If McCarthy is allowed to discuss health issues on the show when she starts in September, these sorts of problems will only get worse. Bill Nye “the Science Guy” told the Huffington Post that he hopes the show will “promote this conflict, or at least vigorous disagreement, about the role of science in medicine” because he “believe[s] Ms. McCarthy’s views will be discredited.” But the reality is that misinformation is extremely difficult to counter with facts alone. That’s why it was laudable that the Chicago Sun-Times stated that McCarthy would “not be writing about vaccines or giving medical advice” in her advice column for the paper. Will ABC do the same? Or will the network and View co-host Barbara Walters sit by while McCarthy misleads millions of Americans, including many young women, about a medical issue that could cost children their lives?
Follow @USProjectCJR for more posts from this author and the rest of the United States Project team.
Brendan, what separates my story about Jenny McCarthy from nearly all over news coverage about her new job on the View is that my piece was a news story, not an opinion piece. TV critics and opinion columnists can feel free present one side. News reporters should not. We have no shortage of pundits these days, and very few actual reporters, so perhaps it's easy to forget the basic rules of our trade. We stated the science unequivocally: vaccines don't cause autism. In fact, vaccine-preventable diseases are returning due to low vaccination rates. I take tremendous heat from anti-vaccination web sites for repeating this fact in all my stories, but it's a fact. People can certainly have different opinions, however, about Ms. McCarthy and The View's decision to hire her. Maybe I'm old school, but when two sides disagree on a matter of policy, we include both.
#1 Posted by Liz Szabo, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 02:47 PM
The point is that just because two sides disagree on an issue, presentation of those two sides need not be balanced if one side is demonstrably wrong, even harmful. By doing so, the reporter lends credence to untenable positions.
#2 Posted by Dan Franzen, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 03:06 PM
Too simple. What is the issue here? The news story says that McCarthy is 'demonstrably wrong' about vaccines(“Two dozen studies have failed to find any link between autism and vaccines”), so that isn't it.
The disagreement here is over whether this vaccine-naysayer should be on a TV show or not. That is a political judgement on a free speech issue. CJR's criticism of the news story reporting this to readers is misguided.
#3 Posted by Dan Vergano, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 03:48 PM
I'm starting to wonder if we have more journalism critics than journalists.
If you're trying to start an argument on "false equivalency," don't bother. I agree.
But if you're looking for a whipping boy to illustrate the issue, I think you've got the wrong reporter. As Dan Vergano says, this story did not present two sides of vaccine science. We presented one side - the facts -stating very clearly that McCarthy is wrong. We *did* present two sides to the question of whether ABC was right or wrong to give McCarthy a national platform.
Really, please read the story more carefully before venting.
#4 Posted by Liz Szabo, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 07:11 PM
Szabo's frames her shameful news reporting about science as "a matter of policy" which is either disengenuous or a sign of pretentious ignorance. Acknowleging that there is no scientific evidence that there is any link between vaccination and autism is not enough in this case. (And getting flak from anti-vax nutters is not a good enough reason to compromise journalistic integrity.)
If a celebrity lacking any credentials of any sort says that an alien vortex gave her child autism, that is a ridiculous *opinion*. Such an opinion is neither "news" nor a "matter of policy" that can be run alongside real science without blurring the entire issue. Szabo is participating in the current trend of undermining science reporting by treating scientific consensus as equivalent to the opinion of an idiotic celebrity. That is not respectable news journalism.
#5 Posted by Kristin, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 07:46 PM
First, Kristin, the story makes it abundantly clear that Ms. McCarthy's claims have no merit. No merit. We do not in any way defend her. Not in any way. I just don't know what is making you so angry.
Did you actually read the story or just this blog?
Second, Kristin, have you heard of a null hypothesis? I said there is no link between vaccines and autism because there is none. Scientists tend to say, "There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism," rather than "vaccines don't cause autism" because you can't prove a negative. I guess you just want stronger language than science can provide. I'm guessing you must get get pretty riled up when you read the CDC web site, because this is an example of their phrasing: "There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site."
Oh, wow, clearly the CDC just doesn't believe in vaccines, huh?
#6 Posted by Liz Szabo, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 10:09 PM
Ms. Szabo, I read your article and I'm afraid Nyhan is correct. You actually give more space to the misinformers than you do to the scientists. They are also presented sympathetically and with personal anecdotes, which for typical readers makes them more persuasive than mere assertion by authorities. The correct way to deal with misinformation is to not repeat it. Your story is a classic he said/she said. It's precisely what not do do.
#7 Posted by M. Barton Laws, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 10:47 AM
Regarding Ms. Szabo's article, it was stated that the question of hiring Ms. McCarthy was a "free speech issue." That is false. Free speech involves government actions to restrict speech. The issue is whether it is responsible action for a corporation to provide Ms. McCarthy with a forum from which to spread her harmful views. I believe that it is reprehensible for ABC to give Ms. McCarthy a platform from which to promote her views on vaccines. If ABC is going to place her in a position to speak on public issues, she should begin by apologizing to the public and clarifying that she was very wrong in her advocacy and misled many people.
#8 Posted by Lois Matelan, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 02:06 PM
I'm trying to figure out why academics are devoting so much time to shooting the messenger.
I'm also wondering what your ideal story would look like. From the sound of it, a one-sided editorial is the only thing that would satisfy you. Do you really think we should have suppressed the voices of people who appreciate Jenny McCarthy and agree with ABC's decision? Isn't that what conspiracy theorists are constantly accusing the media of?
