Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation

Support the Guardian

Fund independent journalism with $15 per month
Support us
Support us
This NOAA/NASA image released January 23, 2017, shows the release of the first image from NOAAs newest satellite, GOES-16, in the latest step in a new age of weather satellites. Photograph: HANDOUT/AFP/Getty Images
This NOAA/NASA image released January 23, 2017, shows the release of the first image from NOAAs newest satellite, GOES-16, in the latest step in a new age of weather satellites. Photograph: HANDOUT/AFP/Getty Images

Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists

This article is more than 7 years old

David Rose penned an attack described by expert as “so wrong it’s hard to know where to start”

In this new political era, climate scientists and their science are under attack. The attack is from multiple fronts, from threats to pull funding of the important instruments they use to measure climate change, to slashing their salaries and jobs. But there is a real fear of renewed personal attacks, and it appears those fears are now being realized. What the attackers do is identify and isolate scientists – a process termed the “Serengeti Strategy” by well-known and respected scientist Michael Mann who suffered these types of attacks for years.

Michael Mann explains the Serengeti Strategy.

The author of the recent attack piece, David Rose in the UK, has a history of denying the well-established science of climate change. He has a long history of making incorrect climate change statements. In the attack, Mr. Rose claims that scientists used misleading data in a recent (2015) paper that studied the rate of temperature change across the globe. He reportedly obtained information from someone who works at NOAA to imply that internal review procedures were not followed as the paper was prepared for publication. What Mr. Rose omitted however, is incredibly telling and he does a disservice to his readers.

First, he neglects to mention that the work from the 2015 paper authored by Dr. Thomas Karl and others at NOAA has already been independently verified by other researchers.

The second thing Rose neglects to mention is that his story’s source was never involved any part of the work. According to a colleague of the authors Peter Thorne, this source:

never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) misrepresentation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these misrepresentations are publically verifiable.

Mr. Rose further neglects to mention that Dr. Karl was not involved in the development of the critical sea surface temperature data that was used in the study. That information was already published before the Karl paper appeared.

The attack piece also claims that the scientists discarded high-quality temperature measurements in favor of low quality data. This claim is demonstrably false, as described here and here.

The lengths to which Mr. Rose goes in his attack are disheartening and dishonest. He includes a graph that appears to show two temperature results that disagree. When they are replotted correctly, as temperature anomalies with correct baselines, the discrepancy disappears. This finding shows that the NOAA results from 2015 actually agree extremely well with data from other institutions.

But it gets even worse for Rose. Temperature measurement expert Zeke Hausfather, who was the lead author on a study that verified the temperature data, wrote a very quick response to his article. He provided this comparison, which includes data from five different scientific groups. They are all in strong agreement.

So Mr. Rose and the climate-change denialists will have to work a bit harder next time. The real story here is that the denial industry has lost the battle on the science. There are no reputable scientists who discount the enormous human influence on our Earth’s climate. Because they have lost that battle, they are manufacturing doubt about the science. They are making misleading claims and attacking scientists with intimidating tactics. This is a playbook that has been used for years. It should alarm everyone that excellent researchers like Dr. Thomas Karl from NOAA can be attacked for just telling us what the data says.

Climate Consensus - the 97%

Climate Consensus - the 97%

  • Why are ocean warming records so important?

  • Oceans are as hot as humans have known them and we’re to blame

  • Our oceans broke heat records in 2018 and the consequences are catastrophic

  • Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money

  • Blood coal: Ireland’s dirty secret

  • Some of the countries leading on climate change might surprise you

  • Trump thinks scientists are split on climate change. So do most Americans

  • Republican lawmakers react to the IPCC report – ‘we have scientists’ too!

More from Headlines

More from Headlines

  • Israel-Gaza war live
    Israel’s labour court orders general strike to end earlier than planned

  • Europe live
    Liberals react to far right success in German state election

  • Taiwan
    If China wants Taiwan it should also reclaim land from Russia, says president

  • Olympics
    North Korean table tennis players may be punished for Olympic podium selfie with rivals from South

  • Russia-Ukraine war live
    Ukrainian foreign minister urges its partners for permission for long-range strikes into Russia

  • Europe
    Man accused of enlisting strangers to rape drugged wife goes on trial in France

  • Whaling
    Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson says Japan seeking to make an example of him

  • Paris 2024 live
    Paralympics day five: triathlon, swimming, tennis and more

  • Science
    Strongman’s ‘guy rope’ muscles show greatest growth, study finds

  • London
    Harry Potter fans boo as King’s Cross ends back to Hogwarts tradition

Comments (798)

This discussion is now closed for comments but you can still sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion next time

Comments (798)

This discussion is now closed for comments but you can still sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion next time
Sort by
Per page
Display threads
Displaying threads 1 to 25 of 194
  • ErikFrederiksen
    17

    There's so many who are suspicious of science these days, but I haven't met one of these people yet who can read the following few paragraphs and answer the question at the end.

    According to the elliptical variations in the Earth’s orbit (a set of cycles with overall cycle times ranging from 1-400,000 thousand years) the Earth should be in a slow cooling pattern. According to the other two Milankovitch Cycles (Axial Tilt and Precession, with cycle times of 41,000 and 22,000 years) the Earth should also be slowly cooling because we were heading into the next glaciation, and until about a hundred years ago this was the prevailing pattern.

    For the six thousand years leading up to the Industrial Revolution the pattern was slow cooling at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees C per millennium. There were ups and downs due to changes in ocean currents and solar output, but at most those changes were around 0.1 degree C per century and after five or six hundred years the average global temps returned to the cooling trend. (Graph of the last 20,000 years of global temperature)

    In the last hundred years we have seen global temperatures climb a full degree C with the majority of that increase in the last forty years. Solar out put has actually been declining slightly during those last forty years.

    So what was that alternative theory that explained the observed facts supporting AGW again?

  • Ellisfield
    7

    Science should always be open to challenge. As soon as you start attacking your attacker your message will get lost in the row that follows.
    The climate change believers are often their own worst enemy by over-stating reports or journalists sensationalising findings. There is also a huge problem with various "cry-wolf" issues that have come and gone (what happened to "tipping point").
    In short the over stated stuff is easy to shoot down which then casts doubt on everything.
    There is further issues with ccers haranguing anyone who dares criticise any aspect of what is reported, branding them a denier and defaulting to a scene out of Life of Brian.

    • rockyrex
      24

      Science is challenged by doing research and publishing the results.

      Real sceptics are looking for information, and are willing to change their opinion if they find information that answers their questions.

      I've rarely found a so-called climate sceptic respond to information by saying "Oh yes, that's what I was waiting for, thanks, I now see."

      Usually they just come up with yet another long-debunked point from the crankosphere.

      Can you do any better?

    • TTauriStellarbody
      20

      As soon as you start attacking your attacker your message will get lost in the row that follows.

      Wait for it

      The climate change believers

      The very next words on the keyboard.
      Comical irony.

Most viewed

Most viewed