About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post's Solomon uncritically quoted Thompson "mocking global warming"

July 27, 2007 3:43 pm ET

49 Comments

In a July 27 Washington Post article on presumptive Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson displaying his "conservative credentials" through his online writings, staff writer John Solomon wrote, "Thompson seems to have taken particular pleasure in mocking global warming" in commentaries he posted on National Review Online (NRO). Solomon quoted Thompson's March 22 NRO entry, which said, "It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto," and continued, "This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle." But missing from Solomon's report was any indication that Thompson's claim -- that warming on other planets is evidence that warming on Earth is the result of natural circumstances, and not largely caused by humans -- is one, according to a scientist interviewed in National Geographic about the theory, that is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion."

As Solomon noted, Thompson's NRO commentaries are based on his ABC Radio Networks commentaries, which, as Media Matters has documented, contain misinformation about global warming and other topics. Thompson's March 22 NRO commentary is identical to his April 13 ABC Radio Networks commentary, in which he mocked those who "think that our planet is suffering from a fever." In that commentary, Thompson said that "NASA says the Martian South Pole's ice cap has been shrinking for three summers in a row," and suggested that the sun is responsible for higher global temperatures on Earth, Mars, and other planets:

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn't even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There's a consensus.

As Media Matters noted, Thompson's claims about "Martian warming" echoed what National Geographic described as "one scientist's controversial theory" stipulating that "global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun." National Geographic reported that "Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia" asserted that "2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey" show "that the carbon dioxide 'ice caps' near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row," and theorized that because warming is occurring naturally on Mars, warming on Earth might also be attributable to natural causes. According to the National Geographic article, "Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets."

National Geographic went on to report that Abdussamatov's theory has "not been well received by other climate scientists," and quoted "Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University" saying that Abdussamatov's "views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion." According to Wilson, they "contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." The article added that "[t]he conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun," and that "most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now."

Additionally, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on April 5 that an article published that day in Nature by Lori Fenton, a planetary geologist with the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center, found that increasing Martian temperatures may be due to the darkening of the planet's surface since the 1970s. According to the Chronicle:

On Earth, the recent decades of increasing global temperatures have been caused by increased emissions of industrial heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide and methane, while on Mars, it's the darkening of many surface regions that allows the sun to warm the planet, Fenton says.

"Albedo" is the technical term for a planet's ability to reflect sunlight, and on Mars its over-all albedo has decreased since it was first measured between 1976 to 1978 by infrared detectors aboard the two orbiting Viking spacecraft whose landers had descended to the surface in a search for signs of Martian life.

More than 20 years later, infrared heat detectors aboard the orbiting Mars Global Surveyor measured the planet's albedo and found that it had darkened significantly.

The cause, according to Fenton, is a combination of high Martian winds that periodically scour bright sand and dust from many rocky surface regions, fierce Martian "dust devils," similar to those that whip desert sands on Earth, and truly major dust storms like the one in 2001 that began inside the crater called Hellas Basin and then literally wrapped itself around the planet before subsiding.

Moreover, the BBC reported on July 10 that a study conducted by Britain's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory and Switzerland's World Radiation Center concluded "that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change" because "for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined." According to the BBC:

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as -- if not faster than -- any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Solomon's July 27 article followed a July 26 article in which Solomon, as Media Matters for America documented, wrote that Thompson "gained fame in the early 1970s as the 30-something lawyer who helped Republican Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee pursue Richard M. Nixon's misdeeds during the Watergate hearings," but did not mention Thompson's reported role as a Nixon mole in the Watergate probe.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jscott (July 27, 2007 3:54 pm ET)
         

      Next thing you know, they'll announce Solomon as Press Secretary for the not-yet-ready-for-prime-time Thompson campaign.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (July 27, 2007 4:02 pm ET)
         

      If Thompson dug a little further he might notice that the hottest planet, Venus, has the most CO2.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (July 27, 2007 5:44 pm ET)
           

        Maybe Thompson can wrap his lips around a tailpipe and show us how harmless it is?

