The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award

Welcome to the 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award.

2010 saw widespread and growing evidence of rapidly warming global climate and strengthening scientific understanding of how humans are contributing to climate change. Yet on the policy front, little happened to stem the growing emissions of greenhouse gases or to help societies prepare for increasingly severe negative climate impacts, including now unavoidable changes in temperature, rainfall patterns, sea-level rise, snowpack, glacial extent, Arctic sea ice, and more. These physical impacts will lead to sharply increased disease, military and economic instabilities, food and water shortages, and extreme weather events, among other things. Without appropriate risk management action, the United States will be hit hard. There is no safe haven. Yet confusion and uncertainty about climate change remain high in the minds of too many members of the public and Congress.

Why? In large part because of a concerted, coordinated, aggressive campaign by a small group of well-funded climate change deniers and contrarians focused on intentionally misleading the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change. Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, and pure and utter B.S. about climate science. These efforts have been successful in sowing confusion and delaying action – just as the same tactics were successful in delaying efforts to tackle tobacco’s health risks.

To counter this campaign of disinformation, we are issuing the first in what may become a series of awards for the most egregious Climate B.S.* of the Year. In preparing the list of nominees, suggestions were received from around the world and a panel of reviewers – all scientists or climate communicators – waded through them. We present here the top five nominees and the winner of the 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award.

Fifth Place. Climate B.S. and misrepresentations presented by Fox “News.”

There are many examples of bad science, misrepresentations, omissions of facts, and distortions of climate reality coming from Fox “News” (far too many to list here, but we note that Joe Romm just gave Fox his 2010 Citizen Kane Award for “non-excellence in journalism” for their misrepresentations of climate science). It seems that Fox has now made it their policy to deny the reality of climate change and has told its reporters to misreport or cast doubt on the science. This policy of disinformation was implemented by Fox News executive Bill Sammon, who ordered staff to cast doubt on climate data in a memo revealed this month. Fox’s political commentators have long used this tactic in their one-sided and biased discussions on climate change but Sammon’s memo seems to direct News staff to slant reporting in direct contradiction to what the scientific facts and scientists actually say.

Fourth Place. Misleading or false testimony to Congress and policymakers about climate change.

While Congress held more hearings in 2010 on climate change than in other recent years, these hearings elicited some astounding testimonies submitted by climate deniers and skeptics filled with false and misleading statements about climate science and total B.S. Examples?

Long-time climate change skeptic Patrick Michaels testified before the House Science and Technology Committee and misrepresented the scientific understanding of the human role in climate change and the well-understood effects of fundamental climatic factors, such as the effects of visible air pollution. Including these effects (as climate scientists have done for many years) would have completely changed his results. Michaels has misrepresented mainstream climate science for decades, as has been noted here, here, and elsewhere, yet he remains a darling of the skeptics in Congress who like his message.

A newer darling of Congressional climate change deniers is Christopher Monckton, who claims to be a member of the British House of Lords (a claim rejected by the House of Lords). Monckton testified before a Senate committee in May and presented such outlandish B.S. about climate that experts (such as John Mashey, Tim Lambert, John Abraham, and Barry Bickmore, to name a few) spent uncounted hours and pages and pages refuting just a subset of his errors.

Third Place. The false claim that a single weather event, such as a huge snowstorm in Washington, D.C., proves there is no global warming.

In February 2010 a big winter storm dumped record piles of snow on the mid-Atlantic U.S., including Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, prompting climate change deniers to use bad weather to try to discredit the reality of global warming. Limbaugh said, “It’s one more nail in the coffin for the global warming thing.” Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe got attention with an igloo on the national mall and labeled it “Al Gore’s new home” (combining bad science with a personal attack). Senator Jim DeMint said, “It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.'”

Record snowfall is not an indicator of a lack of global warming, as has been pointed out in the scientific literature and many, many rounds of Congressional testimony. It merely means that there was a storm and temperatures were close to or below freezing. Indeed global warming can contribute to greater snowfalls by providing extra moisture. Many scientists testifying before the Senate and House of Representatives have explained the difference between a steadily warming planet and occasional extreme cold events in particular spots. But we can expect to see more examples of this kind of B.S. when it gets cold and snowy somewhere, sometime, this winter.

Second Place. The claim that the “Climategate” emails meant that global warming was a hoax, or was criminal, as Senator Inhofe tried to argue. In fact, it was none of these things (though the British police are still investigating the illegal hacking of a British university’s computer system and the theft of the emails).

Global warming deniers used out-of-context texts from the stolen emails to claim that global warming was a hoax or that scientists had manipulated data or were hiding evidence that climate change wasn’t happening. These claims are all B.S. A series of independent scientific and academic investigations in the U.S. and the U.K. unanimously concluded that nothing in the stolen emails made any difference to the remarkable strength of climate science (see, for example, the Penn State vindication, the Independent Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh reviews, a British Parliamentary Panel review, and other assessments). Unfortunately, the media gave far more attention to the accusations than to the resounding vindications, and climate deniers continue to spread B.S. about this case.

