How The National Review Bastardizes James Hansen’s Global Warming Research
How The National Review Bastardizes James Hansen’s Global Warming Research
Jason Steorts is on the defensive about his National Review cover story on global warming “Scare of the Century.” Steorts’s article seeks to dismiss the conclusion of thousands of climate scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming is real, the result of human activity and, if unmitigated, will have grave consequences.
In his latest response to our critique, Steorts enlists James Hansen – the NASA climate scientist who was famously muzzled by the Bush administration for his outspoken views about the dangers of global warming – to bolster his point. Steorts quotes Hansen as saying “the IPCC scenarios are unduly pessimistic.”
Steorts never links to Hansen’s actual writing, but to a blog written by fellow climate skeptics characterizing Hansen’s work. Here’s what James Hansen actually said:
There are reasons to believe that the IPCC scenarios are unduly pessimistic. First, they ignore changes in emissions, some already underway, due to concerns about global warming. Second, they assume that true air pollution will continue to get worse, with O3, CH4 and BC all greater in 2050 than in 2000. Third, they give short shrift to technology advances that can reduce emissions in the next 50 years.
In other words, Hansen’s article is a call to action. He argues that we can reduce the impact of global warming if we limit carbon dioxide emissions, control air pollution and adopt new technologies. Here’s how the same article begins:
Global warming is real, and the melting ice is an apt portent of potentially disastrous consequences… Study of these forcing agents shows that global warming can be slowed, and stopped, with practical actions that yield a cleaner, healthier atmosphere.
Steorts uses the same tactic when he notes that Hansen “looked at the instrumental record and predicted 0.75 degrees of warming by 2050.” Actually Hansen predicts that amount of warming if the growth in air pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions can be stopped.
Steorts takes a couple of words from Hansen’s call to action totally out of context to argue that action is unnecessary. This isn’t a real argument, it’s a shell game.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Typical cherry picking by non-scientists of scientific papers to bolster the patently false arguement that no global warming is occurring. When sea levels start to rise noticebly, perhaps all the rulers will be recalibrated?
June 1st, 2006 at 10:19 amAnd someone is surprised that Repugnicans have their head in the sand once again?
June 1st, 2006 at 10:23 amShould we not be surprised that his name rhymes with “distorts”?
Still, let’s take this joker to task for his assertion that reducing emissions automatically translates into killing the US economy. That’s the one meme these folks continue to harp on, and there’s really no justification for it.
June 1st, 2006 at 10:27 amIt is almost as if the media is so far in the Bush pocket that they only read select, gov’t approved, right-wing materials. Then having convinced themselves they are fully educated on the subject at hand, they write their article from that one point of view as if we’re simlpy ignorant of what it says.
There is no real research, no real fact checking adn no concern for “getting to the bottom” or the story or finding out where the truth lies. They just want wo make every else feel uninformed for not reading the proper, gov’t approved sources. Yet they are the ones who come off ignorant as they fail to understand we KNOW those sources and we also know why they are so wrong and misleading.
The meida acts like these right-wing “sources” are top secret underground sites, with headlines like “The truth the liberal elite doesn’t want you to know” and “facts the biased commie pinko media won’t report because they hate you.” THe whole process stinks of amateur-hour gossip reporting being passed onto the people as factual debate.
June 1st, 2006 at 10:30 amOh my. This could prove to be rather awkward for Mr.Steorts, once someone ‘refreshes’ his memory, regarding BushCo’s attempt to shut him up, cause he wouldn’t compromise the integrity of his work, to better reflect their policy of denial. Great choice for ‘proving ‘ your point! Snort.
June 1st, 2006 at 10:34 amGive Dis-Steorts a job in the Bush administration. Heckuva job, asshole.
June 1st, 2006 at 10:43 amHe already has one Zookeeper.
National Review is bought and paid for by the neo-cons.
June 1st, 2006 at 10:52 amThe main insight to be gained from that article- It’s a wonder of the human brain that it can carry on its involuntary functions long after any higher-level brain activity has ceased. They should rename it the Medulla Review.
June 1st, 2006 at 10:53 amI am beginning to find his need to continuously answer the critisism leveled at him by Think Progress pretty humorous. He must have great respect your opinon to care about what you write about him.
