NY Times Enters Editorial Voodoo Land on Climate Change

The NY Times recently went over the top with its decision to publish an op-ed on “climate change catastrophism,” that can essentially be boiled down to one sentence: Y2K was way overblown, people can be overly taken with apocalypse like scenarios, climate change seems to be the same, the end.

The piece, far more importantly, made this claim with not a whit of information or even argument in support. Instead, the piece focused almost entirely on incessant and irrelevant detail about how Y2K was not that big a deal despite its complete lack of connection to the climate issue, apart from the idea that people were “worried” about it and they were wrong.  The piece also violated some very basic logical precepts:

That is, it essentially reasoned that since people can get overly worked up over some things, that scientists are therefore overly worked up about this issue, and again, rather ridiculously, did so with no other basis of either argument or factual support for the contention.

In so doing, the piece was also both extremely misleading —  to put it kindly —  as well as wildly misinformed as to what scientists’ concerns over climate change are based upon.

The following letter in reference, was sent to the NY Times (note, it has not been edited).

To the Editor:

It is hard to fathom the recent decision by the NY Times to publish some unsubstantiated philosophy professor anti-science screed about “climate change catastrophism.”  ["It's Always the End of the World As We Know It," Denis Dutton, December 31.]

The gravity of this question can best be illustrated by considering, in their entirety, every single substantive point made in order to support the author’s out of the blue contention that “climate change”  is similar to overblown Y2K and other doom and gloom, “Frankenstein” like scenarios.  Here they all are:

This applies, in my view, to the towering seas, storms, droughts and mass extinctions of popular climate catastrophism. Such entertaining visions owe less to scientific climatology than to eschatology.

The main thesis of this piece is predicated upon this single notion, that severe climate change “owes less to scientific climatology than to eschatology:” That is, there is only one argument or fact offered in support of the author’s extremely questionable, central theme. And it is an assertion that on top of that, is also profoundly incorrect; or at the very least, wildly misinformed.

Every single leading scientific organization worldwide, include the NOAA, NASA, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Academes of Science and so on down the list concurs that there is a significant likelihood of increasingly severe climate change if rapidly rising atmospheric GHC concentrations are not arrested.

Far more importantly, this is based upon incontrovertible scientific facts, along with basic physics; not “eschatology.” And would include the “towering seas, droughts, and mass (species) extinctions” that the author cites by way of example.

Op-eds have a right to be incorrect.  But is it even defensible to base an entire piece upon a wild and quite manipulative hypothesis, with not a whit of support, save one single, solitary sentence, that is flat out wrong?

Hardly.

The Times should, and can, do far better.

The following notes and references, were also included in support.

For an explanation of the relevant science and basic atmospheric framework, along with mounds of supporting documentation, see here.  Also consider that because it takes a long time to warm oceans, among other reasons, there is a lag of decades or more before much of the effect from atmospheric heat re-radiation increases will likely be observed. As this increase is ongoing, what we are seeing now is a snapshot of decades ago, with the past few (and future) decades — as increasingly more pressure is put upon the earth’s basic stasis — being far more important.

Related to that last, critical, and normally overlooked point, this link, in turn, examines the variability involved. More importantly, it provides an example of how climate does not work in a linear fashion, and how threshold effects, from a purely scientific perspective, are very likely to build upon themselves — as they have throughout the globe’s climate history when faced with some external climate forcing event.

None of this is even remotely related to eschatology, rendering the one claim provided by this op-ed in support of its wild thesis, that climate change is essentially like all these other over-hyped and largely mythological doom and gloom scenarios, both profoundly incorrect, and wildly misleading.

Regarding the basic underlying science, here are some of the broad based papers and organizations in support, with accompanying facts:

[i] American Association for the Advancement of Science, Statement on Climate Change,
[ii] National Academies, Joint Statement on Climate Change
[iii] American Geophysical Union, Position Statement
[iv] IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
[v] Oreskes, Naomi, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?
[vi] The Copenhagen Diagnosis, The Latest Climate Science
[vii] Geological Society of America, Position Statement
[viii] American Public Health Association, Policy Statement
[ix] American Chemical Society, Global Climate Change Policy Statement
[x] Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Summary and Synthesis
[xi] World Health Organization, Protecting Health From Climate Change
[xii] U.S. News & World, Survey Tracks Scientists’ .. Concern
[xiii] IPCC, Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
[xiv] IPCC, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change
[xv] EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2007,
[xvi] NASA Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index
[xvii] NOAA, State of the Climate in 2008
[xviii] U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Revised Research Plan
[xix] EPA, State of Knowledge
[xx] National Academies, Understanding and Responding to Climate Change
[xxi] NOAA, What is the GreenHouse Effect
[xxii] WMO, GHG Bulletin 2008

The two issues (climate change and Y2K)  are not remotely comparable. One was based upon our lack of knowledge of the complexity of the computer systems that we had quickly become dependent upon, and related to a one time, unique event.  It was probably fueled by consultants.  The other has to do with the basic physics and chemistry laws of the physical world:  And the basic facts that, over a period of a century and a half we have added enough net GHG to the atmosphere  to increase concentrations well above any that the earth has seen over the past three quarters of a million years; we are still adding to that amount at what is geologically breakneck speed; and trapped heat, ultimately, warms oceans, which drives climate.

I have not had an op-ed published in the NY Times (I have submitted upwards of a hundred or so). Denis Dutton, Professor of Philosphy in New Zealand, now has; based upon the idea that looking back in hindsight Y2K fears were way overblown, and then suggesting that therefore science, which he very clearly has little clue about, is way overblown also.   Yet back in 1999, before we had the benefit of hindsight, some people (including the person typing these words) said repeatedly that Y2k was almost a joke and we were responding ridiculously to it.  Without the benefit of hindsight.

Yes, the NY Times should instead listen to, and on their country leading editorial pages, publish, the Denis Dutton’s of the world. Perhaps then those actually fascinated with eschatological visions,  might ultimately see mankind so rewarded. Or at least enough to see the “mass extinctions” of species which Dutton similarly mocks; with the philosophy professor and rare NY Times guest op-ed contributor, apparently unaware, among other things, of the history of mass extinctions on earth, and the fact that again from a geologic perspective, we are already in the midst of a fairly rapid extinction event as a result of simple habitat loss.

But that’s okay, why should facts get in the way of editorials? It’s not like the NY times is one of the world’s leading newspapers.  Right? And it’s not like its editorial page is also one of the world’s most important.  Heck, fears were overblown about Y2K, spend three quarters of an op-ed babbling on about how Y2K was overblown (now that’s news), throw in a reference to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (making sure to irrelevantly put Shelley’s name in the piece so it looks like you know something) and how apocalyptic visions are intriguing to some, and then tie it all together by saying that climate change, a subject which Dutton probably has little real clue about, is “the same, the end.”

It’s about as abjectly ill informed, and contrived, as could possibly be.

Other Links to this Post

1. Donkasaurus Post » Blog Archive » It’s Now Six Minutes to Midnight. — January 17, 2010 @

2. Donkasaurus Post » Blog Archive » That’s Exactly What We Wanted to Know — January 18, 2010 @

3. Essays-Letters-Articles » Don’t Worry, Winds Are Not a Part of Climate — March 30, 2010 @

4. Essays-Letters-Articles » False Equivalency And Specious Analyses Offered up as “Balance” on Highly Influential NY Times Climate Change blog — March 30, 2010 @