        Good thing that's just a joke, it might be construed as hate speach by O'Reilly...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 4:06 pm ET)
         

      So, is Thompson not allowed to mock the religion of global warming, or is the press just not supposed to report that he mocked it?  Or is it both?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeffrey.king22218 (July 27, 2007 4:17 pm ET)
           

        "religion of global warming' = pathetic troll talking point.

        So we are all to sit in silent admiration as he spouts long-debunked talking points?

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 4:38 pm ET)
             

          So, the press is supposed to advance the pro-global warming Al Gore position and absolutely be uncritical of that?  

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (July 27, 2007 4:42 pm ET)
               

            No, they're supposed to report the facts. Thompson spouts misinformation, and they're supposed to counter his statement with facts. It's pretty simple.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 27, 2007 5:00 pm ET)
               

            Global warming isn't a religion and it isn't just Al Gore's position.  Those are pathetic - and either ignorant or disengenuous - statements.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 5:05 pm ET)
                 

              No, it isn't a religion, nice catch.  But the fervor to which some protect it and defend it with all their might, is akin to a person who feels just as strong about their religious faith.  Hence the play-on-words comparison.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Lynn (July 27, 2007 5:53 pm ET)
                   

                I understand. It's the same fervor you and so many Conservatives have when defending the glories of tax cuts for the well to do. When you believe deeply and sincerely in the good of something you will very passionately attempt to impart those beliefs to others, and there is nothing wrong with that. BTW global warming is real and the economic trickle down theory is just that. (smile).  

                Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (July 27, 2007 5:57 pm ET)
                   

                tommy,  the religious-like "fervor" is actually more obvious in people like yourself.  you don't offer a single argument except "you guys are wrong".

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 6:06 pm ET)
                     

                  Hmm?  I don't believe I said "you guys were wrong".  I was arguing the validity of criticizing the media everytime they don't opine on this issue and editorialize as global warming alarmists the way you or others here would like. 

                  They aren't even allowed to report that some people don't share it because in your mind, and many, it's already settled.  What an amazingly arrogant position, not to mention the curiousness of being so frightened of the opposing viewpoint.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mefirst (July 27, 2007 6:13 pm ET)
                       

                    the term "not settled in the least" applied to this issue, seems to qualify to me as you guys are wrong.   you are saying that there's some huge controversy among the scientific community.  there is not.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 6:17 pm ET)
                         

                      Not settled does not mean you are automatically wrong....it means the jury is still out and opposing views are not "ignorant"

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mefirst (July 27, 2007 6:25 pm ET)
                           

                        but the jury really is not still "out".   and when your argument is based on false facts, then that should be pointed out.   that's the problem with this whole debate.  too much of "not settled" by people who know nothing about it.  why let some blowhard like thompson go unchallenged about something he knows nothing about.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by mefirst (July 27, 2007 8:24 pm ET)
                             

                          well it's not fred thompson, but...in the august 2007 popular science magazine, there is a article on the greenland ice sheet:  "konrad steffen oversees a staff of 550 at the cooperative institute for research in environmental sciences in boulder colorado".    "in fact, new data that steffen and his colleagues are just beginning to understand suggest that the seemingly dire warnings from the u.n.'s ipcc may turn out to be profoundly understated".   [and remember that the ipcc report was toned down at the insistence of the u.s. and china among others].

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by mefirst (July 27, 2007 9:25 pm ET)
                               

                            and a different thompson, the july smithsonian article "chronicling the ice", about glacier expert lonny thompson, who has drilled core samples on numerous glaciers in the last 30 years:  "as thompson looks at his cores across a long fetch of space and time, he sees what appears to be a wavelike sweep of ice growth proceeding north to south across the equator.  this pattern, thompson says, bears a striking correspondence to a 21,500 year astronomical cycle.  known as the precessional cycle, it derives from the fact that the earth, like a child's top, wobbles as it spins, altering the time of year in which the northern and southern hemispheres come closest to the sun."

