Photograph: Two men not fishing
in California (from time.com)
However, I think I can avoid legal hassles if I only discuss the article, and Scientific American´s Editorial Policy.
I think the debate may have started when some bloggers, for example Watts, at http://wattsupwiththat.com/ pointed out the article had a funny looking temperature graph.
The “trick” appears to be the use by Mann of Northern Hemisphere temperatures in an article discussing a global problem. As it turns out, the Northern Hemisphere is experiencing more warming, mostly due to exceptional warming poleward of 60 degrees latitude North. This means folks living in Alaska, Northen Siberia, the Northwest Territories in Canada, and Scandinavia are experiencing much warmer weather (or climate, if you will).
Great Britain used to have hippos swimming in the Thames, so it´s possible if the planet keeps warming we may see hippos in Cook Inlet, the Thames, and the Ob River in Siberia.
Photograph: Large hippos not swimming
in Cook Inlet (from ibtimes.co.uk)
If you want to see how these controversies go, try this at Wattshupwiththat:
where you can read a post about Mann´s article.
For the other side of the story (one could call it a response) try this
This site is called “Openmind”.
Photograph: Open brain surgery from Mirror UK
My bottom line? I think Mann´s article, "False Hope", is a load of crap. It doesn´t amount to much as a scientific article. However, it is a masterpiece of propaganda. The article shows a graph of Northern hemisphere temperature, then it moves on to claim the world will cross a danger threshold (about one degree C above today´s temperature) in 2036.
The famous graph and claims from
“False Hope”at Scientific American.
So, this is the way it works:
First I show you a graph using the Northern Hemisphere temperature trend. Then I clutter it with a bunch of lines taken from my computer model. I shade in the 2 degree C “catastrophic warming” line, wave my arms and “demonstrate” using this visual aid how the Northern Hemisphere will hit the fan in 22 years. Then I switch tracks and state the world will cross the 2 degree boundary (remember this boundary is set versus the temperature back in 1750, it´s about ONE degree C versus today´s average temperature). Hell, to put it bluntly, the article manages to scare you into thinking the world´s temperature will go up 1 degree C in 22 years! Neat, isn´t it?
My collage from the False Hope article, showing the
key sentences which initially scared the hell out of me
(taken from Scientific American).
Did I get it wrong? That´s an interesting question. Reading through that article one comes out with the impression the world temperature will increase at least 1 degree C in 22 years. Some readers may even think it´s 2 degrees C in 22 years. And most of them will be sure the prediction applies to the whole planet....Huh?
Instead we may ask: was the article, and in particular the graphic, prepared to confuse the audience into thinking the world is likely to cross a 2 degree C threshold in 22 years? Or was it simply a case of a scientist writing stuff he thought a normal reader could descifer?
That´s something you guys will have to trash out, because I´m too old to get into a fight cage with a bunch of youngsters to fight over “he said no he said” in a politically charged atmosphere where both sides can use lawyers as shock troops.
You see, my large caliber bullets are being used up in the fight for human rights, trying to save Venezuelans and Cubans from communist dictatorships, and this global warming topic is just a hobby.
Venezuelans protesting Maduro´s communist
dictatorship. Most people don´t care.
Now the question moves on to Scientific American´s editorial policy. What the hell are they doing to that magazine? If Scientific American is turning into a political propaganda organ, is it possible the magazine´s owner is also using “science propaganda” in its other publications? Let´s skip over the corporate mumbo jumbo: these guys publish Nature and Nature Climate Change.
Article about carbon tax at "Nature Climate Change"
The chief editor is a highly educated (and somewhat controversial) gentleman named David Campbell (see Reference below). And this makes me wonder, does David Campbell have a certain agenda he wants to plug at Nature and other magazines he controls?
Businessweek description of Nature America, Inc.
Guardian article about David Campbell, Nature´s chief editor
Berkeley Earth Comparison of Climate Models versus Data
If you are interested in the original Scientific American picture, as shown in the "Open Mind" blog, go here