by Jill Fitzsimmons
An analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that 93 percent of Fox News' recent climate change coverage was misleading. Over the last two years, several leading scientists have told Media Matters the same thing, calling Fox's climate change stories "completely wrong," "patently false," and "utter nonsense." Here are ten scientists who have criticized Fox for distorting science to downplay the threat of climate change:
1. Scientist Called Fox's Global Warming Claims "Utter Nonsense."
Last summer, Fox News hosted global warming "expert" Joe Bastardi to claim that the human-induced climate change contradicts the 1st law of thermodynamics and Le Chatelier's Principle. Duke University scientist William Chameides called Bastardi's claims "utter nonsense," and the University of Chicago's David Archer said Fox is "wrong" to suggest that these basic principles negate the risks of climate change. Richard Muller, a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, agreed that Bastardi's claims are "completely wrong," adding that "even skeptics of global warming, if they know physics, would disagree with him." Even Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology and a frequent critic of the IPCC, said that Bastardi's statements imply that "he does not understand the very basics of the science." She added, "Fox News needs to find a more credible spokesperson."
2. Climate Scientist Criticized Fox for Promoting "Completely Wrong" and "Simply Ignorant" Claims from Global Warming "Expert" Bastardi.
In a point-by-point rebuttal to past statements made by Bastardi, NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt used the words "nonsense," "simply ignorant," "completely wrong," "handwaving," "very odd," and "based on nothing." Schmidt concluded that presenting Bastardi, a weather forecaster, as an expert on climate change is "about as credible as someone claiming to be an expert on the Greenland ice sheet because they eat ice cream."
3. But Fox Hosted Bastardi Again to Make Claims a MIT Scientist Called "Utter Rubbish."
Earlier this year, Bastardi was back on Fox with more confused claims. He declared on Fox Business that carbon dioxide "literally cannot cause global warming" because it "doesn't mix well with the atmosphere" and "its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere." Asked about Bastardi's statements, Kerry Emanuel of MIT said: "Utter rubbish. Sorry to be so direct, but that is just the case." NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt added: "Bastardi is attempting to throw out 150 years of physics." "He seems very confused," said physicist Richard Muller.
4. Lead Author of Study Called Fox's Global Warming Story "Patently False."
Last year, Fox Nation, a section of FoxNews.com, claimed that a Boston University study found that "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduce Global Warming." But Dr. Robert Kaufmann, the study's lead author, called the headline "patently false." In fact, the study confirmed "the current understanding" of greenhouse gases' effect on the climate, but found that a "rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions" largely due to Chinese coal consumption had had a "cooling effect," temporarily counteracting some greenhouse gas warming. But this is hardly good news: sulfur emissions have severe health effects.
5. Polar Bear Scientist: Fox Missed "The Bigger Picture" on Polar Bear Populations.
Earlier this year, polar bear scientist Dr. Steven Amstrup criticized Fox Nation and other conservative media outlets for distorting a recent study by the government of Nunavut in Canada to claim that the number of polar bears is "increasing." Amstrup told Media Matters that these outlets were mistaking a single point estimate for a trend, adding that "in the bigger picture, whether any one population is currently declining, stable or increasing is beside the point."
6. Lead Author of Wind Farm Study Debunked Fox's "Misleading" Coverage.
In April, a study of satellite data found that nighttime land temperatures in the immediate vicinity of wind turbines in Texas have increased relative to nearby areas without turbines. Fox Nation seized on the research to claim that "Wind Farms Cause Global Warming" and Fox & Friends concluded "wind ain't working." But the study's lead author, University of Albany's Liming Zhou, told Media Matters that Fox's coverage is "misleading." The researchers said in a press release it is "[v]ery likely" that "wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only re-distribute the air's heat near the surface, which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."
7. Solar Physicist Called Fox's "Mini Ice Age" Prediction "A Huge Leap."
Fox Nation twisted a 2011 study from the National Solar Observatory and the Air Force Research Laboratory to claim that "We Might Be Headed for a Mini Ice Age." But solar physicist Frank Hill, who was involved in the research, told Media Matters that Fox made a "huge leap" from current scientific understanding of the variables involved, clarifying: "We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age."