We did not give equal time to the view that vaccines cause autism. We explicitly cite the roughly two dozen studies showing the opposite. And while I haven't done a word count, there are far more pro-vaccine voices in the story than pro-Jenny McCarthy. Beyond mere space on the pages, the pro-vaccine quotes carry incredible power. What could be stronger than, "Children have died due to this misinformation, and those who perpetuate lies for personal gain ought to be held responsible?" Or another eloquent quote, making a point that I haven't heard before: "In the medical community, we'll work to undo myths around vaccine safety for the rest of our lives, in part because of Ms. McCarthy." But if you want some sort of score sheet, there are four pro-vaccine quotes include public health advocate Amy Pisani, Dr. Ari Brown, Dr. Rahul Parikh and Dr. Wendy Sue Swanson. These quotes carry extra weight because they come from actual doctors. The mention of Autism Speaks and those two dozen studies are two additional strong elements in favor of vaccines, also conveying the weight and authority of science.
It's hard to believe you think the story tilts in favor of Ms. McCarthy. Yes, we used her pre-fab statement, along with a statement from Barbara Walters, because they weren't available live. It's a standard part of journalistic fairness to let people being attacked respond to the accusations. In addition, the story also has two desperate moms who talk briefly about their personal experiences and subjective assessments of their kids' progress. I note that one mom now takes her kids to Ms. McCarthy's co-author, a California doctor. Do I quote him on his anti-vaccine views? No. I quote her subjective experience of loneliness and isolation -- a quote that helps explain why, in their desperation, so many parents turn to Ms. McCarthy. You may not like that. You may think Ms. McCarthy is exploiting their desperation. But the story would be incomplete without giving some explanation for Ms. McCarthy's popularity. You may note that our story contains original research. Our national poll found that 40% of those familiar with her anti-vaccine views say they are now less sure of the safety of vaccines.
So what would a really unbalanced story have looked like?
I must have gotten at least 20 emails from moms like those quoted in the article, thanks to an autism web site that gave out my email address. Now, if I were really going to undermine vaccine safety, I could have quoted people like the mom who wrote to me claiming there are 67 studies supporting the vaccine/autism link. She also impugned the integrity of a vaccine researcher. Now, I didn't quote any of that, because I have good reason to doubt the validity of those claims, and reporters are obliged not to print things that they believe to be false. I have no idea what these "67 studies" are, but they sure haven't been in the New England Journal, which is why there is no mention of them in our article.
If I had juxtaposed this mom's claims with the real science, that would have been wrong. But I didn't.
So what does my story have? Multiple, stinging criticisms of McCarthy and ABC by respected pediatricians and public health advocates. A blanket dismissal of Ms. McCarthy's vaccine claims. One banal written statement each by Ms. McCarthy and Ms. Walter, two moms, and a telling quote from an ABC spokeswoman who says there are no plans to censor the hosts.
For a story that was first on the market, wri
#9 Posted by Liz Szabo, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 03:51 PM
We did not give equal time to the view that vaccines cause autism.
Actually, you gave more to the anti-vaccine side, by my quick count of the story. In addition, the criticisms about the story are exactly right: it's framed that as a "he said/she said." Jenny McCarthy says vaccines are dangerous; public health groups say they're not; a mom with an autistic son says she likes McCarthy; pediatricians say that having her talk is dangerous. Back and forth.
It's not editorializing to say that the earth is flat. It's reporting. It's not editorializing to say that vaccines don't cause autism. It's reporting.
#10 Posted by Total, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 04:57 PM
I've no dog in this fight and just read the USAT piece of the first time. It's clear to me that Nyhan got it right and Szabo's defense doesn't hold. Consider that:
1. No criticism of the vaccine-autism link is presented until the middle of paragraph 7. Preceding bullets describe "her views" and "her opinion" -- a classic he said/she said set up.
2. The "story highlight" bullets are 100% he said/she said. Critics say McCarthy has harmed public health/vaccine skeptics view her as a hero.
3. In the 7th graf, the sentence about studies immediately follows a sentence "public health groups fear." So it's less clear whether this is "their view" or a definitive statement of fact.
Finally, you (Szabo) asked what the ideal story would look like? To me, that answer is fairly simple. At the top of the piece, you should have made clear that McCarthy's views have been thoroughly disproven. That should be in the subhead and the 3rd graf.
#11 Posted by Matt, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 07:39 PM
In recent years, McCarthy has become as well-known for her claims that vaccines cause autism as for her roles as a late-night host on VH1 and a 1993 Playboy model.
Easy enough to write as:
"In recent years, McCarthy has become as well-known for her false claims that vaccines cause autism as for her roles as a late-night host on VH1 and a 1993 Playboy model."
There. That wasn't hard.
#12 Posted by Total, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 08:44 PM
So, Matt, I'm being excoriated not because I left out key information, but because the editor didn't move up paragraph? All this vitriol for an editing decision? Are we journalists here or somebody's propaganda arm? The great thing about working in a newsroom, instead of PR, is that we can focus on getting the damn story out, not running it by a self-appointed committee to see if a roomful of academics approve of every comma.
And as for Total, your re-write is absolutely fantastic - and 72 hours late. Gosh, it's an amazing job what armchair pundits can do when they have three days to digest the news that other people actually picked up a telephone to report.