The bottom line of “Climategate?” As a letter in Science magazine signed by 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences said in May 2010: “there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change.”


First Place goes to the following set of B.S.: “There has been no warming since 1998” [or 2000, or”¦], “the earth is cooling,” “global warming is natural,” and “humans are too insignificant to affect the climate.” Such statements are all nonsense and important for the general public to understand properly.

The reality is that the Earth’s climate is changing significantly, changing fast, and changing due to human factors. The reality of climatic change can no longer be disputed on scientific grounds – the U.S. National Academy of Sciences calls the human-induced warming of the Earth a “settled fact.” The evidence for a “warming” planet includes not just rising temperatures, but also rising sea levels, melting Arctic sea ice, disappearing glaciers, increasing intense rainfalls, and many other changes that matter to society and the environment. The recent and ongoing warming of the Earth is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause.

This winning set of B.S. appears almost daily in the conservative blogosphere, like here and here and here, consistently in the statements of climate change deniers, and far too often in real media outlets. Actual science and observations from around globe have long shown the opposite (for example, here and here are nice rebuttals with real science). The planet continues to warm rapidly largely due to human activities, and average global temperatures continue to rise. The most recent decade has been the warmest decade on record and 2010 will likely go down as either the warmest or second warmest year in recorded history.

Associated B.S. argues that the famous “hockey stick” graph has been disproved. This graph shows the extraordinarily rapid warming of the twentieth century compared to the previous 1000 years. The graph and analysis have been upheld by subsequent researchers and numerous scientific assessments, including one from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

To the winners: Congratulations, it is long past time your B.S. is recognized for what it is – bad science.

And to the public and the media: Be forewarned — all of these and similar bad arguments will certainly be repeated in 2011. It is long past time that this bad science is identified, challenged, and shown to be the B.S. that it is.

The 2010 Climate Bad Science (B.S.) Detection and Correction Team

Peter Gleick, Kevin Trenberth, Tenney Naumer, Michael Ashley, Lou Grinzo, Gareth Renowden, Paul Douglas, Jan W. Dash, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Brian Angliss, Joe Romm, Peter Sinclair, Michael Tobis, Gavin Schmidt, plus several anonymous nominators, reviewers, and voters.

[* “B.S.” means “Bad Science” doesn’t it?]

For more information, contact Dr. Peter H. Gleick or Nancy Ross, Pacific Institute, 510 725-2385.

15 Responses to The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award

  1. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Could I respectfully nominate Rupert Murdoch’s FoxNews Ltd in Australia, and its spearhead ‘The Fundament’ (the anus of the nation) for a dishonourable mention in these awards. The Fundament has operated an above 90% bias to denialism for some years, a position that it has, with breathtaking audacity, denied. It claims to be ‘Fair and Balanced’, putting even Orwell’s Ministry of Truth to shame. At the same time it, for a while, ran mastheads where it boasted of its efforts to ‘reduce its carbon footprint’. Editorially it has recently run a quasi-Lomborgian line of acknowledging anthropogenic climate change (while its opinion ranters maintain the straight denialist position)but arguing against every practical step to address using the whole arsenal of casuistry and sophistry that we know so well from Mr Lomborg’s output.

  2. Perhaps the New Year’s resolution for 2011 for the media is to investigate who the “puppet masters” that are pulling the strings of Fox, Limbaugh, Inhofe and the rest who promulgate this nonsense?

    Other key questions. How is it that we are still subsidizing fossil fuel industry? And what is the appropriate response when the price of those fuels go up when action is taken to remove subsidies or increase environmental protection or to put a price on carbon or …?

    Those are some things I hope to explore in my journalism for 2011, I hope others will as well.

  3. David B. Benson says:

    Yes, B.S. stands for Bad Science.

    BS, on the other hand …

  4. Lou Grinzo says:


    In my opinion, no hidden puppet masters are needed to explain what we’re seeing — the forces at work are plain as day.

    Inhofe and similar politicians are nothing more or less than the logical consequence of an election system that lets moneyed interests buy favors with campaign contributions.

    Fox, Limbaugh, and their ilk are highly likely nothing more than greed and myopia in action. They see a way to capture and hold an audience and make piles of money, and they don’t care what they have to say or do in the process. They’re hurting the country? Making the already locked-in nightmares of climate change a few short decades from now all the worse? Those are someone else’s problems — there’s money to made, fame to be enhanced.

    Strip the world down to power and incentives, and it’s depressingly easy to explain all sorts of horrors…

  5. Tim L. says:

    I nominate the oily, polluting and lying Koch brothers, who have outspent Exxon Mobil and other industry types in funding phony front groups that promote so much climate B.S. They’re the Lord Voldemort behind the phony, lying politicos and pundits who deny the reality of global CC.

