Climate Scientist: National Review ‘Misrepresented My Study Just Like CEI Did’
Climate Scientist: National Review ‘Misrepresented My Study Just Like CEI Did’
An advertisement by the Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute used a study to claim that the “Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner” as a way of casting doubt on global warming science.
The author of the study, Curt Davis, issued a press release in response calling CEI’s ad a “deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate.” Davis noted that his finding were limited to the interior of the eastern portion of Antarctica and more snow was “a predicted consequence of global warming” as the ocean temperature warms.
In a National Review cover story, Steorts used a similar tact with Davis’s study. He used it to suggest all of Antarctica was gaining ice and cast doubt on global warming science. Nevertheless, he has repeatedly insisted that Davis’s criticism of CEI do not apply to him:
Rehashing its objection to the way I used a study by Curt Davis, Think Progress offers, for the second time, a link to a document detailing Davis’s concerns with the way the Competitive Enterprise Institute cited that study…those criticisms aren’t applicable to my article.
ThinkProgress talked to Curt Davis this morning. This is what he had to say:
When [Steorts] quoted my study he misrepresented it just like CEI did because he reported this as representative of the entire Antarctic ice sheet. I did not report a result for the entire Antarctic ice sheet. We know from other studies the coastal areas are losing lots of ice.
In his first response to our criticism, Steorts acknowledged that he falsely claimed Davis’s study applied to all of Antarctica but said it was inconsequential. Doing some calculations, Steorts asserted that even if you factor in Western Antarctica and costal regions, the continent is gaining mass.
Davis told me that Steorts “did his own math. But his math his wrong.” He assumes that ice lost on the coast has the same density as snow gained in the interior of Eastern Antarctica. Actually, ice is about three times more dense. (Even if Steorts got his math right, the data he is using for the coasts isn’t reliable enough to make such a comparison. That’s why it wasn’t included in Davis’s study.)
How much deeper a hole is Steorts going to dig himself? Only time will tell.
UPDATE: Davis writes in to more precisely describe how Steorts got his math wrong:
My study only reported the mass gain due to changes in the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet. Steorts used the average elevation change of the entire area of study, which included large portions of East and West Antarctica, and used the density of snow to convert to mass gain for both areas. In fact, the elevation change in the West interior is, in general, due to ice loss on the coasts while elevation change in the East interior is due to snow gain. Ice is about three times more dense than snow and the appropriate way to calculate the combined effect is to use an ice density for the West losses and a snow density for the East gains.
More importantly, even if Steorts got his math right, this type of calculation cannot be used to represent the entire Antarctic ice sheet. The altimeter data used does not cover coastal regions very well, and we know from other studies there is significant ice loss on the coasts that must be considered in developing a realistic estimate for the overall contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to sea level rise.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
55 Responses to “Climate Scientist: National Review ‘Misrepresented My Study Just Like CEI Did’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Type Unity08 in google to see what you get.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pmIt’s called Propaganda. This particular brand of Propagand is Corporatist. When this particular brand of Propaganda is used by government it’s called Fascis.
Let me spell it out for you cause it don’t take a streat musician to figure this stuff out:
G E O R G E W A L K E R B U S H !
L A U G H W E G O B E R S E R K !
Goper’s Lament (Hard To Be A Republican
June 1st, 2006 at 12:44 pmSteorts, when you find yourself in a hole — stop digging! Or just shut up.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:48 pmThis is great! I love how Steorts has penned himself into a corner here.
When these guys, who know just about nothing about science frankly, try to go toe to toe with respected scientists, they almost always lose. The problem Steorts has is that if he actually were to contact these folks ahead of time, he wouldn’t be able to draw the inferences he wants.
Still, we have to recognize that the fact he’s at least using information from respected people (even if wrongly) is a small victory for us. Were he to rely on quacks (Bjorn Lomborg comes to mind) he could find “evidence” for just about anything he wants to, and Lomborg would back him up.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:49 pmI love his line about how he only cherry-picked a small part of the study, so referencing the rest of the study is immaterial to his article.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:53 pmGlobal warming is not widely understood by most politicians in DC, so kind of hard to do anything about it! Sad but true!!!
June 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pmSteorts bloviates that Antarctica’s ice pack is thickening. Since Antarctica is a desert as far as precipitation goes, some new process must be behind the ice pack growth that Steorts giddily suggests is happening. Steorts idoesn’t even realize that he’s saying we’re entering a new Ice Age!
