Climate Change Disinformation

Below is a research paper I wrote in college on climate change:

Climate Change: Honest Skepticism versus Disinformation, a Shakespearean Analysis (Abridged)

Legitimate climate change skepticism does exist. However, most “skepticism” is not honest inquiry but rather disinformation. As such, let’s look at three critical claims about climate change and pinpoint why the first one is valid and the latter two are deceitful.

To help us understand how duplicity works in relation to the global warming debate, we will examine the disinformation alongside Shakespeare’s Othello, as many of the psychological techniques Iago employs in the play are strikingly similar to those utilized by the media. One salient question sticks out: when we read Othello our initial reaction is how could this happen? Surely, Othello knows Desdemona is true. But let’s be clear. The Moor, a brilliant general, is no fool.  Iago’s genius for deception, however, enmeshes Othello in a web of wicked lies that lead to his undoing.

Identical patterns permeate global warming denial. The scientific consensus is unequivocal, but disinformation is rampant and effective. How could this be? Deniers use strategies which incorporate what I like to refer to as “Iago logic” in their efforts to deceive. Much like Othello, their victims are not stupid, they are merely credulous, and climate change denial is cunningly designed to exploit this susceptibility.

Mark Maslin is a climate expert whose book, Global Warming, a Very Short Introduction, presents the realities of global warming, and it includes sections in which he discusses skepticism.  In some cases he dismisses common critical claims, but in others he acknowledges their legitimacy.  For instance, here is his take on how conflicting satellite data cast doubt on the accuracy of climate change models:

There were some major inconsistencies within the satellite data: first, as a result of trying to compare the data from different instruments on different satellites; and, second, because of the need to adjust the altitude of the satellite as its orbit shrinks as a result of friction with the atmosphere.  The final problem with the satellite data is that 20 years is just too short a time period to find a temperature trend with any confidence.  This is because climatic cycles or events will have a major influence on the record and will not be averaged out: for example, the sunspot cycle is 11 years, El Nino-Southern Oscillation is 3-7 years, and the North Atlantic Oscillation is 10 years.  So which of these cycles is picked up by the 20-year satellite data will strongly influence the direction of the temperature trend (Maslin, PP: 57).

Before we go any further we must recognize that Maslin does not intend to invalidate the climate change theory.  Rather, he is merely saying satellite data, which is one of many components of the theory, is sometimes not reliable.  To start, does common sense suggest his point is reasonable?  His remark about the “need to adjust the altitude of the satellite as its orbit shrinks as a result of friction with the atmosphere” seems logical: of course friction pervades the atmosphere and can cause complications.  In addition, is “20 years” too little time to evaluate a significant temperature trend?  Since the overall climate change theory relies on, at the very least, roughly 150 years’ worth of systematically recorded CO2 levels and temperature patterns (Maslin PP: 50) and, more important, on proxy evidence  such as ice core data which dates back to 650,000 years, it is fair to assert that a mere 20 years’ worth of satellite data offers insufficient information with which to draw any significant conclusions.

Next, notice how Maslin cogently articulates his argument with specifics: “the sunspot cycle is 11 years, El Nino-Southern Oscillation is 3-7 years,” etc.  Let’s fact-check at least one of these numerical figures with the understanding that if we discover via an alternative, reliable source that the number in question is incorrect, than Maslin’s whole argument could collapse.  In taking his assertion that sunspot cycles last for 11 years to task, one can look to Science  for confirmation that the 11-year span is indeed accurate.  So, since Maslin’s treatment of satellite statistics passes all the tests—it makes sense in theory, does not directly contradict widely accepted principles and is based on accurate facts—it is fair to deem his conclusion trustworthy.

Such an approach strongly contrasts with that used by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling JR. in their book Climate of Extremes (courtesy of the Cato Institute). They claim that “in fact, there’s nothing very new going on” (109) in Greenland, since a study conducted by NASA’s Scott Luthcke has found that “the real amount [of ice lost in Greenland]… is around 25 cubic miles per year” (108). According to Michaels and Balling, 25 cubic miles is insignificant, accounting for a mere “four hundred thousandths of Greenland’s total ice per year” (108-09).

I looked up Luthcke’s findings, and although Greenland did average a loss of 25 cubic miles of ice per year between 2003 and 2005, Michaels and Balling conveniently omit the fact that according to Luthcke, 98 cubic miles abruptly vanished during the summer of 2004, the most rapid rate of reduction ever recorded, and that in 2007, Greenland shattered all previous annual records by shedding off 131 cubic miles. It is also worth noting that in regards to the loss of 25 cubic miles per year between 03 and 05, Luthcke’s take on the matter is the exact opposite of Michaels’ and Balling’s: “with this new analysis we observe dramatic ice mass losses… In the 1990’s the ice was very close to balance with gains at about the same level as losses. That situation has changed now significantly, with an annual net loss of ice equal to nearly six years of average water flow from the Colorado River.”

This is dangerous and textbook Iago logic since it creates the impression that other climatologists commonly dismiss climate change. Iago likewise convinces Othello that Desdemona is untrue by saying “In Venice they [all Venetian women] do let heaven see the pranks/ they dare not show their husbands. Their best conscience/ is not to leave’t undone, but keep’t unknown” (3.3.202-05). Just as Desdemona does not cheat on her husband and most Venetian women presumably don’t cuckold their spouses, Luthcke is not a global warming denier nor are most of his colleagues.

