ZNet Commentary
Junk Science May 16, 2005
By George Monbiot
For the past three weeks, a set of figures has been working a hole in my
mind. On April 16th, 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."(1) 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.(2)
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."(3) A few hours later, they sent me an email.
"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.(4) The latest studies show
unequivocally that most of the world's glaciers are retreating.(5)
------
The above is approximately one fourth of the Commentary (including foot
notes). For all of it address:
******************* SSI SPECIAL NOTICE *****************
We are pleased to announce a FAQ webpage on Michael
Crichton's State of Fear. Crichton's latest book has
characters debating data (complete with graphs and
footnotes) and concepts that cast doubt on the validity of
global warming evidence. This doubt is echoed in the
author's message at the end of the novel and in public
interviews. Readers may understandably take away some
misconceptions from his book. To clear up these
misconceptions, we have selected some representative cases
to discuss.
State of Fear has generated a lot of media and given a voice
to climate skeptics. Global warming skeptics seized on the
book and many of the misleading arguments presented in the
book are being echoed in many forums - from the op-ed
section of the Washington Post to the Senate floor. Our
webpage "Crichton's Thriller State of Fear: Separating Fact
from Fiction" examines a few of the book's arguments by
evaluating the scientific data presented and bringing in
additional resources to paint a larger picture of climate
change.
This FAQ was prepared by Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, UCS's Climate
Scientist. Helpful comments were provided by Raymond T.
Pierrehumbert at the University of Chicago. We hope this FAQ
will be a useful resource both in countering the claims in
State of Fear as well as climate change skepticism more
broadly.