Part
7: Time
Magazine, April 9, 2001 - Global Baloney
December 27, 2001
by Bob Webster
Time Magazine, April
9, 2001
The April 9, 2001 issue of Time
magazine features a Special Report on Global Warming[1].
Time's online website, time.com,
has a special issue section devoted to the magazine's "exhibits"
of global warming effects[2].
Both online and paper editions of this "Special" are deeply
flawed and seriously mislead readers. Part 7 of the "Understanding
Global Warming" series will identify much of the disinformation
contained in these Time features. Because the online
version is a much-condensed subset of the print version, references
throughout the rest of this piece cite pages from the print
version.
At the very outset, under the
large headline "FEELING THE HEAT" the article begins "Except
for nuclear war or a collision with an asteroid, no force has
more potential to damage our planet's web of life than global
warming."[3] And so Time
begins the article with a fabrication that is designed to generate
fear among readers who lack sufficient scientific knowledge
to see through Time's first salvo. Aside from global
warming, the reader is given only two potential threats
to the "web of life," (1) nuclear war and (2) collision with
an asteroid. Yet there are a number of other calamities that
have the same - or greater - devastating potential. Among those
are global cooling, undersea landslides, and "supervolcano"
eruptions. Do you recall fear mongering in the 1970's about
the coming ice age? Ironically, that fear was fanned by many
of the same scientists who beat the drums for global
warming today! A new period of glacial advances is possible
and could bury much of Europe and heavily populated North America
under massive ice sheets. Hardly a trivial concern compared
with global warming. The danger from massive waves generated
by subsurface landslides in oceans is one of those quiet threats
we don't hear much about. Are you aware that a single massive
slide anywhere along the boundary of the U.S. continental shelf
and the deep Atlantic Ocean would generate a monstrous series
of waves that would inundate and destroy most life along the
east coast of the United States (and, most likely, much of coastal
Europe as well). There is evidence of past catastrophic damage
from just such slides. What about the devastation that supervolcanoes
can bring? The last time a supervolcano erupted global temperatures
plunged nearly 10°F and both animal and plant life were
severely affected. So there are at least three other threats
just as serious, two of which (ocean landslides and supervolcano
eruptions) would provide no warning at all!
Why has Time given the
reader so few possible threats to life to consider? Could it
be that, in order to focus fear on global warming, Time
ignores other potentially devastating natural events? Time
must have realized at the time this article was published that
most people believed the threat of nuclear war died with the
demise of the Soviet Union. Further, it seems that, despite
recent movies dramatizing the potential disaster from an asteroid
impact, people just won't get worked up about the threat. So
Time finds a subtle way to trumpet "global warming" as
the only real threat to life on our planet! By downplaying
other threat scenarios and promoting "solutions" to global warming
in terms of changes to common day-to-day human activities, Time
promotes both the perception of danger from global warming and
the false notion that global warming is human-induced, Pretty
clever writing, eh? If you think that piece of writing is slick,
read on because the writers at Time were just warming
to their task.
Still in the introductory paragraph,
Time takes a jab at President Bush for his courageous
(and correct[4]) decision to
shun the flawed Kyoto Treaty[5,6].
Time writes, "... George W. Bush
has decided to abandon the 1997 Kyoto treaty to combat climate
change - an agreement the U.S. signed but the new President
believes is fatally flawed. His dismissal last week of almost
nine years of international negotiations sparked protests around
the world and a face-to-face disagreement with German Chancellor
Gerhard Schröder." Time
conveniently fails to mention that Kyoto, while signed by William
Clinton, was soundly voted down by the U.S. Senate, 99-0. Time
also fails to inform the reader that not one European
nation had ratified Kyoto at the time President Bush made his
informed decision. Further, Time ignores the fact that
global warming hysteria began with the highly politicized "Green"
movement in Europe and the strongest "Green" party is in Germany
(more about so-called "Green" parties in the next installment
of this series). Given the domestic political pressure from
the "Greens," it stands to reason that the German Chancellor
would speak out against the Bush decision, despite the fact
that Germany hadn't ratified Kyoto either! But, hey, what use
are such facts and background information to Time writers
if they don't support the global warming alarmism that Time
counts on to sell magazines?
