Only ice melting on a landmass above sealevel will add sea height. 20 feet over 70%+ of the earth's surface is a lot of ice melt, unlikely in the current geometry of the Earth-Sun system.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by NotThatGeorge (June 06, 2007 2:20 am ET)
         

      How can someone who works for a national news organization be so misinformed? How do his peers allow him to keep spewing out this distortion of Gore's comments?

      Oh, never mind. Forget I mentioned that. I forgot it was Fox News we were talking about!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (June 06, 2007 7:57 am ET)
         

      More evidence that Barnes will have to raise his level of competence to reach the level of "goober".

      Additionally, the IPCC discounts any catastrophic rise in the sea level...by Gore or anyone else.

      Their best guess on the high end...with only 66% predicted reliability...promotes a sea level increase of only several inches...and that it will take at least 2000 years for the ice shelf to melt.

      The "sea level rise" issue is mostly driven by emotions and/or political gain...neither motive credible for raising an alarm. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (June 06, 2007 9:45 am ET)
           

        Round it off: 1 foot, per century, for 20 centuries, equals 20 ft.

        Even that is a severe understatement of truth, for there are 40 ft of sea level rises suspended in two different masses, each raising sea level independently of the other; and the most amazing thing about the resistors, would-be debunkers, of global climate change, is that this process is accelerating so rapidly that even some on the fringes of resistance are beginning to accept and repent. I don't know how long we have, and I don't expect to see the "end-times" - but we don't appear to have as long as we need merely to convince all those resistors.   

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (June 06, 2007 10:35 am ET)
             

           - “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions...When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” - Dr. David Evans, mathmatician and engineer

           - Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" ...now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic - Dr. Claude Allegre, geophysicist

           - “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air...We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” - Dr. Reid Bryson, climatologist, United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor

          There are plenty of former global warming advocates who have turned skeptical...these are just a few examples.

          Obviously we disagree on the aspects of global warming...fine with me...but the amount of former proponents of global warming who have now turn skeptics is increasing.

          I fall in the camp that believes that the climate modeling computer programs are woefully inadequate. We know little about clouds, water vapor, and the sun's effect on climate change.

          I'm not dismissing the debate on climate change...however, I don't believe that the aspects are dire...after all...what is the perfect temperature for all of mankind? The temperature 1000 yrs ago...500 yrs ago...today...tomorrow? 

           

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by crimson2 (June 06, 2007 2:53 pm ET)
               

            There are a few scientists who dissent from the consensus, but they are a tiny minority.  In public policy, we usually go with the majority scientific opinion.  The only time people go against the majority of experts is when it disagrees with their political view.

             

             

            Report Abuse
          • Author by conleytgwinn (June 06, 2007 2:53 pm ET)
               

            The precise temperature at which those two ice masses do not submerge Manhattan, nor half of Europe nor Florida. And we are already too high for that to remain so. Your three (or three thousand) skeptics do not greatly impress me, for they have not (apparently) altered the scientific concensus. Nor have they altered the evidence of my own senses and reason, as to the probable cause. However, you and the resistors may escape on a technicality: either Bungle decides to bomb Iran, chaos rules the planet, billions die - and we drop to a sustainable population, even if momentarily; or everything else runs out long before we have to worry about global climate change killing us individuals.  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (June 06, 2007 3:13 pm ET)
                 

               - A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities. - financial post

              Supporting the issue that man is causing and can control the climate is certainly espoused by a majority...but there is no consensus except in the press reports.

              The list of skeptics is growing...and you are entitled to your own feelings and reasonings...however, until the global warming alarmists can produce provable and repeatable data...the consensus theory is not credible. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by conleytgwinn (June 06, 2007 4:52 pm ET)
                   

                Gee, Wesley, it certainly is a relief to know that this consensus is not credible to you - otherwise we would be stuck wondering why you oppose it so vociferously. However, in that it is the scientific consensus, it must be credible to masses of, oh, I don't know, scientists?

                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (June 07, 2007 12:18 am ET)
                   

                Until the deniers can start doing some peer reviewed studies to back up THEIR claims they have LESS credibility

                Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (June 07, 2007 11:27 am ET)
         

      i think there is a real possibility of that.  and if it does happen, the scenario that you predict will occur.  the cost of doing nothing is too great.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by s.p.johnson2831 (June 06, 2007 10:59 am ET)
         

      Unfortunately reality does not fit into Fred's political point of view.  When you have to resort to misquoting and providing false comparisions it shows your position is inherently weak and false.  Reality is a liberal bias.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (June 06, 2007 1:22 pm ET)
           

        Should be called " FOX NesManagement Corp "

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wolf kotenberg (June 06, 2007 3:17 pm ET)
             

          Should be called " FOX NewsManagement Corp "

           

          makes more sense when spelled right..........

          Report Abuse
    • Author by bill peppin (June 07, 2007 3:21 am ET)
         

      My two bits for what it's worth to those who discount the hypothesis that man-caused alterations of the environment are leading to a rapid, and accelerating, depletion of ice all over the world.  The reason we all must take this seriously is because, on the best information we have, a substantial probability exists, certainly considerably greater than zero, that this depletion is in part caused by acts of man through greenhouse emissions.  Furthermore, it is certain (probability 1) that we as a species can take steps to reverse the discharge of greenhouse gases from industrial activities.  Finally, it is certain (probability 1) that if either the Greenland or West Antarctic icecap collapses, the impact on human and economic activity will be catastrophic, so severe that the viability of the species might well be threatened as never before.  Therefore, if we feel any responsibility to our family, friends, descendants, or other humans, we must work toward doing what we can.  Guys!  Maybe it is hopeless, maybe things are in motion that we cannot control. And, yes, indeed, 10,000 or 100,000 years ago the Earth experienced high runup of temperature and wholesale diminution of ice at the poles.  BUT WE AS A CIVILIZATION ARE UTTERLY UNPREPARED FOR AN OCCURRENCE OF THIS KIND, SINCE IT WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE ABILITY OF THE PLANET TO SUPPORT NOW 7 BILLION PEOPLE.  In conclusion:  all of us, including the naysayers, need to be working in every way we can to address this issue, both on a personal level and through aggressive political action, whether these actions be an exercise in futility or no.  Believe this, you naysayers:  things are in motion at the poles that are causing those who have spent years there to say the collapse of one or both major icecaps could happen within the next 30 years.  If you want to believe this is just political hype, or sensationalism, and therefore to ignore this as a real possibility facing all of humanity, go ahead.  But at least I ask you to make more informed criticisms of the SPECIFIC allocations of the global warming community than generalized attacks based on simply stating that "some people disagree."  Right, neither you nor I know with surity the truth of these matters; and nobody can say if the icecaps will collapse.  If I were guessing, I would say, Probably not, but then, I'm no atmospheric scientist, no oceanographer measuring the alteration of thermal conditions in the oceans and in the atmosphere.  Shall we blow off the one thing we have over other life forms -- our ability to think and reason -- on a hope and a guess?  I hope all who bother to read this will take these comments seriously.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.