Disappointingly, no one has yet to take me up on my offer to take on ABC or McCarthy themselves directly. I wonder why. Is there a shortage of investigative journalists among the armchair class? We commissioned our own poll on the subject five years ago and have been exposing the dangers of antiscientific thinking on vaccines, the return of vaccine-preventable diseases and the tragic deaths of children to these diseases for years. It doesn't sound like you've followed our coverage, but the anti-vaccination movement has, which is why my name and photograph are featured on so many of their Web sites.
What disappoints me most is that journalists who claim to be upholding the profession are using the same tactics.
I've written dozens of stories on vaccine science and their critical importance to public health, but go ahead, continue to flay me because of nitpicks in a single story. Clearly, I am the enemy here. Don't bother to do anything remotely useful, such as take on the myths and misinformation on sites across the Internet. Please, please don't waste any time researching vaccine myths and writing multiple articles explaining to parents whey they're not true. That might actually help someone. Clearly, this forum is for savaging your colleagues in the heat of the summer.
I'm signig off to this ridiculous debate. I have FOIA requests to file, and actual work to do in a real newsroom, where these commenters wouldn't survive a day.
#13 Posted by Liz Szabo, CJR on Thu 18 Jul 2013 at 11:29 AM
And as for Total, your re-write is absolutely fantastic - and 72 hours late. Gosh, it's an amazing job what armchair pundits can do when they have three days to digest the news that other people actually picked up a telephone to report.
You handle criticism well.
Thank you for the kind words about my rewrite. I added one word. If you'd sent me the draft earlier, I'm pretty sure I could have managed that one word in less than 72 hours.
Don't bother to do anything remotely useful, such as take on the myths and misinformation on sites across the Internet. Please, please don't waste any time researching vaccine myths and writing multiple articles explaining to parents whey they're not true.
That's so awesome I just had to reproduce the whole thing. That's a pretty high-level flounce (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flounce )
You have no idea what the commenters on this thread do (unless you're psychic) and yet you're reaching for the "I do REAL WORK while you sit in an armchair" defense?
My God, I'm not sure you could have come worse if you'd tried.
#14 Posted by Total, CJR on Thu 18 Jul 2013 at 02:42 PM
You know, if people treated politics like they do 'the view' the place might not be such a batsh!t nuthouse.
But I also suspect that it would be a place where critical thought would be suppressed, as it was when every person who expressed an anti war opinion on the topic of Iraq was treated as a padded cell deserving lunatic.
The View isn't going to be broadcasting vaccine disinformation for an hour a day, 7 days a week just because Miss Hassleback decided her views had a better fit on Fox (and those views may well be the more destructive ones).
So everybody should calm down.
Do you want to improve the coverage of Miss McCarthy? Bring up the scientific basis for why ethyl-mercury exposure is COMPLETELY different from methyl mercury exposure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376879/
And then we can talk about how the putting off of vaccines has less to do with the Jennifer McCarthy fringe, and more to do with the time and expenses people are having trouble affording to protect their kids
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/05/vaccines-whooping-cough
When the choice is between feeding your kids and innocating them, we have to realize that the problem isn't with the parent's decision, the problem is with the choice itself.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 18 Jul 2013 at 03:24 PM
My God, I'm not sure you could have come worse if you'd tried.
Sigh: That should read "My God, I'm not sure you could have come across worse if you'd tried.
Stupid proof-reading skills.
#16 Posted by Total, CJR on Thu 18 Jul 2013 at 04:18 PM
Salon found a way to make clear to its readers what's going on. Their headline is inflammatory, but IMHO it's accurate:
Dear ABC: Putting Jenny McCarthy on “The View” will kill children
Anti-vaccine conspiracist and "View" co-host Jenny McCarthy isn't just quirky -- she spreads lies that hurt people
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/16/dear_abc_putting_jenny_mccarthy_on_the_view_will_kill_children/
#17 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Fri 19 Jul 2013 at 11:06 AM
You know, between this and the Rollingstone cover hissy fit, I'm starting to think the media is trying to shake up a controversy.
This stuff doesn't matter. You know what matters? Climate change. Poverty. Reproductive education and choice. Labor rights to wages, benefits, and workplace safety. Bank and finance regulation. Investment in future technology and science. University accessibility. Well maintained public services and infrastructure. Water. Military spending several multiples of the rest of the globe, which is encroaching on our civil state and replacing it with a security one. (I could go on.)
And there are people who are working in think tanks, who own large corporations, who have been elected to public service, who speak on tv and the radio, who write in newspapers, and who hold controversial / unsupported by data / 'potentially lethal' opinions on these subjects.
If you want to focus on a figure's potential contribution to the public discourse, why not those people on those subjects?
Why focus on the playboy model with loopy opinions?
Especially since the View is no stranger to hosts with loopy opinions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkrkaH_V7fE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psGLXqW1kUs
It's like when the Justice department focused on Martha Stewart to the exclusion of EVERY WALLSTREET BANK INVOLVED IN FRAUD FROM THE TOP DOWN.
This controversy is getting disproportionate attention and I believe it's more because Jenny McCarthy is a safe target for "Can you believe this lady?" reporting than it is because of concerns for public disinformation and its affects on public health.
Report on the subjects listed above and call out the people who are proponents of bad ideas and information. Your duty to report on the topic of the playboy model is more than finished.
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 19 Jul 2013 at 01:09 PM
Jonathan Chait, whom I disagree with on occasion, attempts to do his duty in pieces like these:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/02/jonathan-chait-why-im-so-mean.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/george-will-anti-climate-science-loon.html
Yes, I get that vaccines are important, but the nation will not break on vaccines.
Stupid ideas on how to deal with economic and climatic crisis threatens to hurt and kill a lot more people.
