by David Holmes
When an error was found in the IPCC Assessment Report Number 4 – that mountain glaciers were likely to melt by 2035 – climate change deniers obsessed about this for several years, endlessly returning to it as proof that the IPCC was thoroughly flawed in its findings and the science could not be trusted.
Even with all the caution that the IPCC is famous for, it still managed to make a few errors in its almost 3000 page report. The caution also meant that the IPCC report in 2007 would have been loath to predict the unprecedented glacial lake outburst flood in the Himalayas that killed 6000 people in June. The ice around 20,000 large glacial lakes throughout the Himalayas is melting very fast, and when combined with monsoon rains, the ice gives way releasing billions of cubic metres of water – which happened at Kedarnath on June 16 this year.
The IPCC reports are never going to be able to warn people from these individual events, but only provide probabilities of them occurring. This makes the caution that we will see in the Assessment Report Number 5 – due out on Friday – as reassuring as it is disturbing.
But the question of evidence, facts, methodology – indeed of caution that newspapers had been scrutinising the IPCC over – came back to haunt several of them last week, when the UK’s Mail on Sunday made its splash story: “World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just HALF what we said”, by climate denier journalist David Rose.
The UK’s Telegraph mirrored this headline with “Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong”, which was also parroted by The Australian the next day with “We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC”, and in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.
However, Rose’s central claim is that climate scientists have halved their assessment of warming since 1951.
Rose claimed in the original article of September 15, which has since had to be corrected in the online version, that the IPCC claimed in 2007 that the planet was warming by .2 degrees Celsius per decade, but the new report says that the “true figure since 1951 has been only .12 degrees Celsius per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction”.
The error in Rose’s article is that the 2007 IPCC report only claimed the rate of warming since 1951 to be .13 degrees Celsius, not .2 degrees Celsius. So, if the new report does say .12 degrees Celsius warming since 1951 when it does come out, this revision is like saying that with updated data, global warming is only around 90% of what IPCC scientists said it was.
Yet the Daily Mail revision has dropped its claims about the long term trend to focus on the so-called warming hiatus of the past 15 years to produce an even bolder headline: “World’s top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought”.
The Daily Mail does not seem to be fussed by the scale of its changing headline blunders. It may as well just put out another revision to say global warming does not exist at all. But the revised article again cherrypicks the leak of the unfinalised IPCC Report number 5, to produce a headline that is even more disparaging of the IPCC. Rose’s story does not look at ocean heat content asDana Nuccitelli and John Abraham do in a demolition of Rose’s piece. Nor does it look at the fact that the last ten years have been the warmest on record in the past 150 years.
Nevertheless, the frenzy of journalism dismissive of global warming that blindly followed the Daily Mail’s lead has led to publications having to issue corrections. First the UK Telegraph, and now The Australian and Sydney’s Daily Telegraph on September 21.
A correction? Well you’d think these papers had just misspelt a name, or had someone’s title wrong, rather than bludgeoned its readers into thinking that global warming had halved – and that the last IPCC Assessment Report had it all wrong.
Newspapers have a responsibility to report all issues as accurately as possible, as they havemuch influence on public understanding – especially of science. That such a monumental blunder about something as serious as global warming could be pardoned by a tiny and feeble “correction” is a breathtaking betrayal of journalistic standards themselves.
Did the Australian newspapers think to ask Australian climate scientists what they thought of the story? Well if they did, as I have of a number of climatologists, they would have been told that there is no point commenting until the actual report is released. You see, sometimes it’s better to be cautious, even if we may be running out of time to be so.
Dr David Holmes works in the School of Communications and Media Studies in the Faculty of Arts at Monash University.
This article originally appeared on The Conversation.
Find out more:
- School of English, Communications and Performance Studies
- Communications and Media Studies
Updates from COP21: Marketing the climate summit by ‘greening’ the Eiffel Tower
Dr David Holmes, senior lecturer in Communications and Media Studies at Monash, is in France for the Paris Climate Summit and will be reporting regularly on the events.
A Paris summit for climate and peace?
David Holmes With so much build-up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change … Continue reading A Paris summit for climate and peace?
ARC grant success for School of MFJ
Five researchers in the School of Media, Film and Journalism, Associate Professor Shane Homan, Dr … Continue reading ARC grant success for School of MFJ
The role of social media in environmental reporting – comparing Australia and China
by David Holmes In a recent piece for The Guardian, environmental journalist and activist George … Continue reading The role of social media in environmental reporting – comparing Australia and China
Academic freedom isn’t the issue with Lomborg’s consensus centre
David Holmes, School of Media, Film and Journalism Controversial campaigner for climate change trivialisation Bjorn … Continue reading Academic freedom isn’t the issue with Lomborg’s consensus centre
There is one thing the Coalition can do for climate change that Labor cannot
David Holmes, School of Media, Film and Journalism After barely two weeks in office, the … Continue reading There is one thing the Coalition can do for climate change that Labor cannot
What does the ‘Border Farce’ tell us about the future of crisis politics in Australia?
David Holmes The convulsive reaction to Friday’s failed security operation by the Australian Border Force … Continue reading What does the ‘Border Farce’ tell us about the future of crisis politics in Australia?
sensiLab Forum: Communications and Media Studies’ Daniel Black
A key initiator of the spread of digital interfaces into our everyday lives was the … Continue reading sensiLab Forum: Communications and Media Studies’ Daniel Black
Larrikin carnival: an Australian style of cultural subversion
Tony Moore, Monash University This article is part of a series, On Happiness, examining what … Continue reading Larrikin carnival: an Australian style of cultural subversion
Monash at the first Shangai City Lab
The first Shanghai City Lab and Cultural Economy International Summer School took place at Shanghai Jiaotong University’s Xuhui … Continue reading Monash at the first Shangai City Lab
PR and Communications Internship with Haystac
Gain some valuable work-experience in the area of media and communication with a leading marketing … Continue reading PR and Communications Internship with Haystac
Australia’s radical media sphere link
Monash University senior lecturer Dr Tony Moore has presented his historical research from his book, Death … Continue reading Australia’s radical media sphere link