Misrepresentation of Facts

Scientific predictions are always subject to uncertainty, and must be continually subjected to intelligent and knowledgable criticism. But when public opinion is swayed by misrepresentation and deceit, it is important to expose the sources and motivations of the deceivers. The next several posts deal with this issue.

1: Misrepresentation of Opposing Science and Presentation of Irrelevant Facts

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list entitled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion (though they were clearly listed as coauthors of the article), nor agreed with its contents. 

Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list.

Heartland's publications make the following assertions about climate change:

"Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate. "

"The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend."

"A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization."

"The best strategy to pursue is one of 'no regrets'."

One should always begin by examining the source of any contrarian opinion.

The Heartland Institute receives donations from approximately 1,600 individuals, foundations, and corporations. 

Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct "contract" research for special-interest groups.

However, the Heartland Institute accepted funding from politically conservative foundations (special interest groups) such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. 

In addition, oil companies (who have a special interest in the continued use of greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels) have contributed substantially to the Heartland Institute. ExxonMobil contributed a total of $560,000 between 1998 and 2005. 

Nearly 40% of funds from ExxonMobil were specifically designated for  projects aimed at undermining the IPCC Reports. 

As of 2008, ExxonMobil has contributed almost $800,000 to the Heartland Institute. 

Promoting information contrary to well-founded scientific studies is a precedent set in the past by the Heartland Institute when they contested the health risks of secondhand smoke while accepting significant funding from Philip Morris, a major tobacco company, to finance their dissemination of misinformation.

In the case at hand (Global Warming) we have an example of contrarian claims put forth by a special interest organization that offer no scientific analysis or evidence to refute the conclusions found in the IPCC reports, even though these reports represent decades of research carried on by climate experts, all of which has been subjected to peer review. 

Where is the evidence in support of these contrarian claims? None is provided. 

It is not true that most scientists do not believe that global warming is man-made. 

It is not true that the most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend. 

No peer-reviewed evidence is presented in support of these assertions. 

Among the techniques used by Global Warming Detractors is to present statements that are out of context, or irrelevant, but sound like they makes sense to the ordinary person who is not an expert.

For example, one finds comments that deny the role of CO₂ as a major cause of Global Warming. 

It is stated that CO₂ is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas, and that CO₂ plays an essential role in the growth of plants. 

These statements are correct, but they are irrelevant! The aim is to distract people from the question of whether Global Warming is real by implying that since CO₂ is a harmless gas, it cannot be the cause of any projected calamity. 

But CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. This means that its molecular properties cause it to retard the transmission of infrared radiation, thereby trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere. 

These molecular properties are in addition to and distinct from those properties that make CO₂ an otherwise benign gas.

Perhaps the most egregious and dangerous example of the misuse of an irrelevant fact is the following. 

During the week of March 1, 2010, in South Dakota, a resolution calling for the “balanced teaching of global warming in public schools” passed the Legislature. 

In the discussion supporting the adoption of this resolution, the proponents of this legislation referred to CO₂ as "the gas of life" as a basis for their rationale, including the statement: “Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”

One can only pray that the teachers in South Dakota are sufficiently educated in the legitimate science to point out to their students that this irrelevant fact about Carbon Dioxide was being deliberately misused in order to promote a contrarian agenda. 

Another distracting argument put forth by Global Warming detractors is with respect to water vapor. One finds the statement that water vapor is Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas. 

What is the purpose of this correct but distracting statement? How do Global Warming deniers use it?  

The statement is used to argue that because water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, then there is no point to give attention to CO₂, and no point in arguing that the world's industrial nations must limit CO₂ production.

What's wrong and misleading with this argument?

It is true is that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is much higher than the concentration of all the other greenhouse gases combined. While some water vapor is released to the atmosphere from industrial sources, most of the water vapor occurs naturally and is not man-made. 

But this ignores the fact that it is the addition of other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (especially CO₂) that has been proven to be the major cause of Global Warming. 

In fact, there is a serious “feedback” problem here, and one that does involve water vapor, that in fact argues that the reduction of CO₂ is essential to reversing the warming of the planet.

The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere depends primarily on the temperature of the oceans. The man-made addition of CO₂ raises the ocean temperature. This puts more water vapor into the atmosphere. This leads to further ocean warming, which leads to more water vapor. 

So water vapor is a significant greenhouse gas, but because its concentration is increased by the addition of CO₂, it is appropriate to ascribe a man-made role to the subsequent effect of additional water vapor. 

What climatologists mean by a "feedback" problem is this:

The naturally occurring amount of water vapor in the atmosphere provides a "heat blanket" for the Earth which makes the planet livable. 

But the man-made addition of  CO₂ raises the temperature of the ocean. This adds water vapor to the atmosphere. Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this causes a further rise in the ocean temperature. This raises the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This feedback cycle leads in only one direction: a continuing rise in the temperature of the planet.

For a  more detailed discussion of this, see “Water vapor Confirmed as a Major Player in Climate Change” at 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html .

In the following post I'll continue to examine the arguments of Global Warming/Climate Change Deniers.