Magnitudes more.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 19 Jul 2013 at 01:26 PM
Thimbles, in your latter link, Chait's graph is deceptive, because it only goes as far as 2007.
#20 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Fri 19 Jul 2013 at 10:19 PM
"Thimbles, in your latter link, Chait's graph is deceptive, because it only goes as far as 2007."
Strong word, 'deceptive'.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 04:40 AM
Thimbles, you are right about the word "deceptive". I should have written "misleading."
The full chars shows that temperature pretty much stopped rising during the last 15 years or so. In fact, the red 5-year running mean went down slightly for the last 8 years.
#22 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 08:58 AM
I've dealt with that here:
http://www.cjr.org/feature/sticking_with_the_truth.php#comment-77907
Hell, been dealing with it since 2009.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/lets_get_this_party_organized.php#comment-22566
If you are 'a skeptic', then you must answer the skeptics challenge as I put in threads past:
'If you do not believe that humans are not responsible, the A part in the AGW you deny, then you have to account where it is coming from.
You have to account for the source.
But let's say you don't. Carbon dioxide levels are just floating in the air in increasing amounts, no one knows why, but it's there.
Science says that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, that would normally reflect back into space, and transforms it into heat. If you deny that increased Carbon Dioxide doesn't cause increased heat, the GW in the AGW you deny, you have to explain how that happens. You have to account for effect.
You have to account for the source and the effects. That there is a rise is measured numbers and they don't lie.
If you believe that increased carbon dioxide levels are either not caused by man (this is all natural climatic variability!) or that their predicted effects, based on scientific observations of their physical and chemical properties, are overstated (it's all a hoax, man!) then where are your models, where is your science, to account for your beliefs?
Give us something testable.'
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 03:07 PM
And before you ask, yes we do have something testable:
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_heatwave_debate.php#comment-62989
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/what_drives_public_opinion_abo.php#comment-57453
And our models, based on our knowledge about the properties of our emissions and their quantities, have been passing those tests.
I now return you to your scheduled coverage of the playboy model. Sorry for the digression.
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 03:17 PM
Bad Astronomy, who have been at the forefront of the vaccine vs Jenny McCarthy issue, did a couple of links on climate change that are worthy of review:
Has a very basic climate science video (Bill Nye warning) and a video on the propagnada machine on the climate denial side.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/07/16/global_warming_bill_nye_teaches_climate_101.html
And this one on specific climate denial myths:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/06/11/climate_change_denial_zombies_ams_president_marshall_shepherd_talks_global.html
If your position is that Jenny McCarthy is a danger because of her views on vaccines go contrary to research and provoke negative behaviours on false beliefs, then your position must be that climate denialists moreso of a danger.
We have to call the Koch networks out for their 'No Climate Tax' pledge and climate disinformation funding.
We have to call the cranks out at Heritage, Heartland, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc... as dangerous misinformationalists who should not be given a public forum.
We have to expose the lobbyists who are forcing gridlock and retreat on climate solutions.
We have to put as much pressure on tv programs and news reporters to marginalize and criticize these bodies as we are doing on the subject of Jenny McCarthy.
We have to attack politicians who promote these views as vigorously as we are doing to Jenny McCarthy.
We have to support the research and work of expert climate scientists as much as we do vaccine experts against the attacks of Jennifer McCarthy.
If it is our duty to advocate for truth in the face of Jennifer McCarthy and the danger she poses, then it is our duty to advocate for truth in the face of Exxon, Koch, Ailes, Murdoch, and all the billionaires who are funding anti-climate science groups and using the 501(3) organization "Donor's Trust" to clean their fingerprints.
It is our duty to focus attention on the APCO type PR firms who are taking anti-climate money to set doubt as the public consensus.
Climate, not vaccine safety, will be the defining issue of the next century. If Jennifer McCarthy provokes this kind of sustained effort to limit her exposure and to promote the established claims she disputes, then why is this effort not being applied to the Koch's, the Tillerson's, the American Petroleum Institute?
Why are we not putting the same effort into exposing the false arguments for the Keystone Pipeline and the horrific risks which go against it?
This is more important than the playboy model with a shot at hosting The View. Treat it that way.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 06:52 PM
I think the impact of CO2 is real, but overstated, because during the last 15 years, the world warmed much less than the models predicted. Or, there may be some otherfactors that we don't understand.
#26 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 06:54 PM
CJR covered the Donor's Trust group here:
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/climate_denial_secret_funding.php
And did solid reporting on Koch involvement with the group and reasons one should have reservations on their rumoured Tribune acquisition plans here:
http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/the_koch_brothers_media_invest.php
#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 07:16 PM
"the world warmed much less than the models predicted."
This is incorrect. There are three factors which must be understood:
1) We have reduced other GHG emissions while raising CO2.
2) Ocean circulation patterns transport much of the CO2 and heat energy into the deeper sea. You also have ENSO oscillations which cause temperature shifts which can mask or intensify warming effects.
3) GHG warming is a function of solar radiation. When solar radiation decreases, temperatures should fall in line.
Keep those in mind and then read this paper:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
1) Emissions of CO2 have been going up, natural emissions are also going up (because natural carbons sinks are temperature sensitive). The draw down of other GHG levels produces a temporary difference in GHG forcing, but it will be soon replaced by new emissions of CO2 and increased atmospheric water vapour holding capacity.
2) Oceans can only compensate for so much. They are very temperature sensitive buffers, which means they will produce temporary feedbacks which moderate change.. until they break. Then they will produce new feedbacks which will intensify change which will take enormous effort to reverse.