  6. Ian Forrester says:

    If Curry had started her blog earlier in the year I’m sure she would have qualified for both the BS award and the B.S. award, a pathetic double for someone who professes to be a scientist.

  7. Ron Broberg says:

    First Place goes to the following set of B.S.: “There has been no warming since 1998” [or 2000, or…], “the earth is cooling,” …

    Well, this was very timely …
    Did Global Warming Stop After 1998?

  8. PSU Grad says:

    Great post, but the “And to the public and to the media” section leaves me with a question. Let’s say the comment section on a local newspaper web site is filled with this sort of B.S. Is there someone or someplace we can alert, so qualified scientists can rebut this B.S.? All too often I see this garbage, but I don’t generally have the rebuttal information at my fingertips.

    I think it would be great to have a “rapid response team”, as has been mentioned, that can be alerted and can respond to this B.S. in a very timely manner (and maybe even using real names, which would then show bloggers hiding in anonymity attacking real scientists with real knowledge and data).

    At least locally, these articles/comments don’t come up that often, so I’m thinking it won’t be a complete time waster.

  9. cervantes says:

    I think there should at least be an honorable mention for Alexander Cockburn, who used his regular column in The Nation to hijack that venerable publication and spew a stew of preposterous scientific-sounding nonsensical mumbo jumbo to prove that anthropogenic climate change was a massive hoax promulgated by the nuclear power industry. Now we have claims all over the place that even the “leftist” Cockburn has seen that it’s all a conspiracy.

  10. Vic Anderson says:

    Move ’em all to the Maldives!

  11. Lou, I agree but the public doesn’t know who those monied interests are. Or the why and how of their successful manipulation of public opinion on key issues like climate and energy. We need a broad public understanding of all this to make the right response when gasoline prices are $5 a gallon.

  12. John Mashey says:

    One nit regarding Monckton & recent debunking thereof.
    I would have been happy to have been on the team of debunkers, but my only connection was earlier welcoming Barry Bickmore and later John P. Abraham to the top of Monckton’s Bad List and coaching them a little on what to expect. The most accurate phrase would be: “Expect to have your ankle gummed forever by a loud-barking, but toothless Chihuahua”.

    My go-around with Monckton was earlier, see DeSMogBlog. In the comments, the Viscount appears and among other things states:

    ‘Perhaps it would be better if “Dr.” Mashey were to write a peer-reviewed rebuttal of Mr. Schulte’s paper, rather than interfering in an unlawful manner on the blogosphere, which is not the best place for serious scientific discourse.’

    Interfering unlawfully with the blogosphere?
    Is that like interfering with chaos?
    (My reply appears later in that thread.)
    At the time, I was likely #1 on the aforementioned Bad List, but I think I’ve fallen fairly far down by now.

    Anyway, I applaud the work of the debunkers.

  13. Chris Winter says:

    [* “B.S.” means “Bad Science” doesn’t it?]

    Bad science, baseless science, bass-ackward science, bogus science, bowdlerized science…

  14. Russell says:

    On behalf of Acme Products chairman Lord Gnome of Brenchley Parva & the staff of Climate Wars Depot, we would like to thank the Correction Team for contributing to our economic recovery. Egged on by your efforts, the winners made unprecedented purchases of our major product lines in fiscal 2010,

    So great has been the use of Acme rubber graph paper , disappearing abcissa ink, and doggy balloon thermometers in coverage of climate change that a credible threat of tropical deforestation has arisen due to increased latex demand,

    To offset rain forest impacts from attempting to depict eyeball popping rates of temperature change and/or flatten the Keeling curve, Acme is developing a new line of tree-free elastomers based on coyote hide. Trusting that you will swiftly communicate our initiative to your opposite numbers in Oslo, we remain

    Yours, etc.

  15. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Alexander Cockburn has been lamentable, and the usually brilliant Global Research disappointing at times, but overwhelmingly denialism is a Rightist disease. This is hardly surprising because the Right engages in debate to win, to dominate and to intimidate. The true Left is, or ought to be if they are true to their principles, interested in finding the truth, and if wrong, admits it and adjusts their opinions. Admitting that one is incorrect is anathema for the Right, their hypertrophied egos not being able to take it. They have no moral inhibition in lying, and lack the intellectual tools, in many cases, to realise they are being taken for a ride. They often over-estimate their own intelligence, but when faced by those who have clearly achieved higher understanding through hard effort and greater natural endowment, such as climate and other scientists, they react with extreme antipathy. In this country scientists and other academics are habitually derided by the intellectually insufficient as ‘smart-arses’, ‘know-it-alls’ and ‘clever-dicks’. Manipulating the hatred of the ‘know nothings’ for their intellectual betters has been a rich seam of reliable votes for parties on the Right.