As the article continues, Time
wastes little time making perhaps the most deceitful of its
erroneous statements, the effect of which is to both alarm and
misinform the public. One need read only to the third paragraph
to encounter the statement [emphasis added] that "A
decade ago, the idea that the planet was warming up as a
result of human activity was largely theoretical ..."
Time continues with the
next paragraph, "Not anymore. As an authoritative
report issued a few weeks ago by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change makes plain, the trend toward a warmer
world has unquestionably begun." The subtle trickery
employed here is that the first statement, which asserts "human
activity" as a culprit for global warming, is not supported
by the second, which makes no mention of "human activity." By
cleverly postulating both a cause and effect ("human
activity" and "global warming") and then citing a study that
only concludes the effect ("global warming" is real),
but not the cause, Time leads the reader to make
an inevitably false conclusion. No wonder people complain so
much of bias in the media! A previous
installment of this series has already dealt with shortcomings
and controversies over the "U.N.-sponsored" IPCC (as if U.N.
sponsorship imparts some sort of scientific legitimacy!).
Later (on page 26), Time
hedges a bit, stating "... scientists no
longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody
questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."
This piece of double-talk is a classic example of conclusion
based not on "fact" but upon unsubstantiated assumptions.
First, there is not unanimity
in the scientific community concerning either global warming
or human influences. Neither is there consensus in the body
of scientific data that climate is warming due to human activity.
While there are some indications that climate may be in a period
of global warming, there are also indications that we have begun
to enter a period of global cooling. It is certainly not a "fact"
that climate is experiencing long-term global warming that alarmists
such as Time would have us believe, nor is it a "fact"
that human activity plays a significant role in the greenhouse
effect. The statement that "almost nobody questions the fact
that humans are at least partly responsible" is erroneous on
several fronts. First, there are many informed people,
among them the more outspoken Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (Alfred
P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology) and Dr.
Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics and Deputy Director of Mount Wilson Observatory),
who do "question" the role humans play ... and who do
not accept it as "fact" that the human role is a significant
cause of global warming.
Second, it certainly is not
a "fact" that humans play any significant role in climate change
that would support the global warming alarm Time sounds.
There is a great deal of debate and skepticism on this issue
in the scientific community.[7]
Finally, Time's assertion
that "... humans are at least partly responsible,"
is built on a limb constructed partly from a smattering
of truth, but mostly from conjecture. Real nice work,
Time.
The Time article goes
on to identify five "exhibits" which Time claims will
make "the case that our climate is changing."[8]
Each of these "exhibits" will be discussed briefly below.
Exhibit A, Thinning Ice
Time claims Antarctic
Ice is thinning and glaciers worldwide are in full retreat,
yet these claims are neither substantiated by observations nor
are they universally accepted by scientific experts in the field.
Yes, some glaciers are in retreat; but some are advancing.[9,10]
Antarctic ice, rather than diminishing, is actually increasing![11,12,13]
Further, there is ample evidence[14,15,16,17,18]
that the Arctic region has been cooling during the 20th
Century.
It is the nature of glaciers,
polar ice, and climate that they change - so it should not be
startling to discover that they are either increasing or decreasing
at any given period of time. Yet Time leaves one with
the impression that these changes are dramatic and all pointing
toward global warming, which is not the case.
Keep in mind that since climate
is always changing, we either experience periods of "global
warming" or "global cooling" - but the real issue is whether
or not these changes have a significant contribution from
human activity. This key distinction is obscured by Time
and for good reason. Time appears to be dedicated to
creating a picture of a rapidly out of control global warming
caused exclusively by human activity (anthropogenic). So Time
uses any indication of climate warming in such a way that the
reader assumes human activity is responsible. If this were true,
then it would be wise to try to alter the human activity that
is responsible for such dramatic changes. On the other hand,
if the causes are not due to human activity, then it
would be foolish to act as though they are!
Exhibit B, Hotter Times
This "exhibit" is nothing more
than a recitation of some instances in specific locales around
the planet where temperatures were recently above normal. Such
temperature extremes are common throughout recorded history.