3) The sun has been in a prolonged solar minimum. This too is temporary. When normal solar function restores, we will have major problems. We should have seen a decrease in temperatures because of reduced solar intensity, we have instead seen a plateau.
That plateau isn't going to hold.
The models predicted an amount of carbon dioxide forcing given a stable sun, stable atmospheric GHG's, and deep ocean measurements which cutting edge science has helped us understand better.
That the forcing isn't showing in the surface temperature readings over the last decade isn't indicative that warming hasn't occurred
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/deep-oceans-warming-at-alarming-rate-130711.htm
nor that the amount of forcing has reduced. Paleoclimate studies have confirmed that runaway Carbon Dioxide emissions have caused 6° changes and mass extinctions in the past. We are pumping carbon at a faster rate (5 times faster than the PETM) than has ever been achieved by nature. We have lots of room to force with our rapid gigaton emissions.
#28 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 08:01 PM
thimbles -- The four IPCC reports predicted certain amounts of global warming. Those predictions all turned out to be wrong. Now, you say the predictions were wrong because heat went into the deep sea. But, the IPCC didn't predict that heat would go into the deep sea. So IPCC’s predictions about the deep sea were also wrong.
I'll have confidence in the IPCC models when their predictions actually start coming true.
#29 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 10:09 PM
Fine, don't put your faith in IPCC models. (Much of the IPCC work has been overly cautious because they have to include research from oil producing and consuming countries. People don't want to admit the severity of such a fundamental problem)
Go out and research this issue. Look at the data. Understand how the mechanisms with in climate work.
NASA, NOAA, Real Climate, Skeptical Science all have up to date research and observations available to you.
Start to formulate a picture of what our emissions are affecting now and what they will affect in future.
http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ktYbVwr90
When we talk about climate change, you have to understand that the high temperatures we are experiencing are the new baseline. When people say "Oh the surface temperatures haven't increased in 10 years." you cannot use that to conclude that temperatures will be stable 10 years from now. We're still increasing emissions. In a decade where ocean dynamics and prolonged reduced solar intensity should have cooled us, we experienced the hottest decade in at least 160 years. We've watched sea ice and glaciers, some of which have lasted thousands of years, break up in months.
These aren't predictions of what is going to happen. This is what we see.
And what I predict in future is more warming, more severe freak weather, more invasive species, and more natural feedbacks triggered by increased temperature forcing temperature even higher.
Hell, this is what the hedge fund guys, the insurers, and the army will tell you - they're betting on it.
Don't believe the IPCC? Believe the weather. The freaky stuff ain't on its way, it's here - now.
Seek the knowledge and you will find it. The question for one who has the knowledge becomes, "What do you do with it?"
Nothing is not a good enough answer. Pretending there's enough doubt to avoid the knowledge is not good enough either.
We're talking about our planet, here.
#30 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 22 Jul 2013 at 05:26 AM
Looks like 'he said, CEI said' ain't going to fly in DC:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/20/2332511/dc-court-bluntly-affirms-michael-manns-right-to-proceed-in-defamation-lawsuit-against-national-review-and-cei/
Be careful who you call malicious frauds, jerkoffs. Its your malice and fraud which may be provable in court.
Meanwhile, as we saw with Dan Gainor in an earlier thread:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/17/2312191/jenny-mccarthy-hypocrisy/
"Among those lambasting The View for giving McCarthy’s anti-science theories a platform, though, are prominent conservatives who deny scientific consensus in another realm: climate change.
Here are four examples:
Breitbart.com editor-at-large Ben Shapiro...
TownHall.com columnist Derek Hunter...
Columnist and Hot Air writer Ed Morrissey...
GOP strategist Rick Wilson...
Why is it safe for conservatives to mock McCarthy’s anti-vaccine science views, yet regularly espouse their own anti-climate science beliefs? Look no further than the multi-trillion dollar oil industry.
Oil revenues total approximately $2 trillion, money which has been used to fund junk “studies” and groups, run massive anti-climate change advertising campaigns, and support politicians who actively oppose taking any action to avert catastrophic climate disaster. The oil industry has been so successful at casting doubt in the public sphere over the existence of man-made climate change — despite near-universal consensus among scientists that it’s happening — that it’s become not only uncontroversial, but accepted for figures like Shapiro, Hunter, Morrissey, and Wilson to deny climate science."
Q: What's the difference between Shapiro, Hunter, Morrissey, Gainor, Wilson and Jennifer McCarthy?
A: According to my safe search, a bikini. (and that's my story, your honor)
#31 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 22 Jul 2013 at 10:04 AM
Hmmm. Looks like something interesting is going on at Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-climate-ice-study-idUSBRE96E0GQ20130715
"Climate skeptics, however, say the evidence is unconvincing. Measurements of changing temperatures are unreliable, contradictory and unsupported by solid historic data, they say.
They question the accuracy of computer climate forecasts and point to historic, cyclical changes in the world's temperature as evidence that global temperature changes are natural. Others say the evidence shows temperatures have stopped rising and that the sun plays a bigger role than human activities."
Why the hell is Reuters talking to "Climate Skeptics" with unsupported views like "historic, cyclical changes in the world's temperature" are "evidence that global temperature changes are natural" and "that the sun plays a bigger role than human activities"?