June 1st, 2006 at 10:59 amThe right wing war on truth continues unabated. Everything is fair game for spin, lies, and distortion. Of course, anyone who has read an article by Steorts should be able to see what a complete hack he is as a journalist.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:02 amAction against global warming will harm a SPECIFIC economy, does Jason Steorts have any links to the oil industry by any chance…….?
June 1st, 2006 at 11:10 amThe article states: The IPCC predicts anywhere from 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2100. I explained, both in my NR piece and my response to Think Progress, that many of those models are based on unrealistic assumptions about levels of CO2 increase in future years.
First of all, China and India have only begun to emit CO2. I don’t know if anyone’s done the math out there, but I believe we’re going to get something like exponential growth in emitted CO2.
Second, the IPCC is wise to suggest the upper range as a possibility. It may be a less likely scenario, but shouldn’t we be cognizant that we’re taking this kind of gamble? A website at MIT has a good graphical representation of what we’re doing:
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/wheel.degC.html
I mean, do responsible adults bet the “family farm” like this?
Instead of explaining why the models are in fact reliable, Think Progress launches an ad hominem attack on a scientist I quoted.
I bet Dr. Pat Michaels is a pretty nice guy. But it’s his research that folks have a problem with. Normal researchers have to compete to get grants on the merits of their work. Michaels can rely on money from fossil fuel companies–regardless of professionally embarassing mistakes he’s made in the past (as TP has mentioned).
The bottom line is, though, if NRO is going to distort the science in their basic argumentation, why go into a detailed discussion of the science? It’s just going to go down a National Review rabbit hole.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:17 amWhen the probloem of Global Warming gets so bad it cannot be stopped, I suspect Bush & Company will move to the UAE and live in the Disneyland-like plaground for the super-rich they are building there. If you have enough money you can avoid natural disasters, at least in their twisted thinking.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:21 amSeriously? “First, they ignore changes in emissions, some already underway, due to concerns about global warming.”
So we have nothing to fear from global warming because we will take action out of fear from global warming?
My head hurts now.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:22 amAt least the arctic will be a nice tropical place. Bring a shotgun to repel mosquitos.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:23 amThis is the kind of garbage spin-doctors excell at. Remember the recent oil company PR campaign that asserted that warmer planet = happier Earth anyway? Give me a break.
Keep at ‘em guys. Good work.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:24 amThe GOP does not want to accept global warming as fact, because they want to rape the planet for profits and not aknowledge any culpability in destroying the environment!
June 1st, 2006 at 11:26 amWhat really blows my mind is how people can refuse to understand the basic idea that the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere is a finite quantity.
You can create a lab environment in a glass box and measure the effects, why does this suddenly lose validity when applied to the Earth’s atmosphere?
Ignoring environmental effects is like kids who stuff dirty socks behind the washing machine… they haven’t gone away, they’ve just become tomorrow’s stinky problem instead of today’s managable process.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:30 am#19 – That’s a great analogy, Drew.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:33 amSteorts …. here is something I learned in church as a kid…. HALF A TRUTH IS A LIE.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:34 amDishonesty isn’t a shame for these people. It’s a tool.
Cheers,
June 1st, 2006 at 11:34 amAt least the arctic will be a nice tropical place. Bring a shotgun to repel mosquitos.
Comment by redneck hick — June 1, 2006 @ 11:23 am
Just don’t invite Dick Cheney.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:37 amMaybe Steorts actually knows global warming is a big problem, and thought the best thing he could do would be to write the most idiotic, transparently disingenuous article possible and get it put on the cover of a magazine known for taking numerous stances that in hindsight have turned out to be racist, sexist, elitist, and above all small-minded and selfish. Great job, Steorts!
June 1st, 2006 at 11:42 am#19 Most people don’t understand that kind of math. Rather than taking the integral of the density function of the atmosphere over the surface of the earth, they just say it’s really really big.
They also don’t understand that when you burn coal, you burn the atmosphere too. Nor do they understand how much energy it takes to power society, or the consequences of changing the atmosphere, or what the atmosphere protects us from.