There is nothing particularly unusual about the temperature
extremes listed, however, they are exclusively drawn from high
temperature episodes (ignoring cold temperature episodes altogether)
and are used as examples of what might be more common
on a more regular basis if global warming alarmists are
correct. These selective temperature extremes do not
constitute evidence of climate change. Yet that is precisely
how Time would like the reader to view this "exhibit."
Time conveniently ignores the fact that the eastern
United States recorded the coldest November-December
period in history in the year 2000 - a mere three months prior
to the publication of the issue containing these "exhibits."
So much for balanced reporting.
Exhibit C, Wild Weather
As with "Hotter Times" above,
this exhibit is nothing more than a recitation of a handful
of dramatic weather events. Weather extremes are common throughout
recorded history. Again, there is nothing particularly
unusual about the events listed, except they are exclusively
limited to examples of what might happen on a more regular
basis if global warming alarmists are correct. Since placid
weather is hardly noteworthy and difficult to distinguish in
the way that highly visible violent or extreme weather is seen,
any sense of "balance" in this "exhibit" is virtually impossible
to produce, even if Time were so inclined (does anyone
really believe they are?).
Exhibit D, Nature's Pain
This "exhibit" is simply a recitation
of some obvious effects of localized weather variability. These
exhibits are not necessarily related to long-term climate change.
They could be, and we might be able to determine that
if we could wait around a few hundred years to ascertain whether
these were the result of routine fluctuations in weather or
from actual long-term climatic changes. The problem is, you
cannot accurately extrapolate into the future based on incomplete
knowledge of the present - and this is precisely what Time
and other global warming alarmists are attempting to do. When
we string a few mild winters together, we can observe changes
in the natural environment as a consequence. Similarly, a few
cold winters will produce other changes. There is nothing unusual
about this. This, however, is not the impression Time
tries to leave with the reader.
Exhibit E, Rising Sea Levels
In this section, Time
warns that global warming is melting glacial and polar ice at
an alarming rate sufficient to raise sea levels that threaten
coastal regions with inundation and other dire consequences.
These "exhibits" are so erroneous that they warrant individual
attention:
Time: "Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse was 1,500 ft. from the North Carolina
shoreline when it was built in 1870. By the late 1980s the
ocean had crept to within 160 ft., and the lighthouse had
to be moved to avoid collapse."
This statement grossly misrepresents
the cause of the ocean's encroachment. The lighthouse was
moved because the barrier island it sat on was being eroded
by storms - not because of "rising sea levels!" The
lighthouse is perched on a barrier island, and, as
any educated person knows, it is the nature of barrier islands
to change with beach erosion from the effects of ocean storms.
Typically, the seaward side of the island is diminished
while the landward side builds toward the land. Sometimes
entire sections of barrier islands disappear in extreme
storms (a dramatic example of this occurred during the 20th
Century on Nantucket Island, MA). Cape Hatteras has some
of the most extreme weather on the east coast of the United
States due to its prominent position and the typical course
of coastal storms.
Time: "Japanese
Fortifications were built on Kosrae Island in the southwest
Pacific Ocean during World War II to guard against U.S. Marines'
invading the beach. Today the fortifications are awash at
high tide."
Again, as in the first example,
the effect described is due to beach erosion from storms,
not due to "rising sea levels!"
Time: "Florida
Farmland up to 1,000 ft. inland from Biscayne Bay is being
infiltrated by salt water, rendering the land too toxic for
crops. Salt water is also nibbling at the edges of farms on
Maryland's Eastern Shore."
Salt water encroachment
is not due to rising sea levels since the sea has
not risen to any significant degree during the time the
global alarmists claim human activity has been warming the
planet. There are two primary reasons salt water encroaches
into fresh water tables. Over development is the primary
culprit in Florida. When too much fresh water is pumped
out of the water table to supply new homes or for agricultural
needs, then the hydrostatic pressure balance between the
salt water and fresh water is upset and salt water can creep
inland. Soil erosion and severe drought can also produce
the same effect. Rising sea levels would have to be far
greater than anything witnessed in either Maryland or Florida
to be responsible for intrusion into fresh water tables.