It could be because they have a Jennifer McCarthy in their employ.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/16/2307291/reuters-exposed-publication-openly-hostile-to-climate-coverage-top-editor-doubts-climate-science/
"Paul Ingrassia (then deputy editor-in-chief) and I met and had a chat at a company function. He told me he was a climate change sceptic. Not a rabid sceptic, just someone who wanted to see more evidence mankind was changing the global climate...
Since I’ve left, I’ve lost count of the number of people who have asked me why Reuters’ climate change coverage has changed in tone and fallen in volume. That’s a good question for David Thomson, who is very keen to unlock value for his family’s acquisition of Reuters. He could do worse than restoring much needed resources to the climate and environment file to better serve clients and rebuild the Reuters brand."
#32 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 22 Jul 2013 at 10:30 PM
And while we're at it, we might want to ask some questions about Patrick Graham's angle.
Editor of both the Reuters piece above and this piece:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/column-wynn-climate-science-idUSL5N0EV2OE20130621
"Study opens new cracks in scientific front on climate change"
"the more uncertain the science is over the scale of warming, the less political will there may be."
"URGENT?"
"Scientists are saying that we are on track to reach that level of warming this century, or perhaps not."
"But the science shows a complicated problem which is hard to pin down, and is therefore struggling to engage voters. And the more cracks appear in the consensus that climate change demands urgent action, the less political will there will be to do more. "
This was the paper in question:
http://www.uwe-merckens.com/bilder/Wetter/ngeo.pdf
The doubling of CO2 figure is 560 ppm. We're at 400 ppm now. Population growth and energy consumption is not going to get smaller, especially if the world economies pull out of their global recessions. In 2009 we had CO2 of 387ppm. IF the rates of CO2 production stabilize at 2009 to 2013 levels, 560ppm is 50 years away.
"URGENT?"
The paper states that there will be immediate forcing which will raise temperature and long term forcing which will result as heat from past years remains trapped within the system combined with immediate forcing. The immediate is represented as TCR, the new equilibrium is represented as ECS.
This is why you see the higher temperatures in the ECS graph. These are bad news, assuming CO2 levels stop at 560ppm.
What does
Jennifer McCarthyGerard Wynn write under the oversight of editorJennifer McCarthyPatrick Graham?"One is the short-term warming at the moment CO2 levels reach double their baseline levels, called the transient climate response (TCR).
The other is the "equilibrium climate sensitivity" (ECS), or temperature change after the Earth has fully responded centuries later to the same doubling in CO2...
The short-term TCR is more relevant - because this is warming that we will see this century, and it makes less heroic assumptions about how people will keep a lid on further emissions in future centuries."
*facepalm* If you've got malignant growth, which is more important? The immediate problem of the lump or the projected metastization? Which is going to kill you?
And is that problem "URGENT?"
Personally, I don't like this paper. I think it's weak and over simplified, but I've made an attempt to understand what it's getting at.
Reuters just doesn't bother these days. Watt's up with Reuter's?
#33 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 22 Jul 2013 at 11:16 PM
I like your pun, Thimbles. "Watts up" is that climate change is no longer regarded as settled science. Yes, it's widely accepted that man's activity contributes to global warming, but there's no agreement about how large man's impact is, what anti-warming steps make sense, whether climate change really causes more natural catastrophes, or how reliable the models are.
Skeptics are now respectable. People who share your beliefs can't just ignore skeptics. They need to argue their evidence against skeptics' evidence.. E.g., when the Senate recently held hearings on climate change, they invited both warmists and skeptics.
#34 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Tue 23 Jul 2013 at 04:04 PM
"Yes, it's widely accepted that man's activity contributes to global warming,"
True
"but there's no agreement about how large man's impact is"
False, amongst those conducting the science, but if you can demonstrate using science how increasing amounts of GHG's will not create large impacts (hell forget about will - 81 percent of the US (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) had drought conditions last summer - we should be talking about the impacts which are happening) I'll hear you out.
But you're in Jenny McCarthy territory, I warn you.
"what anti-warming steps make sense"
Wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrag_FkFaXk
"whether climate change really causes more natural catastrophes"
False, with the conditions I set above. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpigok-lVK4
But who are you going to believe, the Heartland Institute or the reams of corroborating scientific research and your own lying eyes?
"or how reliable the models are."
Don't like the models? Show me better ones. Show me the work the climate skeptics have put into making both forecast and hindcast capable models which simulate observed earth conditions within acceptable margins of error.
Give me an objective reason for your doubt.
"Skeptics are now respectable."
Not when they frequently show no work, lie, make basic mistakes, refuse to accept basic evidence and observation, continually repeat knowably false statements which they refuse to correct, use economic and political arguments to avoid scientific realities, and act like Jennifer McCarthy.
Not when they put our lives at risk so that fossil fuel based companies can keep making cash in exchange for our viable world.
"They need to argue their evidence against skeptics' evidence."
Where? Where is your scientific, rigorously tested, environmentally relevant evidence?
#35 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 23 Jul 2013 at 05:54 PM
Because I've been doing this a while, I've seen the satellite based measurements of the energy imbalance:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
I've seen the spectral bandwidths in which this imbalance is taking place:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
And I have yet to see how 'skeptics' deal with the extra 382 billion J/s being injected into our environmental systems ((CO2 increased forcing) 0.75 W/m2 * (earth surface area) 510 billion m2 = 382 billion W).
If Hiroshima was about 88 billion joules, that means CO2 forcing is about 4 Hiroshimas every second.
How does that not have an impact over time? Show your work, explain your skepticism using scientific based argument. My work is there. Where's yours?