If you can explain all that in NASCAR terms, I’ll vote for you.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:43 amYesterday Al Franken had his “dittohead” friend on his show. His “friend” is on the Enjoy the Warmth bandwagon as a means of justifying global warming.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:52 amI can personally tell you, however, that our winters in North Texas have not been cold enough to kill insect and the diseases they carry.
Our pecan trees and grass did not even go dormant this year and we have a horrible insect problem. It’s been this way for a couple of years now.
I can personally tell you, however, that our winters in North Texas have not been cold enough to kill insect and the diseases they carry.
Comment by Jesus H. Christ — June 1, 2006 @ 11:52 am
I love sweater weather and did not get to enjoy it this year (I also live in NT). I wore them to the office and left the heat off, not that you need heat when it is in the 60’s! I only got to have TWO fires in my fireplace this past winter.
But hat is not a sign of global warming…..right?
June 1st, 2006 at 11:56 amThe earth is the center of the universe, and it is flat. The earth is only 4000 years old and Man is the pinnacle of God’s creation. Evolution due to heritable variation and natural selection has never happened. There are no such things as “tectonic plates” – the continents were formed where they are and the shells you find in mountain rocks are from The Flood. Tobacco does not cause cancer. Oil will never run out. Nuclear fusion is safe. You can trust the government when it is run by a guy who looks like he might be honest. They have WMDs and they are giving them out to people who hate us! We’ll be safer developing more nuclear weapons rather than negotiating fewer nuclear weapons. Giving massive tax breaks to the wealthy will help the poor. Good old Republicans would not misuse the power to intercept of phone calls without any external supervision. They wouldn’t change their definition of torture in order to be able to say “we don’t torture” when they are holding people under water. Higher CAFE standards won’t help. The poor can survive on the minimum wage. Rip up ANWAR and all of our dependence on oil will go away. Selling federal land is a sensible long term plan for balancing the budget. Republicans in Congress are not more corrupt than the Democrats because one of the Democrats did something bad too. He contradicted one of my earlier points? He’s an idiot, just in it for the money, he has an ax to grind, or he wants to run for office – it’s not worth your time reading his actual argument because he is such a bad person – so I’m not going to publish his argument here.
Oh, and there is no such thing as global warming, and if there were it would be a good thing. The government should stop wasting my money, but it sure as hell better pay for my beach house if it gets swept away during hurricane season.
Oh, and the Trolls reading this will think it is serious.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:59 amI hope everyone that is upset takes action, like offsetting their carbon footptint – go to Carbonfund.org and do it now.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pmHey #28, you forgot “Bill Clinton did it”!
June 1st, 2006 at 12:14 pm#30 – that is actually true. It is a well known scientific fact that receivig a blow-job is THE major scource of pollution!!
June 1st, 2006 at 12:18 pmTHIS WHOLE ATTACK ON THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IS SO INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.
AND IT’S NOT JUST THE US SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, IT’S THE WORLD SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE CONSERVATIVES EXPECT TO GAIN FROM IT, THOUGH I ASSUME THERE’S A POLITICAL MOTIVATION SOMEWHERE.
I’D EXPECT THIS FROM FOX NEWS OR WEEKLY STANDARD, BUT I FIGURED THE NATIONAL REVIEW WAS A LITTLE MORE THOUGHTFUL.
GUESS I WAS WRONG.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:19 pmBut hat is not a sign of global warming…..right?
Comment by Jules — June 1, 2006 @ 11:56 am
If the oil company propagandists are using love of warm weather as justification for accepting global warming then you bet it is…
June 1st, 2006 at 12:23 pm#31 – *snort*
June 1st, 2006 at 12:25 pmWow, #28, that was a great comment. *Sighs, shakes head*
June 1st, 2006 at 12:37 pm>I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE CONSERVATIVES EXPECT TO GAIN FROM IT, >THOUGH I ASSUME THERE’S A POLITICAL MOTIVATION SOMEWHERE.
They’ve succeeded in framing global warming as a scientific debate. As long as there is a debate, there is doubt. They don’t care about the science, they care about unlimited consumption. We care about being good stewards of the planet and wanting everyone to be healthy. Say that.
