Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 164

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 167

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 170

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 173

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 176

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 178

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 180

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 202

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 206

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 224

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 225

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 227

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 321

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 321

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 321

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/includes/class.layout.php on line 321

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/admin/class.options.metapanel.php on line 56

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/admin/class.options.metapanel.php on line 56

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/admin/class.options.metapanel.php on line 56

Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/coralreefecosystems/coralreefecosystems.net/wp-content/themes/platform/admin/class.options.metapanel.php on line 49
The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards | Climate Shifts
Peter Gleick

Peter Gleick, Contributor

CEO Pacific Institute, MacArthur Fellow, National Academy of Sciences

+ Follow on Forbes

[*B.S. means “Bad Science.” What did you think it meant?]

The Earth’s climate continued to change during 2011 – a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property around the world. The scientific evidence for the accelerating human influence on climate further strengthened, as it has for decades now. Yet on the policy front, once again, national leaders did little to stem the growing emissions of greenhouse gases or to help societies prepare for increasingly severe consequences of climate changes, including rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, rising sea-levels, loss of snowpack and glaciers, disappearance of Arctic sea ice, and much more.

Why the failure to act? In part because climate change is a truly difficult challenge. But in part because of a concerted, well-funded, and aggressiveanti-science campaign by climate change deniers and contrarians. These are mostly groups focused on protecting narrow financial interests, ideologues fearful of any government regulation, or scientific contrarians who cling to outdated, long-refuted interpretations of science. While much of the opposition to addressing the issue of climate change is political, it often hides behind pseudo-scientific claims, with persistent efforts to intentionally mislead the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change. Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, or pure and utter B.S. – the same tactics that delayed efforts to tackle tobacco’s health risks long after the science was understood (as documented in Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s book, Merchants of Doubt).

Last year, we issued the first ever “Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards.” I am now pleased to present the 2nd Annual (2011) Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards. In preparing the 2011 list of nominees, suggestions were received from around the world and a panel of reviewers — all climate scientists or climate communicators — waded through them. We present here the top nominees and the winner of the 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards.

The 2011 Winner:

Climate B.S.* from all of the Republican candidates for President of the United States


Is it really necessary to be anti-science in general, and anti-climate science in particular, in order to be nominated to lead the Republican Party in the United States? Apparently, yes, at least in the minds of the Republican presidential candidates or their advisors. These candidates can be split into three groups: those ignorant or uninterested in science and its role in informing policy; those who intentionally distort science because it conflicts with deeply held political or religious ideology; and those who blow with the wind, giving their allegiance to whatever ideology seems most expedient at any given moment. There is some overlap, of course: some candidates, such as Rick Perry, have been in all three groups at various times. The third group includes candidates who have at one time or another held positions more or less consistent with scientific understanding but who in 2011 adopted anti-scientific positions during their primary campaigns. For example, Gingrich, Romney, and Huntsman, at some point in the past, all expressed at least a partial understanding about the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change. Yet all three have now retreated from the scientific evidence to faulty but ideological safe positions demanded by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. In October, Romney caved in to conservative pressure and changed his stance on the issue. Just days ago, after pressure from anti-climate-science activists, Gingrich cut a chapter on climate science from a book of environmental essays he had agreed to produce. Ironically, that chapter was to have been written by an atmospheric scientist (Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University) who happens to be an evangelical and speaks regularly to conservative groups. She was also targeted by these activists for personal abuse – a tactic often pursued by climate deniers and contrarians.  (For a few of the craziest things the top GOP candidates have said on climate change, see Joe Romm’s recent essay at Think Progress.)

In short, the choice among the Republican candidates on the issue of climate change is scientific ignorance, disdain for science, blatant misrepresentation of facts, or naked political expediency, any one of which would make the Republican candidates strong contenders for the 2011 Climate B.S. Award. Combined? They win hands down.