If there is some new and recent increase in the ice pack thickness, correlating to the rise of fossil fuel powered industry, then man is responsible for the impending Global Chill. If the Earth and its living creatures constitute the gem in God’s eye, then these corporate cretins have got to be pawns of the Devil because every damn thing they do is aimed at destroying God’s work. They’re sailing in a boat that’s taking on water and their solution is to drill a hole in the hull to let the water drain out. Any guess how that turns out? Jonah’s Locker here we come.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:05 pmYes, National Review is a bunch of H. L. Mencken wannabes. Standing there with a cigar in their hand sounding oh so certain while the rest of the world is oh so in need of their edification.
But when they make pronouncements on science, they have actual deal with emprical facts and accountability. No tap dancing. No mandarin, Edmund-Burke-sounding pretentiousness, just accountability. And that’s when they lose.
I’m sure now they’ll keep the same Bill-Buckley, above-it-all expression on their faces, but now they’ll try to gingerly slink away from the table as if nothing happened…
June 1st, 2006 at 1:09 pmNational Review - The Political Nationional Enquirer!!!!!!
June 1st, 2006 at 1:10 pmToday the talk is that the artic used to be a warmer climate. This is due to core samples taken. They act lik eit is new news and for the nutjobs it will make them say the world used to be much warmer if Antarctica used to be trpical. What the stories don’t say is that Antarctica used to abut Africa and Austrailia way back when and continental drift has sent it southward. They have known this for years and years. When I was in school (late 70’s early 80’s we knew this and discussed tropical fossils found there. This topic is being brought to life for one reason only and that is to support the wing nuts. Problem is that if they take this story as fact then it kill the ID argument because the Antarctica story talks about it being in the tropics more than 55 million years ago and we all know that the earth is only 4000 years old, maybe 6000 at the most.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:14 pmEveryone. Please go to this site.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
June 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pmJASON LEE STEORTS IS AN ASSOCIATE EDITOR?
WHAT? THEY COULDN’T FIND AN INTERN TO GIVE A COVER STORY TO?
THIS PUNK IS HACKTACULAR !!!
June 1st, 2006 at 1:41 pmFor the sake of argument, if someone believes ThinkProgress is an ultraliberal lie-spewing website with an agenda, they’re not going to believe a post that says “we emailed a scientist and he agreed with us”….. I think it might be wise to have some kind of proof, though I don’t know what that would be. It’s not like we can be asking scientists to put out press releases to respond to every idiotic thing we find on the internet. Hmmm. I don’t know. Anyone?
June 1st, 2006 at 1:42 pmThese National Review types are like that asshole on the Titanic: “This ship can’t sink!”
And Gore is the retort: “She is made of iron, sir. I assure you, she can. And she will”
June 1st, 2006 at 1:42 pmOH WAIT! HE’S DEPUTY MANAGING EDITOR.
GUESS ALL THAT HOME SCHOOLING PAID OFF.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:46 pmFolks,
For what it’s worth, it is possible that the Arctic ice is increasing. The fact of the matter is that we don’t have great data at the moment, and the increase is consistent with models. The bottom line is that when one considers all the other indicators around the Arctic, the overall indication is toward global warming. The issue with global warming is that the warming need not be spatially uniform. We should anticipate cooling in some areas.
There’s a good discussion of this issue here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 05/ antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing.html#links
In general that illconsidered site is great for debunking a lot of the claims climate skeptics make. I suggest you consult it the next time a dubious claim is made. He’s done an excellent job looking through the literature and casting it in lay terms.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:48 pm13.
I’D PUT TOGETHER THE EVIDENCE, GO TO A COMPETING MAGAZINE OR PAPER (OR SEVERAL), AND SHOW THEM THE “ANATOMY OF A SMEAR JOB.”
ACTUALLY, MAYBE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER WOULD BE INTERESTED.
June 1st, 2006 at 1:49 pm16. Isn’t the issue that the writer is mischaracterizing other people’s work?
June 1st, 2006 at 1:53 pm[…] From Think Progress: Climate Scientist: National Review ‘Misrepresented My Study Just Like CEI Did’ […]
June 1st, 2006 at 2:00 pmGlobal warming caused by human activity, like evolution, is a fact - an incovenient one for some, but a fact nonetheless. Humans have to figure out how we’re going to live with both. Policy makers can pretend they don’t exist and make decisions accordingly, but what kind of decisions do we end up with in that scenario? (OK, that was a rhetorical question - the same decisions we’ve been getting for years).
It’s surprising that so many are still trying to argue that global warming doesn’t exist. Unlike evolution, global warming does not affect the core belief system of the Republican base. A better spin question would be, what should we do about it? Evolution is a tool for proselytizing and forcing beliefs on secular society - global warming simply doesn’t have that same pull.