Do counter their unscientifc claims but always identify their motivation. unbridled consumption. When they start talking about technology, agree with them – but point out the difference in motivations.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:41 pm#25 The closest I can get is this:
What happens when you fall asleep in the driver seat, with your car running in the garage, and the garage door is closed?
Right.
Now think of your car as energy production.
Think of the garage as Earth’s atmosphere.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pm#37 – The hardest nap from which to awaken — the dirt nap.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pmSpeaking of the affects of global warming, they keep talking about how it makes for a longer growing season. Well, here in Saskatchewan, Canada, normally it is sunny and dry in the summer which makes for great weather for growing wheat and other crops. In the winter, the ground is protectd by heavy snowfall.
The last two years, we have set records for rainfall. Not only does that seriously delay the planting for most farmers, but sometimes it gets washed away, and it also delays the growthy due to lack of warm dry days. Lately, when farmers should be harvesting, crops are still short and green. Then they are rushing to harvest what they can as the colder weather and frost approaches.
Then during these last few winters there has been little snowfall (compared to past years).
So yeah, its great that I’m not freezing my ass off every winter…but there is no snow, and the summer we’re setting records for the amount of rainfall in a year. It isn’t good for agriculture, it isn’t good for the industries that have developed here based around snowfall (some skiing, but plenty of snowmobiling, etc). It also isn’t good for all the businesses we have that make their money on golf, camping, fishing, and all the other outdoor summer activities we normally enjoy.
All you have is crappy summers with MAYBE a week where the days are consecutively nice, followed by a wet, slushy dreary winter….but at least it’s a little warmer. Just forget about the farmers losing money. Forget the people on the coast seeing hurricanes or increase in west nile cases because the moisture is increasing mosquito populations, forget about the places where moisture has moved away from turning dryer climates into near-desert conditions. WE are not prepared as a society (all of north america) for the climate change that is happening right now, let alone if it keeps escalating.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:30 pm#39 And just wait for the scare when mosquitoes carrying the malaria spread more miles to the north year after year. When congressmen start falling to the floor with feverish shakes, they maybe will take some measure. Or not.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:35 pm#37. That happened in a suburb of Orlando a few months ago. The driver was a guest of the family, and apparently came home drunk. He fell asleep behind the wheel. Not only was the driver killed, but everyone asleep in the house, too – about 5-6 people, total. Neighbors heard the car running from the sidewalk and called sheriff, who entered the house.
(It was a pretty new house. The building code requires a certain fire rating in the door between the garage and house, which results in a gas seal around the edge of the door. So, I don’t quite understand how everyone else was killed, except to speculate that that door was left open for some reason.)
To extend your analogy with this story, I would add that not only the people involved in energy production (the people in the garage) are killed, but everyone else on Earth (the people in the house) is in jeopardy. And the cause is the same, the energy people are drunk and would rather ignore the danger and sleep in the car than turn off the key.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:38 pmDebate all you want,,,nothing will be done about supposed global warming,,,,until Government and big business can figure out how to make a profit from it.
Polution controls on autimobiles wasnt adressed until government controls were in place,,admission testing equiptment was bulit,stations were supplied with these machines,and what each entity could charge you for the test,and subsequent repairs deemed necessary to upgrade the quality of you tail pipe emissions.
Government recieved a fee,plus tax,,,state recieved a fee plus tax,busineses revieved fee for services rendered plus sales tax,companies supplying equiptment and repair parts recieved profits from sales,manufacturers recieved profits from merchandise,and somewhere along the line 10 more jobs were created for the working poor.
This was a big success for government and big business,,and another burden to bare ,and pay for , by the working class.
But auto emmissions was small potatoes compared to this new venture—global warming. It will cost us a great deal more than auto deal. Not only in dollars,but our health and well being.
And keep in mind,,you are the government. And any money spent on this project will be coming out of your pocket(the working class). And remember our dear friends the politicians and big business,,,they are currently getting legislation passed so they cannnot be held resposible for any future problems with the so called global warming fiasco. BTW,,,global warming should have the designation of “WMD” –WEATHER OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
TOM
June 1st, 2006 at 1:51 pmIf it were up to folks like CEI, we’d still be burning leaded gasoline through carbeurators and straight pipes.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:50 pm• There is an estimated 400 billion tons of methane trapped in permafrost ice.
