The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
3 Reasons the Mail on Sunday’s Climate Claims Are Bogus
By Kelly Levin and Rhys Gerholdt
The climate denier engine is revving up again. Last weekend an article in the Mail on Sunday attempted to cast doubt on the strength of climate science. It's now been taken up by the U.S. House Science Committee, which has been prone to promoting more climate denial than sound science in recent months. The news article doesn't just misinform; it is not grounded in facts.
At issue is a ground-breaking 2015 article in the journal Science by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that showed the alleged "pause" in global warming during the first years of the 21st century never happened. The peer-reviewed article by NOAA's Thomas Karl and colleagues found the so-called "warming slowdown" was not substantiated by updated data. In fact, temperatures continued to rise after the year 2000 at about the same rate as they had since 1950.
The article in the Mail on Sunday was based on a blog post by retired NOAA researcher John Bates and claimed the Science article was rushed into publication to influence the December 2015 Paris agreement and that it was based on research that had not gone through a proper vetting process. The author of the Mail on Sunday news article, David Rose, has a history of publishing sensationalized articles that respected scientists have found to be false and misleading.
In the following, we summarize three main reasons that the Mail on Sunday article is inaccurate:
1. Multiple Lines of Evidence Confirm There Was No "Pause" in Global Warming
The Science article builds on a large body of research, including many other datasets that validate the main finding that there has been no "pause" in global warming through the latter part of the 20th and early 21st century. Zeke Hausfather and colleagues published an article in Science Advances which verifies the NOAA datasets, comparing them to independently collected records created from high quality instruments (buoys, satellite radiometers and Argo floats). Other researchers have come to the same conclusions.
While the Chairman of the House Science committee cited Bates' blog post as proof that NOAA played "fast and loose with data," Bates flatly refuted that in an interview with E&E, saying this "is not an issue of tampering with data."
2. The News Article Itself Manipulates Data Comparisons
The Mail on Sunday article includes a chart that appears to show a differential in data between NOAA and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in the United Kingdom. However, as Hausfather points out, this effect is almost entirely due to using two different baselines to create the appearance of inconsistency. When this discrepancy is corrected, the difference in recent years—the core of Rose's argument—vanishes.
3. The Science Article Was Not Rushed and the Paris Agreement Was Not Dependent on Any One Study
The article in Science met the publication's rigorous review requirements and the authors made their data available to other researchers. Of course, the scientific community has a long-established process for disputing published findings. If there are really issues with a scientific study, they should be explored through the peer review process. In this case, multiple peer-reviewed studies independently validated the article's findings. The editor-in-chief of Science has made it clear that publication of the study was not rushed and he calls this accusation "baseless and without merit."
Moreover, the Paris agreement on climate change was not based on one study. It was built upon years of negotiations, drawing on a mountain of research from the scientific community. To say that achieving the Paris agreement was due to one scientific article being published months before the negotiations commenced is to discount decades of work by thousands of scientists and policymakers around the globe. By the time negotiators reached Paris, 188 countries had already submitted national climate plans. The idea that this study prompted countries to overcome lingering doubts about the science defies logic. Today the media outlet Climate Home reached out to 10 climate envoys and ministers involved in the Paris climate summit and found that "no one said this report made an iota of difference to its result."
The foundation of climate change science is built on a large body of work and our understanding of the basics of climate change goes back more than 150 years. Climate deniers will continue to spread misinformation, but we cannot run from the fact that the world is warming. Without a sustained response, the impacts will undoubtedly get far worse.
Kelly Levin is a senior associate with the World Resources Institute's major emerging economies objective. Rhys Gerholdt is the communications manager for the Global Climate Program at World Resources Institute.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Jason Bittel
It's that time of year again: Right now, monarch butterflies are taking wing in the mountains of northwestern Mexico and starting to flap their way across the United States.
At EcoWatch, our team knows that changing personal habits and taking actions that contribute to a better planet is an ongoing journey. Earth Day, happening on April 22, is a great reminder for all of us to learn more about the environmental costs of our behaviors like food waste or fast fashion.
To offer readers some inspiration this Earth Day, our team rounded up their top picks for films to watch. So, sit back and take in one of these documentary films this Earth Day. Maybe it will spark a small change you can make in your own life.
On Friday, Seal Rescue Ireland released Sesame the seal into the ocean after five months of rehabilitation at the Seal Rescue Ireland facility. Watch the release on EcoWatch's Facebook.
By Jordan Davidson
Guinness is joining the fight against single use plastic. The brewer has seen enough hapless turtles and marine life suffering from the scourge of plastic.
People of all ages are spending more of their day looking at their phones, computers and television screens, but parents now have another reason for limiting how much screen time their children get — it could lead to behavioral problems.