[For comparison, while the Obama Administration has made little progress (and some would argue insufficient effort) on climate change, the President’sstated position on climate change is clear and in line with scientific evidence. And here is his unequivocal comment on scientific integrity:

“Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world’s leader in science and technology…the truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources. It’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient. Especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth, and a greater understanding of the world around us…” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFsB1Jk1OQ0]

Second Place: Disinformation from Fox News and Murdoch’s News Corporation


In this year’s competition, we award Fox News second place – up from their fifth place finish last year. This year, the award is extended to the entire News Corporation empire of Rupert Murdoch because of its apparent efforts to synchronize anti-climate science reporting among the different Murdoch outlets in the UK, the U.S., and Australia. Among the bad climate sciencepromoted by Fox News is that snowy weather disproves global warming (while ignoring or inaccurately reporting record high temperatures recorded around the world); biased and misleading reporting about the content of emails stolen from climate scientists; incorrect claims that El Niños are responsible for global warming; and inaccurate reporting about fundamental scientific principles.

Other Murdoch empire assaults on climate science? The editorial page editors of the Wall Street Journal routinely dismiss or ignore all climate change science. Glenn Beck incorrectly tells viewers that there has been no warming in the past decade – the hottest decade in over a century. The Times of London has produced a long series of inaccurate pieces on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), regularly amplified by Fox News. Sean Hannity says “global warming doesn’t exist.” Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon officially directed his journalists to cast doubt on climate science. Brian Kilmeade, of Fox & Friendsjoked, “Sorry global warming people, we have too many polar bears.” And of course, Bill O’Reilly has stated incorrectly, “For every scientist who says there is [climate change], there’s one that says there isn’t.” [Thanks to MediaMatters for tracking these statements.] As a 2011 story in Rolling Stone noted, “[n]o one does more to spread dangerous disinformation about global warming than Murdoch.”

In an analysis of network news reporting on climate change, Feldman, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, and Leiserowitz concluded that Fox News is consistently the most dismissive about climate change and is highly biased toward choosing climate change doubters to interview. Nearly half of their guests dismiss climate change compared to 9 and 15% at CNN and MSNBC. In the scientific community, 97 to 98% of climate scientists accept human-caused climate change. This misinformation has an effect: a study from Stanford University shows that Fox viewers are far more likely to be fundamentally misinformed about climate change than others. In short, frequent exposure to Murdoch news reporting can be hazardous to your understanding and knowledge of the real world.

Third Place: Spencer, Braswell, and Christy for their lack of climate “sensitivity”


Third place goes to Roy Spencer and William (Danny) Braswell for a research paper on climate sensitivity, and John Christy, for an astounding piece of misleading testimony at a Congressional climate change hearing. Both the paper and the testimony received lavish attention from climate contrarians (including an especially absurd piece from the Heartland Institute, published as a Forbes blog post) and both were extensively and surgically debunked by the scientific community. The key scientific issue here is “climate sensitivity” – how much the climate will change in response to natural and human influences. Spencer and Christy have argued for many years that the sensitivity of the climate is low, and their science has been constantly, regularly, and convincingly disputed. In 2011, Spencer and Braswell published a paper in the journal Remote Sensing that turned out to contain serious scientific errors according to experts working in this field. What makes a scientific paper ‘bad’?  A bad paper makes substantive errors in the analysis, misrepresents or ignores conflicting data or conflicting research, fails to address alternative explanations, or draws conclusions logically inconsistent with the results. Critics argued that this paper suffered from all of these problems (see the Dessler analysisa video describing the flaws, the Trenberth and Fasullo assessment, and a formal response published in Remote Sensing).


One Response to The 2011 Climate B.S.* of the Year Awards

  1. Misty Buckner says:

    It’s just disgusting that these people are aloud to get away with their disinformation. Every single time the denigrate a climate scientist, they misrepresent their results. Every time they a quote a fact, it is carefully cherry picked to avoid all the dozens of other facts that tell a different story. Every time they target a particular scientist, they subject them to harassment, and try and make their details available for their army of dittoheads to do likewise.

    The Republicans are not only anti-scientific though. They are also totally against history – hence their constant rewriting of it. They are against economic reality, hence their repeated attempts at trickle down style economics, after every previous one failed to produce results. They are completely out of touch with the rest of the world, hence their
    paranoid use of the military against imaginary enemies world wide.

    As for Murdoch, it would be nice if more climate scientists took them to court. Some of them do, and the reason is that they always find their names used to support positions that they don’t hold. As for FOX, they are so execrable, that running the station itself should be a crime.


Leave a Reply to Misty Buckner Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.