#36 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 23 Jul 2013 at 06:18 PM
E.g., when the Senate recently held hearings on climate change, they invited both warmists and skeptics.
Here is your hearing.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=cfe32378-96a4-81ed-9d0e-2618e6ddff46
And, trust me, there have been no shortage of Jenny McCarthy experts and politicians at Climate hearings in past, the oil industry has a fair amount of political clout
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/4/private_empire_author_steve_coll_on
Hell, Dan Gainor, a jack ass who has no climate change expertise himself, testified in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee back in 2006.
Skeptics haven't been ignored, the problem is they also haven't demonstrated why they shouldn't be ignored.
In every scenario where science runs against conservative political and/or economic dogma, they turn against science and spout discredited and destructive dogma. They are dangerous, and they should be treated just as severely as we treat 'dangers' like Jenny McCarthy.
Do you have a staple in your belly, Dave?
#37 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 23 Jul 2013 at 06:44 PM
Sigh, this is why you don't do math over twitter.
Surface Area of the earth = 5.1 *10^8 km2
Estimated net CO2 forcing = .75W/m2 = 750W/km2
5.1 *10^8 * 750 = 3825 * 10 ^ 8W
3825 * 10^8W * 1s = 382.5 * 10^9J
little boy = 12.5 kt TNT
1 t TNT = 4.184 * 10^9J
12.5*1000*4.184*10^9 = 52300 * 10^9
52300 / 382.5 = 136.73
Hiroshima was 136.73 times greater than today's CO2 climate forcing over the surface of the earth over 1 second.
That means every 2 minutes and 17 seconds CO2 forcing = 1 Hiroshima.
Given that there's 3600s/h and 24h/d and 365d/y this translates to 315.36 * 10^5 seconds in a year.
Divided by 315.36 * 10^5s/136.73s = 230644 Hiroshimas per year based on today's estimates of CO2 net forcing. That's an impact.
Good thing we check and show our work around here.
Now it's your turn.
#38 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 23 Jul 2013 at 08:28 PM
thimbles, you're wrong about there being agreement regarding how large man's impact is. Various climate models have sensitivities ranging from just above 0 to 6 degrees.
The new IPCC report will probably come out with a climate sensitivity of around 2.5 degrees C and a wide uncertainty range. The wide uncertainty range alone shows the lack of agreement on the magnitude of man's impact.
Furthermore, when you look at the actual models, some predict a climate sensitivity of as high as 6 degrees. Others are well below 2 degrees. Some climate models show a sensitivity between 0 and 1 degree.
#39 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Wed 24 Jul 2013 at 12:41 PM
Incidentally thimbles, two things are missing from your analysis: feedback and possible outside causes of climate change.
Feedback -- CO2 alone is a greenhouse gas with a sensitivity around 1. Models showing sensitivities greater than this assume a positive feedback. But, feedback isn't well understood. There's no good evidence of the true feedback coefficient. It could even be negative. That is, feedback could possibly reduce the impact of CO2 for all we know.
Other causes -- the IPCC assumes that man's activity has been the predominant cause of global warming. But, other factors that we don't understand might be having a major impact. E.g., this article speculates that we might be entering a period of low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse temperature increases. Cold not warmth might be our future. http://www.thegwpf.org/david-whitehouse-inactive-sun-global-cooling/
#40 Posted by David in Cal, CJR on Wed 24 Jul 2013 at 03:38 PM
"thimbles, you're wrong about there being agreement regarding how large man's impact is. Various climate models have sensitivities ranging from just above 0 to 6 degrees."
Link to what you're talking about and explain it.
"The new IPCC report will probably come out with a climate sensitivity of around 2.5 degrees C and a wide uncertainty range."
Explain what you mean by that.
"The wide uncertainty range alone shows the lack of agreement on the magnitude of man's impact."
How. Please explain.
"Furthermore, when you look at the actual models, some predict a climate sensitivity of as high as 6 degrees. Others are well below 2 degrees. Some climate models show a sensitivity between 0 and 1 degree."
You're using using terms without defining them. When you say climate sensitivity, what level of CO2 are you referring to? Who's studies? What feedbacks are they including in those studies (ie: is the effect of reduced ocean and land albedo combined with CO2 forcing or is CO2 forcing evaluated alone?) I guarantee you, those who are showing a sensitivity of 0 to 1° are either estimating from today's level:
http://climate.yale.edu/news/when-crocodiles-roamed-poles
or they're Jenny McCarthy cranks.
And let's keep in mind what we're talking about when we're talking about models (not the playboy kind, but the testable kind linked above).
These models are of highly complex systems which are affected by factors on a granular scale (like the famous flap of a butterfly's wings) that are hard to capture by simulation, but that doesn't mean these models don't capture much of what is happening in nature and how it is going to respond to various inputs.
Here's an example of what people are doing with computer models of the physical world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ
The same physics is used to simulate the climatic systems of the earth to make predictions.
Some say that the Arctic permafrost will melt at 3°C, pumping methane into the air which will create a surge of Global Warming that will feed into itself until all the permafrost has melted and released its methane payload. More modern research says it will take place at 1.5°C.
Some say that a doubling of CO2 will have a 2°C impact on temperatures. Others say since the formula for the change in CO2 forcing is 5.35*LN(Cn/Co), then 5.35 * LN(400/280) = 1.9W/m2. (Unless you have a strong negative forcing we don't know about, 2° is quickly coming down the pipe.)
Cont.
