Earlier today Scientific American published an article entitled “That ‘Obama Scientist’ Climate Skeptic You’ve Been Hearing About“. The climate skeptic in question being of course Steven E. Koonin. If you click that last link it will be immediately obvious that I’ve recently been critical of Professor Koonin’s new book “Unsettled” in several more ways than one! The article in Scientific American is authored by several more people than one. Twelve to be precise, including the famous names of Naomi Oreskes, Michael E. Mann and Andrew Dessler. That team takes a largely different approach to my own criticism, making no mention of the cryosphere for example, although sea level rise does get a mention. Rather than going into the science in detail, Oreskes et al. take a different approach. Here’s the introduction to the article:
If you’d heard only that a scientist who served in the Trump administration and now regularly appears on Fox News and other conservative media thinks climate change is a hoax, you’d roll your eyes and move on. But if you heard that someone associated with former President Barack Obama’s Democratic administration was calling the climate science consensus a conspiracy, the novelty of the messenger might make you take it a little more seriously.
The latter is what Steve Koonin is using to sell his new book, which is being billed as the revelation of an “Obama scientist” who wants you to think that climate change isn’t a big deal. But unfortunately, climate change is real, is caused primarily by burning fossil fuels, and is already hurting people all over the world, including here in the United States.
For example, a study published recently found that because climate change has caused sea levels to rise, Superstorm Sandy flooded an additional 36,000 homes, impacting 71,000 people who would’ve been safe otherwise, and caused $8 billion in additional damage.
A little later the article suggests that:
Steve Koonin is hoping you’ll see Obama’s name and trust him when he tells you that he’s better equipped to summarize major climate reports than the authors of the U.N.’s IPCC report and the U.S. government’sNational Climate Assessment, who wrote at length about the already sizable and growing costs of climate change. He’s hoping you won’t recall that each president appoints thousands of people, and Koonin, it turns out, was hired at the Energy Department specifically for his contrarianism. His boss at the time, Stephen Chu, said he “didn’t want to have a department where everybody believed exactly as everybody else” and added that Koonin “loves to be the curmudgeon type.”
Curmudgeon or not, Steve’s science certainly leaves a lot to be desired, as has been proved here! Oreskes et al. put it this way:
When it comes to the science, Koonin cherry-picks and misrepresents outdated material to downplay the seriousness of the climate crisis…
He wants you to believe that, as an Obama hire, he knows better about what you should take away from these reports than the scientists who wrote them.
That sums things up quite nicely, although the article doesn’t actually contain a whole lot of evidence for the first assertion, what Steve refers to as “The Science”. Instead it prefers to link to the Climate Feedback article mentioned here at the Great White Con back at the beginning of May and two articles by Marianne Lavelle in Inside Climate News.
However towards the end of the article, in true “Merchants of Doubt” style, following the money trail behind the promotion of “Unsettled” is mentioned:
The misrepresentations cited as appearing in Koonin’s book are being amplified in right-wing media and beyond. A recent Washington Post column by conservative contributor Marc Thiessen repeats several points Koonin makes…
Thiessen is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. For those unfamiliar with the tangled world of organized climate denial, a recent study paints a pretty clear picture: of all the conservative, climate-denying think tanks that get Koch and other industry funding, AEI has gotten the most. It received some $380 million to peddle industry-friendly denial like Koonin’s, much of it through dark money pass-throughs to conceal that it’s coming from conservative and dirty-energy donors.
Be all that as it may, in conclusion let’s get back to the cryospheric science. Here’s how I first found out about the Scientific American article, and Steve Koonin and/or Judith Curry still haven’t answered my pertinent questions about the unsettling lack of Arctic scientific expertise evident in “Unsettled”:
I rather doubt that Judith! Although @michaelemann and @NaomiOreskes are a bit behind the curve in their critique of the "recent Washington Post column by conservative contributor @marcthiessen" which I covered on May 16th.
The BBC Radio 4 Today programme broadcast another one of their regular updates on the progress of the Polar Ocean Challenge expedition. On this occasion they were able to interview David Hempleman-Adams, the leader of the expedition. That’s because David disembarked from the yacht Northabout at Upernavik in Greenland:
By now David is back in Blighty, in Swindon to be precise. Here’s a brief extract from his interview with Sarah Montague this morning.
David pointed out that:
We’re not scientists. We weren’t collecting scientific data, and it’s wrong to suggest that our trip, this adventure, will show that there’s less ice. What we’re trying to do is make people more aware of the hundreds of scientists who are doing good work and who actually do show that.
At this juncture you might have supposed that one or more of those “hundreds of scientists” might have been mentioned, but you would have been wrong. Shortly thereafter Sarah asked David:
You will know though that the well known science writer Matt Ridley has written about your expedition and said look there are times in the past where routinely ice has disappeared during the summer, and his argument is that really it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t actually tell us anything.