8. Climate Change Contrarian Said Fox's Mention of Him "Does Not Make Sense."
A FoxNews.com article last year sought to debunk the fact that Earth has warmed over the past 30 years, as well as the notion that human activity has contributed to the warming. The article stated that climate scientist Roy Spencer "takes issue with the way that data is normalized and adjusted." But Spencer, who contends that most of the observed climate change is natural and says he "love[s] FoxNews," called the report "a little sloppy," adding that "the part that mentions me... does not make sense." The same article cited weather forecaster Joe Bastardi to claim that El Niño is responsible for recent warming—a claim that climate scientist Kevin Trenberth called "utter nonsense."
9. Syracuse Geochemist: Fox Coverage "Completely Misrepresent[s] Our Conclusions."
Earlier this year, Fox Nation promoted a misleading report on a climate study with the headline "Study Refutes Manmade Warming." But the study's lead author, Syracuse professor Zunli Lu, said his study "does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend" and that by making that suggestion, Fox and other media outlets "completely misrepresent our conclusions," which were focused on only one site in Antarctica.
10. Stanford Scientist: Fox's Coverage Did "Not Accurately Portray Our Findings."
Citing a 2011 study on the impact of climate change on the world's crops, Fox Nation declared that there has been "No Global Warming In North America." But Stanford's David Lobell, one of the authors of the study, explained that the study "was only focusing on one aspect of climate change (impacts on agriculture) and looked only in the parts of the countries where and times of year when certain crops are grown." He added that he was "disappointed" in Fox's coverage, which did "not accurately portray our findings."
Visit EcoWatch’s CLIMATE CHANGE page for more related news on this topic.
Yet another former Trump administration staffer has come out with an endorsement for former Vice President Joe Biden, this time in response to President Donald Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
- Trump Denies CDC Director's 2021 Timeline for Coronavirus Vaccine ›
- Trump Orders Hospitals to Stop Sending COVID-19 Data to CDC ... ›
- Two White House Staffers Test Positive for Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Admin to Disband Coronavirus Task Force - EcoWatch ›
- Pence Offers 'Prayers' as Hurricane Laura Hits Gulf Coast While ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Every September for the past 11 years, non-profit the Climate Group has hosted Climate Week NYC, a chance for business, government, activist and community leaders to come together and discuss solutions to the climate crisis.
- Covering the 2020 Elections as a Climate Story - EcoWatch ›
- Coronavirus Delays 2020 Earth Overshoot Day by Three Weeks ... ›
By Elliot Douglas
The coronavirus pandemic has altered economic priorities for governments around the world. But as wildfires tear up the west coast of the United States and Europe reels after one of its hottest summers on record, tackling climate change remains at the forefront of economic policy.
- German Business Leaders Call for Climate Action With COVID-19 ... ›
- Climate Activists Protest Germany's New Datteln 4 Coal Power Plant ... ›
By D. André Green II
One of nature's epic events is underway: Monarch butterflies' fall migration. Departing from all across the United States and Canada, the butterflies travel up to 2,500 miles to cluster at the same locations in Mexico or along the Pacific Coast where their great-grandparents spent the previous winter.
