Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

The Real Junk Science

By George Monbiot, AlterNet. Posted May 14, 2005.


Climate change denial, as David Bellamy's claims show, is based on pure hocus pocus.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For the past three weeks, a set of figures has been working a hole in my mind. On April 16, New Scientist published a letter from the famous botanist David Bellamy. Many of the world's glaciers, he claimed, "are not shrinking but in fact are growing. ... 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980."

His letter was instantly taken up by climate change deniers. And it began to worry me. What if Bellamy was right?

He is a scientist, formerly a senior lecturer at the University of Durham. He knows, in other words, that you cannot credibly cite data unless it is well-sourced. Could it be that one of the main lines of evidence of the impacts of global warming -- the retreat of the world's glaciers -- was wrong?

The question could scarcely be more important. If man-made climate change is happening, as the great majority of the world's climatologists claim, it could destroy the conditions which allow human beings to remain on the planet. The effort to cut greenhouse gases must come before everything else. This won't happen unless we can be confident that the science is right. Because Bellamy is president of the Conservation Foundation, the Wildlife Trusts, Plantlife International and the British Naturalists' Association, his statements carry a great deal of weight. When, for example, I challenged the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders over climate change, its spokesman cited Bellamy's position as a reason for remaining sceptical.

So last week I telephoned the World Glacier Monitoring Service and read out Bellamy's letter. I don't think the response would have been published in Nature, but it had the scientific virtue of clarity. "This is complete bullshit." A few hours later, they sent me an e-mail.

"Despite his scientific reputation, he makes all the mistakes that are possible." He had cited data which was simply false, failed to provide references, completely misunderstood the scientific context and neglected current scientific literature. The latest studies show unequivocally that most of the world's glaciers are retreating.

But I still couldn't put the question out of my mind. The figures Bellamy cited must have come from somewhere. I e-mailed him to ask for his source. After several requests, he replied to me at the end of last week. The data, he said, came from a web site called www.iceagenow.com.

Iceagenow.com was constructed by a man called Robert W. Felix to promote his self-published book about "the coming ice age." It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the "ice age cycle"; and that "underwater volcanic activity -- not human activity -- is heating the seas."

Is Felix a climatologist, a vulcanologist, or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect." His web site is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says. But there indeed was all the material Bellamy cited in his letter, including the figures -- or something resembling the figures -- he quoted. "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55 percent of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich." The source, which Bellamy also cited in his e-mail to me, was given as "the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology."

21st Century Science and Technology? It sounds impressive, until you discover that it is published by Lyndon Larouche. Lyndon Larouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent, that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers, and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential.

It wasn't hard to find out that this is one of his vehicles: Larouche is named on the front page of the magazine's web site, and the edition Bellamy cites contains an article beginning with the words "We in LaRouche's Youth Movement find ourselves in combat with an old enemy that destroys human beings ... it is empiricism."

Oh well, at least there is a source for Bellamy's figures. But where did 21st Century Science and Technology get them from? It doesn't say. But I think we can make an informed guess, for the same data can be found all over the internet. They were first published online by Professor Fred Singer, one of the very few climate change deniers who has a vaguely relevant qualification (he is, or was, an environmental scientist). He posted them on his web site www.sepp.org, and they were then reproduced by the appropriately named junkscience.com, by the Cooler Heads Coalition, the National Center for Public Policy Research and countless others. They have even found their way into The Washington Post. They are constantly quoted as evidence that manmade climate change is not happening. But where did they come from? Singer cites half a source: "a paper published in Science in 1989." Well, the paper might be 16 years old, but at least, and at last, there is one. Surely?

I went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures; throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat.

So it wasn't looking too good for Bellamy, or Singer, or any of the deniers who have cited these figures. But there was still one mystery to clear up. While Bellamy's source claimed that 55 percent of 625 glaciers are advancing, Bellamy claimed that 555 of them -- or 89 percent -- are advancing. This figure appears to exist nowhere else. But on the standard English keyboard, 5 and % occupy the same key. If you try to hit %, but fail to press shift, you get 555, instead of 55%. This is the only explanation I can produce for his figure. When I challenged him, he admitted that there had been "a glitch of the electronics."

So, in Bellamy's poor typing, we have the basis for a whole new front in the war against climate science. The 555 figure is now being cited as definitive evidence that global warming is a "fraud," a "scam," a "lie." I phoned New Scientist to ask if he had requested a correction. He had not been in touch.

It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

George Monbiot is the author of Poisoned Arrows and No Man's Land (Green Books). Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thank you, thank you, thank you
Posted by: Sojourner on May 15, 2005 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...for all the effort to track down this tragic misinformation.
It would be presumptuous to assert it as the reason for Bellamy's distortions, but what a perfect example of how The Big Lie works. Unfortunately, under the current Washington administration, the examples have multiplied.