Time: "Brazilian
Shoreline in the region of Recife receded more than 6
ft. a year from 1915 to 1950 and more than 8 ft. a year from
1985 to 1995."
Without any information
about the historical changes in shoreline (e.g. during the
Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age[19]),
it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the cause
of this highly localized change. Yet that is precisely what
Time wants the reader to do - assume the cause is
"rising sea levels" without a shred of supporting information.
The truth is that there is insufficient
glacial or polar ice melting to produce any significant change
in global sea level at this time.
Time relies on flawed
estimates of the IPCC that suggest "average temperatures will
increase between 2.5°F and 10.4°F" over the next 100
years. However, those estimates are based on incomplete science,
poor data sources, and inadequate computer models - all working
together to extrapolate their errors to 100 years in
the future! But that doesn't seem to concern Time. Nor
does Time believe the reader should understand that if
the Kyoto Treaty provisions were adhered to for the next 100
years, the effect on the projections of IPCC models would be
to lower the extrapolated temperature increases to the
range 2.0°F to 8.0°F. Does this kind of change seem
worthy of the huge economic expense Kyoto would mandate of the
U.S. - without any certainty that U.S. adherence would have
any effect whatsoever on global climate?
Even if there were evidence
of significant global warming, there is no conclusive
evidence that the cause of warming is rooted in human activity,
yet Time blandly assumes not only global warming, but
claims the warming is the result of human activity! The clever
trick here is to convince the reader that CO2 is
a "pollutant" produced by human activity and such activity has
caused a massive build-up of this "most
abundant heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere..."
Time misinforms readers
by failing to note that, while CO2 may be highly
efficient as a greenhouse ("heat trapping") gas, it is found
in such miniscule quantities that it is responsible for less
than 2% of all greenhouse warming! As discussed in Part
2: The Atmosphere & Weather, CO2 accounts
for less than 0.033% of atmospheric gases. Also ignored by Time
is the response of the earth's biosystem to increases in atmospheric
CO2. Far from being a "pollutant," CO2
is an aerial fertilizer to all plant life. Thus, as this aerial
fertilizer increases, plant photosynthesis is increased (as
well as growing season when climate warms) which provides greater
sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere by way of plant
growth.[20] This natural balance
tends to diminish long term CO2 build-up to levels
well below those forecast by IPCC models.
Time, on page 27, makes
quite an issue over the ability of today's climate
models ... [to be] able to take into account the heat-trapping
effects not just of CO2 but also of other greenhouse
gases, including methane." Evidently Time doesn't
think it important that the reader understand that "greenhouse
gases" such as carbon dioxide and methane account, together,
for less than 2% of greenhouse warming For a detailed discussion
of greenhouse warming and the role of CO2, see Understanding
Global Warming, Part 4: Warming - Greenhouse
Effect & Nature.
There is much evidence contradicting
the assumptions Time (and the IPCC) makes about the role
of CO2 in climate warming. Following are just a few
pertinent sources for such contradictory evidence:
Not content with misinforming
the reader about the "science" of human-induced global warming,
Time takes aim at President Bush (what a surprise - Time
attacking a Republican!). On page 27 of the article, Time
writes "Like any other area of science,
the case for human-induced global warming has uncertainties
- and like many pro-business lobbyists, President Bush has proclaimed
those uncertainties a reason to study the problem further rather
than act." Here Time has unabashedly flown its
true colors. In true liberal form, Time announces President
Bush is acting as nothing more than a "pro-business lobbyist"
without a shred of evidence to support the statement. A dirty
little smear campaign, nothing more, nothing less. In fact,
the uncertainties about the human role in climate change are
so great and so prevalent (to those who care to look) that the
"painstaking research" and conclusions of the IPCC (who set
out with the objective of proving human-induced global warming)
are being assailed on almost a daily basis.[21]
The IPCC virtually ignores strong
evidence linking swings in global temperature (climate changes)
to solar activity. Recent data from Mars exploration suggest
the Martian atmosphere is undergoing a period of global warming[24]
- so much so that if the current rate of warming continues,
temperatures on Mars will be warm enough for human comfort without
so much as a lightweight coat (bring your own oxygen, however).