Millions of People Care About Monarchs<p>I will never forget the sights and sounds the first time I visited monarchs' overwintering sites in Mexico. Our guide pointed in the distance to what looked like hanging branches covered with dead leaves. But then I saw the leaves flash orange every so often, revealing what were actually thousands of tightly packed butterflies. The monarchs made their most striking sounds in the Sun, when they burst from the trees in massive fluttering plumes or landed on the ground in the tussle of mating.</p><p>Decades of educational outreach by teachers, researchers and hobbyists has cultivated a generation of monarch admirers who want to help preserve this phenomenon. This global network has helped restore not only monarchs' summer breeding habitat by planting milkweed, but also general pollinator habitat by planting nectaring flowers across North America.</p><p>Scientists have calculated that restoring the monarch population to a stable level of about 120 million butterflies will require <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12198" target="_blank">planting 1.6 billion new milkweed stems</a>. And they need them fast. This is too large a target to achieve through grassroots efforts alone. A <a href="https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/CCAA.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">new plan</a>, announced in the spring of 2020, is designed to help fill the gap.</p>
Pros and Cons of Regulation<p>The top-down strategy for saving monarchs gained energy in 2014, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <a href="https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/petition/monarch.pdf" target="_blank">proposed</a> listing them as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. A decision is expected in December 2020.</p><p>Listing a species as endangered or threatened <a href="https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/listing.pdf" target="_blank">triggers restrictions</a> on "taking" (hunting, collecting or killing), transporting or selling it, and on activities that negatively affect its habitat. Listing monarchs would impose restrictions on landowners in areas where monarchs are found, over vast swaths of land in the U.S.</p><p>In my opinion, this is not a reason to avoid a listing. However, a "threatened" listing might inadvertently threaten one of the best conservation tools that we have: public education.</p><p>It would severely restrict common practices, such as rearing monarchs in classrooms and back yards, as well as scientific research. Anyone who wants to take monarchs and milkweed for these purposes would have to apply for special permits. But these efforts have had a multigenerational educational impact, and they should be protected. Few public campaigns have been more successful at raising awareness of conservation issues.</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="91165203d4ec0efc30e4632a00fdf57d"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KilPRvjbMrA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
The Rescue Attempt<p>To preempt the need for this kind of regulation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a <a href="https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/pdfs/Monarch%20CCAA-CCA%20Public%20Comment%20Documents/Monarch-Nationwide_CCAA-CCA_Draft.pdf" target="_blank">Nationwide Candidate Conservation Agreement for Monarch Butterflies</a>. Under this plan, "rights-of-way" landowners – energy and transportation companies and private owners – commit to restoring and creating millions of acres of pollinator habitat that have been decimated by land development and herbicide use in the past half-century.</p><p>The agreement was spearheaded by the <a href="http://rightofway.erc.uic.edu/" target="_blank">Rights-of-Way Habitat Working Group</a>, a collaboration between the University of Illinois Chicago's <a href="https://erc.uic.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Energy Resources Center</a>, the Fish and Wildlife Service and over 40 organizations from the energy and transportation sectors. These sectors control "rights-of-way" corridors such as lands near power lines, oil pipelines, railroad tracks and interstates, all valuable to monarch habitat restoration.</p><p>Under the plan, partners voluntarily agree to commit a percentage of their land to host protected monarch habitat. In exchange, general operations on their land that might directly harm monarchs or destroy milkweed will not be subject to the enhanced regulation of the Endangered Species Act – protection that would last for 25 years if monarchs are listed as threatened. The agreement is expected to create up to 2.3 million acres of new protected habitat, which ideally would avoid the need for a "threatened" listing.</p>
A Model for Collaboration<p>This agreement could be one of the few specific interventions that is big enough to allow researchers to quantify its impact on the size of the monarch population. Even if the agreement produces only 20% of its 2.3 million acre goal, this would still yield nearly half a million acres of new protected habitat. This would provide a powerful test of the role of declining breeding and nectaring habitat compared to other challenges to monarchs, such as climate change or pollution.</p><p>Scientists hope that data from this agreement will be made publicly available, like projects in the <a href="https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/MCD.html" target="_blank">Monarch Conservation Database</a>, which has tracked smaller on-the-ground conservation efforts since 2014. With this information we can continue to develop powerful new models with better accuracy for determining how different habitat factors, such as the number of milkweed stems or nectaring flowers on a landscape scale, affect the monarch population.</p><p>North America's monarch butterfly migration is one of the most awe-inspiring feats in the natural world. If this rescue plan succeeds, it could become a model for bridging different interests to achieve a common conservation goal.</p>
The annual Ig Nobel prizes were awarded Thursday by the science humor magazine Annals of Improbable Research for scientific experiments that seem somewhat absurd, but are also thought-provoking. This was the 30th year the awards have been presented, but the first time they were not presented at Harvard University. Instead, they were delivered in a 75-minute pre-recorded ceremony.