I fondly imagine that at this juncture David raised his eyes to the heavens over Swindon. After all he’d already explained to Sarah that, rather like Matt Ridley, he isn’t a scientist. What he actually then said was:
Sure. You know I do know that he’s written that, and other people. But if you look on balance, and you know I’m just one of the general public, if you look on balance, if you look at 99% of the scientists they’re all saying that we’ve got a problem and if you look at the trends, and of course there are trends over the years but what we’re seeing now is really rapid change. If you look at the, as I said, the Northwest Passage it is quite frightening. We didn’t actually see any ice for the entire route up until the Lancaster Sound, which is worrying whatever scientists say or the naysayers say. It is a worrying trend.
And if you look at the cultures, I’ve been going up there for 30 years now, it’s not just sea ice. If you look at these small, little Inuit villages and seen the impact of the climate on some of these places, you know there’s been dramatic change over the last 30 years.
At which juncture Sarah thanked David Hempleman-Adams and Nick Robinson said:
The time is now 26 minutes past eight, and Rob’s got the sports news.
It’s nice to know where the BBC’s priorities lie, and that they prefer to publicise the views of a “coal baron” rather than one or more of “the hundreds of scientists who are doing good work” on the subject of sea ice.
Should you be wondering at this juncture how the opinions of Matt Ridley are at variance with the actual facts take a look at the August 29th article of his in The Times of London that Sarah Montague was referring to:
The sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is approaching its annual nadir. By early September each year about two thirds of the ice cap has melted, then the sea begins to freeze again. This year looks unlikely to set a record for melting, with more than four million square kilometres of ice remaining, less than the average in the 1980s and 1990s, but more than in the record low years of 2007 and 2012.
This will disappoint some. An expedition led by David Hempleman-Adams to circumnavigate the North Pole through the Northeast and Northwest passages, intending to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through”, was recently held up for weeks north of Siberia by, um, ice. They have only just reached halfway.
However it’s also extremely misleading. The yacht Northabout reached the International Date Line spot on the original Polar Ocean Challenge schedule, and earlier than previous successful polar circumnavigations managed to achieve.
Must I go on? I suppose so! Skipping several more untruths, a bit later Matt opines:
Would it matter if it did all melt one year? Here’s the point everybody seems to be missing: the Arctic Ocean’s ice has indeed disappeared during summer in the past, routinely. The evidence comes from various sources, such as beach ridges in northern Greenland, never unfrozen today, which show evidence of wave action in the past. One Danish team concluded in 2012 that 8,500 years ago the ice extent was “less than half of the record low 2007 level”. A Swedish team, in a paper published in 2014, went further: between 10,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago, the Arctic experienced a “regime dominated by seasonal ice, ie, ice-free summers”.
Here’s a thought for you to consider Matt. What was the population of London between 10,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago? How about Miami or the Big Apple, or Dhaka for that matter? Has it ever crossed your mind to enquire what the human population of the whole of Planet Earth was “during parts of the early and middle Holocene”, and what sea level around the World might have been at that time?
Answers on a postcard please, in the space provided for that purpose below. We’ll forward them on to the BBC. I don’t suppose Matt will be interested though.
Sarah Montague was interviewing David Hempleman-Adams about the Polar Ocean Challenge expedition to circumnavigate the Arctic. David pointed out that “We’re not scientists” and “What we’re trying to do is make people more aware of the hundreds of scientists who are doing good work”. If 3rd party comment was deemed necessary at this juncture then it should have included at least one of those “hundreds of scientists”. Not just Matt Ridley, whose recent article in The Times that Sarah was alluding to was riddled with factual errors, amongst its other failings. See above.
One can only assume that the BBC was attempting to achieve some sort of “balance”? They failed miserably. I’m a long ex academic, but for another perspective on that failure here’s one from a practicing astrophysicist:
Note also the comments. David Hempleman-Adams wasn’t even given adequate time to fully respond to the nonsense printed in The Times and regurgitated by BBC Radio 4 before it was “Rob’s got the sports news.”
As David put it “I’m just one of the general public”. If the BBC wanted to present a balanced report a specialist in the subject should have been invited to comment. There’s loads of them gathered in London as we speak:
Arctic sea ice is in the news, but what's really going on? Join us tmrw to dig into the details with the scientists: https://t.co/E3lc2PEG3u
Why not ask one of them for their views on declining sea ice? Helen Czerski works as a science presenter for the BBC doesn’t she? She may not be a sea ice specialist, but ask her for her opinion on this charade.