Such warming would be sufficient to melt much of the trapped
subterranean ice on Mars. What could be the cause of such warming?
Burning of fossil fuels on Earth? Not likely. Rather, increased
solar activity as the common cause of observed temperature increases
on both Earth and Mars is most likely the cause. In fact, recent
studies conclude that the overwhelming cause of both climate
warming and cooling on Earth is changes in solar activity. The
solar changes far exceed the minimal impact of human activity
and fossil fuel burning.[22,23]
Time then turns the spigot
of misinformation on full force in a section headlined "A
CLIMATE OF DESPAIR." This section might better be headlined
"A CLIMATE OF FEAR" and is remarkable for its blatant distortions,
misrepresentations and lies. Prominent on pages 30-31 is a chart
depicting the world's greatest "polluters" - or, in more sober
terms, those nations with the greatest annual CO2
emissions. But, as discussed earlier, CO2 is no more
a "pollutant" than is oxygen. All plant life depends on CO2
just as animal life depends on oxygen. Rather than being classed
as a pollutant, CO2 is actually an aerial fertilizer
for all plant life. Consistent with their role as "distortionists,"
Time represents CO2 in this chart as a dark
black smoke - yet CO2 is both colorless and odorless!
Under a picture of President
Bush, Time captions "The President's
stance infuriates other nations, since the U.S. is by far the
biggest polluter on the planet. With only 4% of the world's
population, America produces 25% of its greenhouse gases."
This caption is a particularly gross distortion of the
real picture. First, while it may be true that CO2
production in the U.S. is 25% of the world's total, it is also
true that CO2 absorption in the U.S. is in approximate
balance with emissions. In other words, plant sequestration
of CO2 in the U.S. is in approximate balance with
emissions, thanks to the vast quantity of plant life in the
U.S. A further distortion of this chart is to measure amounts
of CO2 production since 1950. This narrow
view totally ignores the continuing absorption of CO2
by plant life. The continual referral to CO2 as a
"pollutant" is designed to distort the view of the reader. Finally,
it is totally irrelevant what percentage of the world's population
is in the U.S. How much of the world's food supplies are produced
in the U.S., with only 4% of the world's population? Does it
matter? Of course not, but Time, in a thinly veiled attempt
at bashing the U.S. and its President, writes as though it does.
To summarize some of the low
points of Time's distorted view of CO2 as
a pollutant:
Time claims the question
of human-induced global warming is settled. It is not, and
to suggest it is constitutes a clear misrepresentation to
the reader.
Time ignores the relatively
minor role (less than 2%) that CO2 plays in the
greenhouse effect that warms the planet. This grossly distorts
the significance of CO2 in climate warming. Virtually
all (98%) greenhouse warming is from atmospheric water vapor
and clouds.
Time ignores the strong
role solar radiation plays in cyclic climate variability.
This grossly distorts Time's discussion of climate
change.
Time portrays President
Bush as a "pro-business lobbyist" clearly intending to impugn
his motivations for failing to support the flawed Kyoto Treaty.
This is grossly unfair and consistent with Time's distorted
view of this subject.
Time attempts to provide
evidence for human-induced global warming by various "exhibits"
which either do not relate one whit to human origins of warming
- or are blatantly false in their assumptions (e.g., rising
sea level as a cause of a lighthouse being moved).
There is much more in the Time
feature that could be disputed, but there is just so much that
can be dealt with in the limited length for this one part of
the Understanding Global Warming series.
The bottom line is that questions
concerning allegations of human-induced global warming are far
from settled and a large body of evidence to the contrary exists,
yet Time writes that "there is no question" that human-induced
global warming poses a clear and present danger to humanity
and then fails to provide any counter arguments (balance) to
their predisposed position. Now, why do you suppose Time
would do that? Could there be a political agenda at work at
Time?
Well, a good indication of the
answer to that question follows in a related story about Time
magazine's highly selective "reporting." This is from an interview
of Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) by Dr.