It would be easier to rev up the spin machine to argue that 1) we have no need to modify our behavior because of gobal warming for whatever reasons they make up 2) even if we could make some changes, they’re too expensive, will ruin economies, spread bird flu - again, whatever they make up.
We’re not going to deal with our problems with fossil fuels because world leaders suddenly discover vision and principle. We’re going to deal with them because fossil fuels are getting harder to find, demand continues to explode globally and the companies that run the world are being forced to find alternatives.
So while we’re stuck with a government that will not begin to even discuss the implementation of policies to address global warming and the use of fossil fuels, the US will fall behind other nations that are going to fund and find alternatives sooner because of our leaders’ ability to pretend facts don’t exist.
June 1st, 2006 at 2:05 pmWhat are they going to do when the rapture occurs, Jesus returns, and says, Hey, who turned up the heat?
June 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pmThey just better hope Jesus doesn’t want to take a ski trip to Kilimanjaro.
June 1st, 2006 at 2:13 pm18 - absolutely, but it’s nonetheless important to understand the fundamental science/knowledge base on this issue. In the end, the goal should be to fight guys like Steorts using the evidence and science. I believe TP is trying to do just that.
June 1st, 2006 at 2:15 pmFundamental science issues aside, this is asking for a lawsuit! The only language that neocons understand.
June 1st, 2006 at 2:20 pmCEI’s response to Prof. Davis’ criticism can be found online at http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05339.cfm.
June 1st, 2006 at 2:24 pmWhat are we going to do about this? I hear the truth. I hear the arguments. However, this only occurs in the blogshpere. It does no good in the outside world. The corpocracy and Repugs have still got control of the MSM. We need to use their tactics to redress it. Curt Davis can put out all the press releases that he desires. Thjey do nothing in the markets at which the propaganda has been targeted. Has anyone really seen an MSM story line on this? No. Yet we liberals and progressives sit back so smug and self confident that we will prevail because we are right.
FORGET IT. THIS IS WAR. THE SCUM WE ARE AGAINST MUST BE RIDICULED. ITS WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO US. THERE MUST BE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST THOSE WHO SPREAD THEIR LIES. WE MUST DEVELOP A STRONGER NOISE MACHINE (ABLEIT USING THE TRUTH) WHICH BRANDS THE ELITE REPBULICAN AS A CONTEMPTIBLE, SUBHUMAN.
June 1st, 2006 at 2:25 pmCEI’s response to Prof. Davis’ criticism can be found online at http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05339.cfm.
Comment by Richard Morrison
Man, what brand of mattress do you guys use? I want to know how you get your sleep.
It’s one thing to stand against alarmism. It’s another thing to mislead people as you do it. How can you say your ad doesn’t misrepresent the contents of Davis’ work?
June 1st, 2006 at 2:33 pmUm, is there anything conservatives say that isn’t complete bullshit? Why discriminate? Ignore them all.
Filth.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:08 pm.
To be honest I am not sure why we’re all so suprised the religious conservatives are taking this stand.
Religious conservatives throughout civilization have been stifling science in favor of their own mesh of theology combined with psuedo-science. Just ask Galileo Galilei or Copernicus.
In truth, the single most destructive force to the development of science, throughout our civilizations history, has been religion.
In fact, if it weren’t for the Catholic Church, Henry Ford might have been inventing Space Shuttles instead of Model T’s.
Religion is the antithesis of science.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pmCEI’s response: We’ll tell you what your study says, not you!
June 1st, 2006 at 3:10 pmReligous conservatives have retarded our technological, medical and scientific growth for thousands of years, so much so, one might call them “retards”.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:12 pmArguments from authority are unacceptable.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:15 pmFLAVIUS– Religious conservatives have little or nothing to do with this. These are libertarian conservatives.
Read this WoPo article to get the details on CEI:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2006/ 05/ 23/ AR2006052301305_pf.html
June 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pmI could not disagree more 33.
Religious conservatives have EVERYTHING to do with this. They always have. Religious conservatives like the ones in power now, even if they don’t have a monetary stake in it, give a pass to big oil and industry, because of the overwhelming belief that the second coming of Christ is imminent, and that the world will be renewed through spiritual and supernatural means.
Why worry about a planet they believe is soon doomed to be consumed by fire and reborn?
Beleive me, this is how they think. I know. I used to be one of them.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:23 pm
June 1st, 2006 at 3:26 pmI agree they’re dogmatic. But religiously dogmatic? Maybe they are when an election is at stake (See Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas).
But for the most part they’re market fundamentalists, not christian fundamentalists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism
June 1st, 2006 at 3:28 pmJune 1st, 2006 at 3:48 pm
34-JJ
Bill Gray’s long since gone off the deep end, unfortunately. Here’s a quote from him from the article you linked to:
The models can’t even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.