To summarise, either Matt Ridley has no idea what he’s talking about or he has an agenda. In either case reporting his views without adequate “balancing” comment badly lets down BBC Radio 4 listeners. How do you intend to remedy this?
Here is the BBC’s response so far:
[Edit – September 27th]
I have now received an emailed response from the BBC. Here it is:
Thank you for contacting us regarding Radio 4’s ‘Today’ which was broadcast on 19 September.
I understand you felt that the interview with David Hempleman-Adams was of a poor quality, that you considered it inappropriate for Sarah Montague to quote from an article written by Matt Ridley and that a “specialist in the subject should have been invited to comment”.
We are naturally very sorry when we hear that members of our audience have been left disappointed with an interview. We try very hard to produce a wide range of high quality shows and services which we hope will appeal to listeners.
It is not always possible or practical to reflect all the various aspects of a subject within one individual item. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area.
We do not seek to denigrate any view or to promote any view. Our aim is always to provide enough information on the stories we cover and to let our listeners make up their own minds. Nevertheless, I would like to assure you that we value your feedback on this matter.
All complaints are sent to senior management and programme makers every morning and we included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future output.
Thank you once again for getting in touch.
BBC Complaints Team
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.
As you can probably imagine, I am far from satisfied with the Beeb’s response thus far!
[Edit – September 28th]
Shock News! I’ve received another communication from the BBC!! In fact I received it twice!!! Here is what it says:
Dear Mr. Hunt
I’m Sam Smith, Head of BBC Audience Services – thank you for getting in touch with the BBC recently.
I wonder if you’d be interested in taking part in a short survey?
It’s to learn more about how you got on, and how we can improve.
All feedback – good or bad – gets passed back to the person that handled your contact.
The survey is carried out by an independent agency called ICM. It takes around 10 minutes to complete, and you just need to click the link below or paste it into your browser:
[Link redacted]
(ICM is a member of the Market Research Society and abides by its strict code of conduct at all times. You will not receive any emails, sales calls or literature as a result of taking part in this survey, and your personal data will only be used for the purpose of helping us to understand our audiences better. If you have any difficulties with the survey, please e-mail [email protected])
Thanks again – we’d love to hear from you.
Sam Smith
Head of BBC Audience Services
Ps. It’s not possible to reply to this address, but please use one of our webforms – quoting your case number – if you need anything else.
Am I “interested in taking part in a short survey”?
[Edit – September 29th]
As luck would have it I decided that I was interested:
Them:
Please tell us in detail why you decided to contact the BBC.
Please think about what made you decide to get in touch, why this was important to you, and what you hoped would happen as a result.
Us:
Quoting from my original complaint, I have already published my thoughts on the matter:
“At this juncture you might have supposed that one or more of those “hundreds of scientists” [mentioned by David Hempleman-Adams] might have been mentioned, but you would have been wrong.”
“Should you be wondering at this juncture how the opinions of Matt Ridley are at variance with the actual facts take a look at the August 29th article of his in The Times of London that Sarah Montague was referring to.”
“To summarise, either Matt Ridley has no idea what he’s talking about or he has an agenda. In either case reporting his views without adequate “balancing” comment badly lets down BBC Radio 4 listeners. How do you intend to remedy this?”
I “hoped for” a substantive answer to that final question. I have yet to receive one!
Them:
When you decided to contact the BBC, what did you think would happen next?
Please think about who you expected to respond, what information you expected the response to provide and what you expected would happen as a result.
Us:
Based on my past experience I expected another “canned” reply and no substantive response:
Thus far my exceedingly limited expectations have been fulfilled exactly!
Them:
Please tell us a bit more about what you thought about the response you received.
You may like to think about the language used, the tone of the response, what information it gave you, and what you thought was good about it.
Us:
See my previous responses.
There was nothing good about it.
Them:
What, if anything, could have been better about the response you received?
Please think about any aspect which could be improved – for example the tone of the response, the level of detail it gave, and anything you thought was missing.
Us:
The novelty of these questions is wearing off.
See my previous responses.
A substantive answer to my final question would have improved the BBC’s response.
Them:
How would you rate the response you received on the following attributes? Please rate each attribute out of 10 where 1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 10 means ‘strongly agree’.
Please remember we are asking you to rate the specific response you received and not any other aspect of the BBC, such as its programming.
Us:
Them:
Finally, are there any other comments you would like to make about your contact experience with the BBC that we haven’t covered, or any comments you would like to make about this survey?
Us:
Yes. I’d like to ask two questions:
1) What is the point of all the “intrusive” questions I’ve just been asked?
2) Why hasn’t the BBC provided a substantive answer to the final question in my original complaint?
Them:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
To exit the questionnaire you can either navigate to another website or close this window.
Us:
We’ll keep you posted!
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