See if any of the correct information appears in the Corrections format of the major media who published the distortions.

However, our stubborn American political willingness to wait until the last minute or until it is too late to change has a tricky basis. We call it optimism. Actually it is frequently denial. Guess which POV sells! So that's on us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it money?
Posted by: Iamnotafruittree on May 16, 2005 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My question is why the lies? What purpose does this serve?What would make humans not want to take a chance on keeping our planet alive and well? Are these people so sick they can't see anything but themselves and therefore no one or nothing else matters to them? Is money really that evil? Is money the devil that christians speak of? Does money make people wish for death and not for life? If the planet dies we all die. There is no God/Goddess that can save us from ourselves. Why bother saving stupid people that love to kill everything in their way, even their own home?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is it money? Posted by: JLevine
» RE: Is it money? Posted by: nickptar
In defense of New Scientiest
Posted by: dolven on May 16, 2005 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't intend to belittle the author's point that many "scientific" results posted online are not founded in peer reviewed studies. This problem is not just limited to the discussion of global warming, but extends to many hot topics such as environmental toxins and cancer to name two. However, I do feel the need to say in defense of New Scientist that in that same article cited by the author were titles: "Cities may be abandoned as salt water invades" discussing rising sea levels, "People, not climate may have killed the mammoths", discussing how humans can change the ecosystem, "World's largest ice berg on the move again", illustrating how the antarctic ice sheet is breaking up. Other issues show a plethora of titles suggesting that global warming is a real problem and that human activity is at the heart of it. In my mind, New Scientist is a breath of fresh air when it comes to accurate reporting on environmental issues. It is a shame that their editors are falable (and human) and can let a piece of junk science slip past.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spread the Word!
Posted by: thirdmg on May 17, 2005 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem, as always, is how to get the word out to the public in order to correct the spread of disinformation. I suggest keeping a copy of this article and the link to it on hand, and using it to challenge every media source that aids or abets the deniers of global warming. After enough embarassment, maybe the media can be driven into reporting responsibly on the issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Spread the Word! Posted by: blackpyecat
grovegal
Posted by: grovegal on May 17, 2005 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me add to the thank yous. Too often this sort of thing goes unchallenged. A couple of years ago, in response to my letter re: coal fired power plants' mercury pollution, I got a packet from my congressman with "information" from "The Greening Earth Society", so I googled them. Turns out they are a mouthpiece for the coal industry. The PhD who was copiously quoted had a PhD alright, in something akin to marketing, not biology or one of the other sciences, as one was lead to think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank You – But?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 17, 2005 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article points out a negative impact of the "information age," one that is being used effectively by corporations and the Bush administration: Information overload. There is simply too much "information," most of it crap (Jackson! Brad & Jen!, Paris!...), to be digested, let alone understood – or God forbid! – verified, by the population. The Bushitters understand this, and use it to bamboozle us at every turn into an Orwellian reality that they have created.

I will also thank the author for this article, but with the almost-certain knowledge that it will – even if it reaches the general public, which is doubtful – be lost in the insane cacophany that passes for contemporary life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Giving Felix his due
Posted by: Geni on May 17, 2005 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're fighting the wrong battle when we argue over whether it's global warming or global cooling. Climate change in either direction would result in unpredictable weather extremes that would wreak havoc on our urban areas, coastal areas and agriculture. The logical response would be to conserve our petro resources and develop alternative forms of energy resources, preferably local ones. A cooling climate would only make expanding our energy options more urgent, not less urgent.

The fact that Felix lacks academic credentials and enjoys a sensationalistic style of presentation shouldn't deter us from considering whether or not his argument has a grain of truth. In a nutshell, Felix believes that the main factors in climate change are not human activities but solar cycles and undersea volcanos.

The sun obviously has a much greater impact than anything humans do or don't do. Climatologists have long recognized that land volcanos can affect climate, and they are now beginning to consider solar cycles. Unfortunately, climatologist persist in ignoring the impact of undersea volcanos even though satellites show mysterious "hot spots" in the North Atlantic exactly where we would expect to find them.

Whether or not climate change creates a global emergency in this century, that is bound to happen in centuries to come. Under any scenario imaginable, we still need to stop polluting our air and using up our non-renewable natural resources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Giving Felix his due Posted by: bonzi
Thanks
Posted by: plantbrain on May 17, 2005 9:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for the article on Climate change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep up the good work
Posted by: Ella on May 20, 2005 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am continuously dumbfounded at the persistent denial of global warming when all we have to do is look out the window or check the thermometer. Coming from the UK I have childhood memories of Bellamy relishing in nature. how can a person like him be so convinced by such flimsy evidence? The only thing I can presume is fear as maybe the reality of our dying planet is too much to bare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Keep up the good work Posted by: bonzi
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement