Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

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

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.


Digg!

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 AlterNet! Sign up now »


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