                            "the precessional pattern is still at work, thompson says, but it's infuence is becoming harder to detect".  says thompson:  "if nature alone were in charge, then glaciers should be growing in the lower latitudes of one hemisphere and retreating in the lower latitudes of another.  but that's not what's happening."   

                            Report Abuse
                  • Author by clams casino (July 28, 2007 12:29 am ET)
                       

                    Yeah, all those scientists are so arrogant with all their high falutin' facts and figures. They're all just afraid of Fred Thompson's "opposing opinions."

                    Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (July 27, 2007 4:40 pm ET)
           

        He cited one scientist's point of view as the basis for that mockery.  A point of view that is "completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion".  I surmise that according to MMFA, this constitutes misinformation, being that the issue is not the mockery, but the "factual" basis for the mockery. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 4:48 pm ET)
             

          Thompson mocked it.  The press reported that Thompson mocked it.  Are they supposed to take it apart just to appese the global warming advocates?  No, they report, you decide (heard that somewhere) if it's worth mocking or not, it's called unbiased reporting.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 4:52 pm ET)
             

          Pete,

          What if Thompson had said something that aligned with Al Gore's position, or pro man made global warming - and then this reporter reported that.  Would he be obliged to take that apart and appease the anti-global warming crowd?  Of course not.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by skeptical (July 27, 2007 5:29 pm ET)
               

            Tommy,

            You missed the point that Global Warming is a fact.  Mocking it is stupid.  There isn't an intelligent person on the planet that does not understand that global warming is real. Notice the word "intelligent".

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 5:42 pm ET)
                 

              Global warming is a hot topic and not settled in the least, climate changes are as old as the climate. The jury is still out.  

              Report Abuse
              • Author by crimson2 (July 28, 2007 9:54 am ET)
                   

                Every scientific org that studies the climate agrees that AGW is real and a threat. So the "jury" that you speak of consists of whom exactly?

                 

                 

                Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 5:45 pm ET)
                 

              Besides, if it's such a fact, done deal.......then why the hysteria and all the upset over a little harmless mocking?  Surely, something as settled as this can withstand a little poke now and then, right?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 27, 2007 6:19 pm ET)
                   

                The science isn't so unsettled...IPCC WG I 2007 Report.

                So what harm is this?  You may as well ask what harm there is in a misinformed public.  Behind Fred's "poking fun" was a serious, but ignorant critique of global warming.  he wasn't just writing this for the humor.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 6:27 pm ET)
                     

                  You have your reports and your studies, that is fine......as do many others. 

                  If it was so settled, you wouldn't be getting so upset, that's the truth. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 27, 2007 6:37 pm ET)
                       

                    If it was so settled, you wouldn't be getting so upset, that's the truth. 

                    Not the truth, but a poor assumption...see my later post.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by crimson2 (July 28, 2007 10:04 am ET)
                       

                    I like how you compare the IPCC report--which is an overview of all climate related scientific literature executed by the top scientists in the field--with some vague "others" which probably never even passed a peer review. Don't listen to actual climatologists; instead listen to politicians and pundits who think that looking at Mars' temperature is a valid way to measure total solar irradiance.

                    Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (July 27, 2007 6:13 pm ET)
               

            He wouldn't be any more obligated to inject the opposing view than the reporter in this item would. 

            You keep trying to turn many of these items into a case of MMFA obligating the media to mention this and that.  It's not about obligation, it's about credibility. Credibility is mentioned in MMFA's mission statement.

            When an opposing viewpoint exists that's held by such a huge majority, making mention of that opposing viewpoint will, in my opinion, give credibility to report.  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 6:20 pm ET)
                 

              Then what does "uncritically" mean to you?  It means to me that MMFA is absolutely obligating the media to do what they want them to do.

              Sorry, we see it differently.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (July 27, 2007 6:58 pm ET)
                   

                "Uncritically" means that if the reporter was more critical of Thompson's information, that reporter would be more credible

                Report Abuse
          • Author by dmcc9995 (July 27, 2007 11:17 pm ET)
               

            "People with too many arguments should always be approached with suspicion. Dialectic and endless reasoning are usually used as resistance against disagreeable truths" A. M. Meerloo, M.D. "Delusion and Mass-Delusion" (c) 1949

            TOMMY, I doubt you are old enough to have been one of Dr Merloo's case studies, but he certainly knew you very well.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (July 27, 2007 4:44 pm ET)
           

        Ah, the Couteresque angle. Make smarmy jokes and then write off the critical response as PC oppression.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (July 27, 2007 4:09 pm ET)
         

      While we argue about whether the difference is 20 ft (Gore, a century) or 20 inches (a decade, and right-wing nay-sayer nutz), the truth is, there is at least 45 ft. of sea level suspended in the two major ice-caps; and as much as 5 more, in minor glaciers. And, the rate of melt has accelerated, and will further accelerate, due to recently understood changes in ice as it melts. We may be looking at as much as 50 ft. of increase in sea level within the next century; and an impossible climate as well. Too bad I have a grandchild (finally!), else I could shrug this away as Thompson, Solomon, et al., do here.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 27, 2007 4:23 pm ET)
         

      Nixon was right; Thompson really is "dumb as hell."  The new storms on Jupiter a result of regional warming, not global.  We know less about Pluto's warming thanks to it's distance; however, it's possible it's a uniquely Plutonian seasonal change owed to it's 248 year orbit and extreme tilt.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by jeffrey.king22218 (July 27, 2007 4:36 pm ET)
           

        And the underlying point is that these claims of warning on other planets are made to suggest that an increase in solar output is the common cause.  But solar outputcan be (and is) measured directly, and is not showing anything like the claimed or implied increase:

        The mean insolation at Earth orbit is about 1366 W/m^2; the peak-to-peak variation over the 11 year solar cycle is about 3 W/m^2; the authors discuss two running averages derived from different satellite data sets and analysis derived by Willson and Mordvinov (2003) and Frohlich and Lean (1998) respectively. The latter show negligible change in the mean solar radiance over the data span (formally shows a statistically insignificant cooling) the latter suggest there is a possibly signifcant increase in the mean from 1980-1990 to 1990-2000. The change in the mean is about 0.05% or about 0.5 W/m^2, much less than the variation within a cycle. The corresponding first order fractional change in temperature (neglecting any feedbacks) would be about 0.01%, or about 0.03K at Earth.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 27, 2007 5:12 pm ET)
         

      Oh...you're so right, Tommy.  After all, the media's job is just to uncritically report everything right-wing politicians say, no matter how loony or false.

      If Bush says Iraq has WMDs, just report it.  If Gonzales says there wasn't a briefing on the TSP, just report it.  If Thompson implies that global warming is nonsense, just report it. ...and when the time comes that Bush tells us that Iran has obtained a nuclear weapon and needs to be invaded immediately or else, just report it.

      Give me a friggin' break!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 5:22 pm ET)
           

        This is a topic about one man's innocuous slap at the global warming alarmists, nothing more.

        The rest of your post if off topic as well as a textbook strawman argument.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 27, 2007 5:56 pm ET)
             

          This is a topic about one man's innocuous slap at the global warming alarmists, nothing more.

          In your ignorant opinion, yes I can see that.  If you already don't take global warming seriously, what harm is this, eh?  Fortunately, MMFA undrstands the science, even if you and Fred don't.

          The rest of your post if off topic as well as a textbook strawman argument.

          Not quite...either my entire post is a strawman or it's not.  Actually, it probably wasn't a fair characterization of your argument. Considering your own belittling of global wamring science, you probably don't see Fred's comments as being looney and false.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 6:09 pm ET)
               

            Calm yourself!  Is that anyway to react, "in my ignorant opinion".  

            More proof of the religious fervor that many have in defense of this issue....why is that?  

            And yes, to bring up Iran and WMD's is not only off topic, but a strawman.  Sorry.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 27, 2007 6:34 pm ET)
                 

              More proof of the religious fervor that many have in defense of this issue....why is that?  

              Actually, the nature of my response has less to do with global warming than my intolerance of willful ignorance.  However, I still shouldn't have written that.  Sorry.

              And yes, to bring up Iran and WMD's is not only off topic, but a strawman.

              Examples/analogies are not necessarily strawman arguments.  You have to consider what's being asserted -stated or implied - with regard to the original argument.  In any event, I noted that you probably weren't arguing what I said you were, since you seemed to be arguing from the position that Fred's comments weren't so looney or false.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (July 27, 2007 6:39 pm ET)
                   

                Look CD, I respect your opinions and your passion on this issue.  I am not as convinced, but I don't say the proponents of global warming are stupid.  I just think we should accept all points of view.

                Thompson's opinion notwithstanding.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by ChristianDemocrat (July 27, 2007 8:35 pm ET)
                     

                  I just think we should accept all points of view.

                  When those points of view are based on rational reasoning, I agree.  In particular, the specific actions that should be taken with respect to adaptation and mitigation are still very much open to debate - though they need to be debated with an objective of reaching decisions, not avoiding them.

                  Thompson's opinion notwithstanding.

                  ...and I think that was MMFA's point.

                  Report Abuse
        • Author by HughG (July 28, 2007 7:58 am ET)
             

          The "one man" is a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination. His "innocuous slap" is an attempt to trivialize what many citizens and scientists view as a very serious issue. His position, and facts which support or undermine it, would be reported by a responsible media.

          Sadly, the media are not responsible. They're treating Thompson as the Ideal Candidate. Butt that's probably a temporary phenomenon; the media tend to treat what they view as a "fresh face" with kid gloves. As soon as he announces, they'll start paying attention. And then his approval ratings will come crumpling down to earth quicker than an old man hunting with Dick Cheney.

          At least, that's my prediction. I figure that the media will do their job, to a degree--better late than never.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (July 27, 2007 6:55 pm ET)
         

      I just think we should accept all points of view.

      Not all opinions are created equal. Some judgements and evaluations on a subject are more scientifically sound than others. It's unfair to say that all points of view should be accepted when one is clearly more valid than another.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (July 29, 2007 3:25 pm ET)
         

      "I figure that the media will do their job, to a degree--better late than never. " HughG

      Hope you do in vain, for this is the same Corporate Media that is still lying daily, for Bungle and his criminal cohorts in the administration. Hope you do in vain, for this is the same Corporate Media that is unwilling to cover the issue of Global Climate Change actively, with discussion of what can be done, and what it would cost to do that. Or what the reasonably agreed consequences of failure to do that might be.

      This is the same Corporate Media that was forced to report that Gore was receiving accolades from around the planet, as prescient on this crisis; but managed to counter those by unearthing both renenwals of all their old lies about him, and new complaints of his hypocricy in owning a large house or flying to distant places, while only purchasing offsets for the carbon.

      And therein lies the real problem with merely "uncritically quoting Thompson mocking Global Warming": this is just another attempt to avoid engaging the questions with the public. Is Global Climate Change real? Seems pretty certain, based on the science available. What are the consequences of Global Climate Change? Sea level changes of up to 50 feet within a century are possible. Is that a problem for the coastal residents? Could be. That would be a few stories up into the Empire State Building. The subway would probably not work too well, either.

      What about inland residents? Well, the primary sources of fresh water would have vanished: snow melt from the mountains supports the West Coast water supply, and California agriculture. Plains agriculture and habitation are similarly threatened. High Plains become High Desert. The lower plains lose enough fresh water supply to cripple the bread-basket of America.

      Weather? Complicated, but certainly much harsher for most residents of the planet.

      Shouldn't that Corporate Media be talking about this, informing us of the positions of the candidates on this?

      ARE THEY? 

       

      Report Abuse
The Fox Effect
Media Matters Connect

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.