Sallie Baliunas, Science for the Earth host at Tech
Central Station conducted on June 25, 2001. The interview
can be viewed online in its entirety by going to http://www.techcentralstation.com/EnvironLetters.asp,
and scrolling to the bottom of the current interview to find
a drop-down list of archived interviews and then selecting the
interview "6/25/2001: Rep. Peterson Details Political." The
following is a portion of that interview:
Peterson
(joined during response): When in December of that year the
Kyoto Protocols were signed in Japan, the debate naturally intensified.
One large environmental organization out of Philadelphia called
and asked for an appointment to set me straight on the issue.
I countered with what I thought a reasonable offer. I would
sponsor a public discussion forum of the varied issues surrounding
the science of global warming at Penn State University, which
is in my congressional district. Not baseless computer scenarios
or alarmist assertions, but real science. I would arrange for
some "skeptical" scientists and they could invite anyone they
wished.
Baliunas:
How was that offer received?
Peterson:
Well, it got rather interesting. First they agreed. We arranged
to bring into State College Pat Michaels of UVA, Dick Lindzen
of MIT and John Christy of UA-H who runs the satellite data.
We also invited for their side, Eric Barron at Penn State.
We suggested they invite Jim Hansen, which they thought they
could arrange. But no sooner did our list of scientists hit
their desk than an Olympic-qualifying backstroke began. In
the end, they simply backed out. We had the event without
them, with excellent presentations and and Q&As by Michaels,
Lindzen, Christy and Barron. It was quite informative for
those attending.
Baliunas:
What an interesting story. Why do you think they failed to
show?
Peterson:
It appears to be part of a pattern we observed early on. If
there is one thing that seems to frighten climate alarmists
more than their own propaganda, it's an honest discussion
of the real science.
Baliunas:
You said, "part of a pattern." Would you also elaborate on
that, please?
Peterson:
Certainly. First, take the major media for example. It's completely
one-sided coverage -- all blaming humans for warming. Early
in 1998 I sent a letter to the editors of Time magazine
addressing what you and I would consider a terrible error
in the science that was published in their "Earth Watch" section,
as I recall. After several weeks of badgering them to print
it, they told my Chief of Staff that their panel of three
"science" editors had adopted a policy that since man-made
warming was such a major threat to the planet, they would
not publish anything which would undercut the theory in the
minds of their readers.
Baliunas:
Even from a Member of Congress?
Peterson:
Especially from a Member of Congress, I guess.
Baliunas:
Continue, please.
Peterson:
Then that same year...
Baliunas:
That would be 1998?
Peterson:
Yes, I believe so. That same year, a Democrat began circulating
to Members of the House "Dear Colleague" letters containing
the "scare of the week." You know the sort of thing: vector-borne
diseases, storms, sea-level rise, and such. We began answering
each one in detail with the real science, vetted throughout
our growing circle of scientists. After a couple of our responses,
the other side shut down.
Just one more
example?
Baliunas:
Yes; please.
Peterson:
This same individual once brought a pro-human-warming amendment
to the floor. Each side is allotted a certain amount of time
to debate amendments, pro and con. He presented his views,
filled with the usual calamities and dire warnings. As I approached
the microphone to add a little science to the debate, as I
supposed [he would] he abruptly withdrew his amendment, effectively
silencing our response. As I said, keeping discussions of
the science from the public seems to be a pattern followed
by those some refer to as "calamitologists." It is not only
a dishonest pattern, but a dangerous one for informed public
policy-making.
This chilling revelation by
Rep. Peterson is further evidence that the liberal media in
this country care little for the truth when it conflicts with
their political agenda. Time is right at the forefront,
leading the charge against an informed public. The "press"
has come a long way since "freedom of the press" was established
as a cornerstone of our Republic.
Footnotes:
Time
magazine, Special Report on Global Warming, pp 22-39,
April 9, 2001.
Lindzen,
Dr. Richard S. (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in an interview with
James K. Glassman (Kyoto
"Absurd" Says MIT Scientist) of Tech
Central Station, March 5, 2001.
