MSM CATCHES UP WITH L.A.W.

Our readers send us many interesting things.  The other day, in response to our recent criticism of the Grand Rapids Press's uncritical reporting about the National Academy of Sciences report on "global warming", one reader faxed us a clip from the Wall Street Journal titled "Hockey Stick Hockum".  (Log-in required to access link.)  The commentary confirmed what we had to say in our article and our ensuing responses to readers (here and here) about the mendacity behind global warming.

Of particular interest in the Journal's commentary was the Wegman Report commissioned by the House Energy Committee.  (Note how the Press splashed a big story on Page Three about the NAS report commissioned by the House Science Committee that fanned the flames of global warming hysteria but had nothing to print about Wegman Report that critically reviewed the scientists and their claims in support of catatrosphic climate change.  Bias or incompetence?  Your pick.)  In addition to dismantling the severely flawed statistical methodologies used to fashion out of nothing an unprecedented and alarming increase in temperature over the past century (i.e., climatologist Michael Mann's notorious "hockey stick" graph that has now become the holy grail for global warming Cassandras), the Wegman Report also analyzes the behavior of the scientists involved in climate research.

As I noted in a response to a reader, the ordinary layman need not and should not simply accept the statements of a scientist as authoritative because he has a PhD after his name.  That scientist is also a human being subject to the same perversities that all of us are which can impair a dispassionate judgment of the facts.  Indeed, the Wegman Report finds that the climate research establishment is "a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis [i.e., catastrophic global warming]" and that "this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility".  In short, among too many climatologists, ego has trumphed professional integrity.

Well, it's always heartening when the mainstream media catches up with us.  Can we hope that the Press will do so, too?  After all, it matters to you when a group has the ear of much of the government and is demanding that you pay more taxes and give more power to the bureaucrats to address what they say is a looming crisis.  It's the job of the media to give you all the information you need to figure out if that crisis is real or just another boondoggle targeted at your wallet and your liberty.  When it uncritically reports only half the story, like the Grand Rapids Press has regarding global warming, it has failed in its responsibility to the public.

Comments

[Steve Goulet]

Good post. Now we are getting somewhere! I think Chris Mooney of the American Prospect summarized my feelings surrounding Mann's hockey stick with this statement:

"One study never definitively proves anything in science. Any single study can be attacked and criticized. Any individual piece of work will have its gaps, shortcomings, and associated uncertainties."

And the Wegman report does raise some interesting questions. We certainly need to involve more statisticians and other domains of science in the debate to confirm the consensus. And the peer review process is clearly less valuable if the referees are all former colleagues and collaborators. I welcome a debate on the merits of the science but the science should never be driven by ideology or politics. The Wall Street Journal is certainly not a bastion of unbiased journalism, so I read their commentary with a skeptical eye, just as I would if the NYT were to opine to the contrary.

My reliance on the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus has never hinged on Michael Mann's hockey stick. Here is an aggregation of several similar studies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Skeptics will continue their assault on these studies and time will tell if more inaccuracies are exposed. But to me the most compelling scientific evidence surrounding human caused global warming can be found by comparing temperature and carbon dioxide variations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png

Look at these graphs with an open mind free of ideology and bias. You will see the obvious correlations between CO2 and temperature. Herein lies the heart of the global consensus: Human activities have pushed CO2 levels far beyond any recorded natural cycle. Temperature and CO2 have been proven to be correlated very closely over tens of thousands of years. Do the math.

[Steve Goulet]

Bill,

You chastised the GR Press (http://localareawatch.typepad.com/the_local_area_watch/2006/06/yeah_and_summer.html) for not reporting that "The NAS was chartered by the U.S. Congress to advise government officials on scientific matters, which in effect means that it exists to tell politicians what they want to hear. So no surprise that the NAS presented no news as new news of global warming at the request of a New York congressman, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee".

The Wegman report was commissioned by the House Energy Committeee, whose leader is a Republican congressman with a staunch record opposing environmental regulation (http://www.issues2000.org/House/Ed_Whitfield.htm). So it's no surprise that the Wegman report on Mann's hockey stick told them exactly what they want to hear, eh? Should we write a letter to the editor of the WSJ to complain about their failure to inform the public of this conflict of interest?

--Steve

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Steve.

Thank you for your comments. However, our discussion on this particular issue has come to an end. You have repeatedly accused me of ignoring or twisting the facts to fit in with an ideological bias I allegedly have. You have done so for no better reason than I disagree with you about the effect of human activity on the climate. Had you responded to the legitimate questions I raised about the claims of global warming, I'd think differently.

As for the issue of not taking the WSJ to task like I did the Press, the simple reason is that the situations are different. The relationship between the Wegman report and the House Science Committee is self-evident. The committee commissioned the report and its authors are essentially hirelings of the committee. So the reader is on notice to consider the Wegman report critically.

However, the general reader does not know that the National Academy of Sciences is a creature of the U.S. Congress and dependent upon it for its funding. Thus, it is not an independent and disinterested body as is often presumed. That doesn't mean what it reports is tainted by this conflict, anymore than that would be true of the Wegmen report. However, the Press should have informed the reader of the NAS's conflict of interest.

Regards, Bill