The problem is that the “weather” is chaotic. Climate models are not trying to predict the weather, they’re trying to predict the climate, something that is far more stable. The fact that Bill says the above tells you quite a bit.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:55 pmWhat I fail to understand is why would anyone even want to take the chance.
Conservatives are always talking about safety, and protecting us from harm.
What could be more harmful than our Atmosphere disolving and us being burned alive? What could be more destructive or harmful than hurricanes, floods and typhoons?
If the idea is to protect American lives, why not at least take precautions, and work to answer all questions, rather than just continue to dismiss the data of EVERY SCIENTIST NOT UNDER THE PAYROLL OF THE BIG OIL COMPANIES?
Why dismiss the data of the entire scientific community when soooo much is at stake, at least if your purpose it to “save American lives”?
After all, we had no solid evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but “just to be safe” we spent over 400 billion dollars, sacrificed thousands of Americans lives and limbs, leveled their cities and towns and killed over 100,000 human beings, just to be sure.
June 1st, 2006 at 3:58 pmFlavius - a most excellent point.
Even if the vast majority of scientists are wrong (seems very unlikely) about global warming, there are lots of other good reasons to limit C02 emissions.
June 1st, 2006 at 4:12 pmYea.
Like breathing.
June 1st, 2006 at 5:05 pmSteorts is like Goldberg: a big fat liar. Same paper same ethics.
June 1st, 2006 at 6:51 pmCEI’s response to Prof. Davis’ criticism can be found online at
Comment by Richard Morrison
Okay…Lemme get this straight…
They used the scientists data…and the scientists said they misrepresented the data…
Now they say, that they acknowledge that they did not use it the way he meant it to be used, but that they are still correct in what they said…
Does anyone else have a headache???
June 1st, 2006 at 11:23 pmI’m starting to get one.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:48 amRight wing press and pundits are addicted to misrepresenting the results of scientific studies.
Willful incompetence like this by unqualified individuals is dangerous. Imagine paying a Physician for a biopsy and your Lawyer deciding on not giving you the results of the biopsy (yes or no) but only pointing out that your temperature came back 98.6 so you must be healthy. Imagine contracting a Mechanic to check wear on your brakes and getting your results from a Used Car Salesman who simply points out that the check engine light is not so of course the car is in 100% mechancial order.
June 2nd, 2006 at 8:30 amI wrote a counter ad to the CEI propaganda :::[They call it a spot, we call it a stain] It is my way of combating their lies so, if you like it, please link it, as quite a few have done already.
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:08 amHey..can i get some help debunking this? Friend of mine sent me this article by “M.L. KHANDEKAR,1 T.S. MURTY,2 and P. CHITTIBABU” entitled “The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science”…I need some help finding or making a debunk. He claims its proof that there is a debate over global warming’s reality.
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 amI have just spent a week up at the Kruger Park (Which is to say my eyesight has been sharpened via a week of staring off into the distance trying to make out whether what I was looking at was a bokkie, or a lion hunting a bokkie) and I have to say it has fully recharged my basic belief system here, don’t let the bastards get away with destroying the world.
June 2nd, 2006 at 12:43 pm[…] In the June 5 global warming cover story in the print edition of the National Review, scientist Curt Davis said author Jason Steorts completely misrepresented his study to argue that Antartica gained ice between 1992 and 2003. Steorts now maintains he omitted the fact that Davis’ study only covered the eastern interior of the continent – and did not consider the western and costal areas that other studies show are losing mass at a rapid pace — “for the sake of brevity.” […]
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:47 pm#26 - “….MUST DEVELOP A STRONGER NOISE MACHINE (ABLEIT USING THE TRUTH) WHICH BRANDS THE ELITE REPBULICAN AS A CONTEMPTIBLE, SUBHUMAN….”
Comment by JMOHR
*****This is not a good example of someone who wants to play nicely and get along with others. Allow me to congratulate you - you sound like the intolerant totalitarian of old. As honest (that being the operative word) DemSNOBS will have to admit this Aryan sounds a little like Dr. Mengele and his evil master, Herr Hitler.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:08 pmJason Lee Steorts replies at this URL:
June 2nd, 2006 at 8:27 pmhttp://article.nationalreview.com/ ?q=M2JiYWI4NzQwZDJlNWJhYTE4ZjM2NTFhZjczNDY4YmE=
global warming can be summed up in two words…..junk science
June 3rd, 2006 at 12:05 am#52.
To conservatives, junk science is that science that does not contribute to increasing the profitability of a business enterprise.
June 3rd, 2006 at 3:09 pm[…] 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 5:09 pm