• An estimated 50% of surface permafrost will melt by 2050, and 90% by 2100.
• Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2-the sudden release of just 35 billion tons of methane would be like doubling the CO2 in the air.
Massive amounts of methane from melting permafrost ice will soon flood the air-far outpacing human greenhouse gas pollution.
• The effect of methane flooding the air is runaway global warming-this disastrous positive feedback loop has occurred before.
• Ocean bottom ice will start to melt-releasing some of the estimated 10,000 billion tons of methane trapped in it.
• A potential bottleneck for mankind-an existential threat to nations.
• The only solution is biological sequestration-removing the CO2 from the air after it is emitted.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:45 amThe National Review has specialized in distortion since its beginning, and Buckley was the master teacher.
June 2nd, 2006 at 1:28 pmDebate all you want,,,nothing will be done about supposed global warming,,,,until Government and big business can figure out how to make a profit from it.
Comment by Thomas E. Harley , Sr. — June 1, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
Are you kidding? Just imagine the profits as entire new industries are created to accomodate new fuel sources and all the peripherals that go along with it.
It just takes a little effort, but we can create a whole new market by introducing clean air alternatives.
400 Billion tax dollars that paid to flatten Iraq, could have been used to make this changeover.
All it takes is an ounce or two of vision.
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:37 pmWhen a reputable,experienced and knowledgable scientist offers his likely,lifelong study of data about the planet and global warming, they(Bush people) tap a fictional writer(Crichton)for his two cents and his lifelong reading from the ‘1955 ‘version of the ‘World Book Encyclopedia’ for counterpoint. When some theologians and scientists who pursue the ultimate questions about our universe and its mysteries with clear, rational and absorbing questions, theories and with countless tests, application,analysis,and proven results,they(Bush people)show their serious dedication when Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell,scientists with political agendas and the Dover, Delaware school board steps up to regale us with ‘thoughts’about an “Intelligent Designer,” an infallable creator and impressive memorized quotes from the Bible. When the country needs a James Lee Witt for FEMA, it gets a Michael Brown. When it needs reasoned, professional and diplomatic leadership at the State Department, it gets a lipstick hawk who fancies fancy shoes (Rice). And ’round and ’round it goes. It is unfortunate , but it is the state of affairs in these United States.
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:11 am[...] Jason Steorts, author of the National Review cover story on global warming, dismisses multiple factual errors exposed by ThinkProgress as “irrelevancies.” Apparently, even though Steorts concedes he made numerous mistakes, we need to correct ourselves for pointing them out. Steorts says ThinkProgress has “failed to correct the errors and omissions I have pointed out in its replies to me.” [...]
June 5th, 2006 at 11:26 am[...] ThinkProgress has documented several critical errors in the National Review’s June 5 cover story on global warming, “Scare of the Century.” [...]
June 16th, 2006 at 5:10 pmWhat Hansen’s data consists comes from these parts of the World.
0.3°N, 159.4°E
2.7°N, 78.0°E
2°N, 91°W
0.5°N, 92°W
And of course icecore Vostok.
Is there any compelling reason to believe what these six researchers are telling us about the entire planet? No. cause many other single-point measurements suggest something very different.
Let’s take a look at E.g Petit 1999 (”Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica”).
“the Holocene, which has already lasted 11,000 years, is, by far, the longest stable warm period recorded in Antarctica during the past 420,000 years,” (2) “the climate record makes it unlikely that the West Antarctic ice sheet collapsed during the past 420,000 years,” (3) “during glacial inception … the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years,” and (4) “the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination: orbital forcing followed by two strong amplifiers, greenhouse gases acting first, then deglaciation and ice-albedo feedback.”
They also note that the interglacials preceding and following the one at 238,000 years ago were warmer still. In fact, from the graphs they present, it can be seen that all of the four interglacials that preceded the Holocene were warmer than the current one, and by an average temperature in excess of 2°C.
Isn’t it little bit different than Hansen’s hodgepodge?
October 4th, 2006 at 8:52 am