#41 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 24 Jul 2013 at 04:42 PM
The point is, even the cautious climatologists are not saying "We will not have much of an impact." Given time and the rates of CO2 release, we are approaching very bad impact scale even if you define down climate sensitivity at a double of preindustrial CO2.
The skeptics, by their well funded influence combined with their Jenny McCarthy approach to the climate issue, are making it impossible to hold levels at a double of preindustrial CO2. Do you think climate sensitivity is going to go down as we blow past those limits?
The climate skeptics approach to uncertainty is wrong and stupid. This isn't a rc quad copter we're playing with here, this is our planet. When we are faced with an uncertainty in regards to planetary sensitivity, we should not use that uncertainty as an excuse to see how far we can push the planet.
If we f*ck up the planet, we don't have another batch to play with. We're done.
Therefore, if we don't know for certain the level of something that will f*ck us up, we should take that as an incentive to be cautious, not as an excuse to pretend the potential for f*ck up isn't real.
That's what skeptics do for money and the "freedom" to dump their SUV emissions into our air.
Unless skeptics have done the proven work to demonstrate how we're not creating catastrophic conditions for all life on earth by dumping two hundred thousand and growing atom bombs of extra energy a year into our climate, then they should shut up and let people solve the problem they don't want to admit exists.
You don't have the science on your side. Until you do, you skeptics have nothing of value to say.
Wake me when you have the science.
#42 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 24 Jul 2013 at 04:44 PM
Oh you snuck in there:
"Incidentally thimbles, two things are missing from your analysis: feedback and possible outside causes of climate change."
Wrong. The links are above. The spectral analysis on satellite data over time is done. There are many minor culprits and there is potential for some of those minors to evolve into much worse but there is one major dominant culprit.
Carbon emissions.
"1. Models showing sensitivities greater than this assume a positive feedback. But, feedback isn't well understood. There's no good evidence of the true feedback coefficient. It could even be negative. That is, feedback could possibly reduce the impact of CO2 for all we know."
Wrong. Forcings in the past have been orbital and solar. The feedbacks we've studied show they are temperature sensitive, that minor changes in warmth create other changes boosting warmth (this is why CO2 levels lag temperature changes in the past. It was a feedback). We also have had forcings which were driven by CO2 through the emissions of volcanoes. In those cases the feedbacks also followed familiar patterns, amplifying temperature change.
Currently we have feedback systems - eg. our oceans - which are mitigating changes in CO2 and heat energy. Those systems are temperature vulnerable and will turn from negative to positive given continued increases in Carbon and retained heat.
"E.g., this article speculates that we might be entering a period of low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse temperature increases. Cold not warmth might be our future."
You see, a Jenny McCarthy think tank isn't a source of useful information. They get paid to prevent us from understanding the problem and to confront action.
But in that article, they forced to admit that reduced solar activity has not produced a dip in global temperatures. Carbon is driving change. The question is whether we, as a species, are going to allow it to drive us off a cliff.
#43 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 24 Jul 2013 at 05:11 PM
Further explanation on the feedback/driver relationship here:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/audit_notes_wsj_forgets_climat.php#comment-64350
Plus you get to watch an old time 'skeptic' get pounded if you got the tolerance for a whole thread of asswhup.
#44 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 24 Jul 2013 at 05:31 PM
More on the topic of modeling and climate science
Start a minute and a bit in and the whole thing is good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_-8u86R3Yc
(to be expected of course. Richard Alley, the father of deep time, is the man)
There is no excuse for Jenny McCarthyism on climate. None.
#45 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 25 Jul 2013 at 04:05 AM
Except that vaccines do cause autism. The Lancet case series on children developing autism and bowel disease within days or weeks of the MMR was the subject of a lawsuit before a London high court last year, and the judge Sir John Mitting ruled that there had been no fraud, the children's development of autism and bowel disease and its timing accurately recorded, the children appropriately treated. He restored the licenses of Drs. Walker-Smith and Murch (Dr. Wakefield's insurance would not pay for him to be a part of the suit), and reprimanded the GMC for its shallow reasoning and FALSE conclusions. Google it.
#46 Posted by ciaparker, CJR on Thu 25 Jul 2013 at 11:51 AM
And except that rather than a comparison between Jenny and flat-earthers being apt, it's much more accurate to compare your conventional denial of vaccine damage to the Catholic Church's castigation of Galileo's assertion that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the opposite with the most stringent measures of despotic thought control.
My baby reacted to the hep-B vax at birth, given without permission, by screaming constantly and inconsolably for four days and nights, vaccine-induced encephaltis, just like Judy Converse's son Ben a few years before. School nurse Patti White in the congressional safety hearing in 1999 testified that her experience had convinced her that it was this criminal vaccine mandated in 1991 for all newborns that had caused the sudden flood of autistic Missouri kindergartners starting in 1996. My baby went on to lose her only two words immediately after getting the DTaP booster at that time, and was diagnosed with autism two months later. I just reread Jenny's book Louder Than Words, and was astonished to read how closely Evan's symptoms of autism paralleled those of my daughter.
You cannot stem this groundswell of anger and rebellion, there have been too many thousands (millions if you count vaccine-induced asthma and allergies, including peanut allergies from sensitization to peanut protein from peanut oil used as an adjuvant in many vaccines). Vaccines are more dangerous than the vaccine-preventable illnesses. And that's just the way it is, and trying to destroy Jenny, no matter what the outcome, will not silence all the rest of us bringing forward out witness to what happened to our families as a result of vaccine damage.
#47 Posted by ciaparker, CJR on Thu 25 Jul 2013 at 12:02 PM