The most popular and notorious source of denial is Fox News. In one clip, FOX commentators claim that trees, not man, are responsible for causing climate change. A reporter ominously opens with “tree-huggers beware” and subsequently points to a study by the Max Planck Institute which has concluded that trees release 10-30% of the methane in the atmosphere, thus justifying Ronald Reagan’s infamous remark that trees emit more pollution than automobiles.

A press release issued by the Planck Institute states that “the most frequent misinterpretation we find in the media is that emissions of methane from plants are responsible for global warming.” It professes plants “contribute to the natural greenhouse effect and not to recent temperature increase known as ‘global warming:” in other words, the notion that all of a sudden plants have begun to spike global temperature at an alarming rate is absurd.

Mocking one’s opponents with false evidence is a sinister and symbolic form of Iago logic. After Othello witnesses the fateful conversation in which Cassio’s mistress appears with Desdemona’s handkerchief, Iago remarks “see how he [Cassio] prizes the/ foolish woman your wife! She gave it [the handkerchief] him, and he hath/ given it his whore” (4.1.168-70). Iago seizes upon the handkerchief as evidence of Cassio’s cruelty: not only does Cassio cuckold Othello, but he even gives Desdemona’s token of love to his “whore.” In this paradigm, the handkerchief, which was once the ultimate symbol of Othello’s union with his wife, now metamorphoses into the emblem of his miserable fate. Likewise, for environmentalists, or “tree-huggers,” trees signal the destruction caused by climate change and potentially serve as the antidote, carbon sinks. As such, FOX perversely attempts to reshape the public perception of the tree as an instrument of harm, not help.

Considering that only 50% of Americans believe global warming is man-made, we must be able to distinguish between honest skepticism and disinformation. Fortunately, we can turn to Shakespeare for insight and guidance. The stakes are simply too high. Civilization is in great peril.

 

 

Climate Change: Honest Skepticism Versus Disinformation, a Shakespearean Analysis (Unabridged)

I entered my climate change research with little prior knowledge about the matter and with the assumption that in all likelihood both sides of the debate are based on concrete facts and valid claims.

As a Gallup poll suggests, only 49% of Americans currently believe global warming is man-made.  For every media outlet supporting the climate change theory another one disputes it: Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth must contend with Martin Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle; The New York Times is countered by the Investor’s Business Daily; and while Mark Maslin, a climatologist, has published Global Warming, A Very Short Introduction, in which he explains the science behind climate change, Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr., both of whom are also climate experts, have by contrast written Climate of Extremes, Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know, in which they attempt to debunk the theory.

All this is very confusing.  Is global warming real or not?  Either it is or it isn’t!

I originally approached the debate from a purely scientific perspective—that is, by trying to comprehend the theory, how it does or does not make sense, how it is or is not already manifesting itself.  What I discovered in my research is staggering.  At the outset I assumed that this paper (which was originally a basic research piece for school) would touch upon the political aspects of climate change only in passing.   Nevertheless, after encountering ample examples of deliberate disinformation promulgated by many sources, I perceived the necessity to confront and clarify many factually false and therefore dangerous claims being spread.

This analysis is intended primarily for people who are, as I was before beginning the project, confused about and unsure of what is true and false about climate change.  If you are committed to rejecting the theory, especially if you feel that way because of political prejudices, there is likely nothing that can persuade you to change your mind—it is possible to convince yourself of literally anything if you are determined: many believe man never walked on the moon, others feel Bush orchestrated 9/11, and plenty of people think evolution is non-sense.  While all those theories (in the most limiting sense of the word “theory”) may indeed be true, there is overwhelming evidence to debunk them, and it is therefore foolish to assume those claims are correct.  Surprisingly, my research has led me to view climate change in the same manner (that this comes as a surprise speaks volumes about the power of the media).

As a general rule, in every area of science we must always ask questions and challenge accepted ideas; we must also acknowledge that it is nearly impossible to definitively prove almost anything: Einstein’s theory of relativity is technically just a theory.  Not a fact.  There are scientists who strongly question his conclusions.  But most experts in the field accept relativity, and so, when we say it is a “theory,” it is in truth more than just that.  It is as close to being considered a fact as any theory can conceivably be.  Likewise with climate change.  It is not an undeniable fact.  But the theory is clear and iron-clad, and nearly all climate experts agree on the basic conclusions we can draw about how global warming already has and will continue to impact our planet.

You and I, reader, will focus specifically on climate change skepticism.  What follows is not a discussion of the hard science behind climate change, since countless sources dedicated to that already exist (see works cited).  Instead, we shall investigate the nature of climate change skepticism.  It is possible to find legitimate examples of true skepticism which rely on solid fact and are derived by people who fully understand and accept the theory but are simply not convinced about certain facets of it.  However, most “skepticism” is not the result of honest inquiry.  It is in truth merely an attempt to distort data and misrepresent information.  As such, we will look at three different versions of critical claims people make about climate change and pinpoint which ones are valid and what makes them valid versus which ones are designed to deceive, how they are misleading, and what tools they employ to prey on peoples’ ignorance.  The three chapters are as follows: “legitimate skepticism,” “factually sound but misleading skepticism,” and “deliberate disinformation.”

To help us understand how duplicity works in relation to the global warming debate, we will examine the deliberate disinformation section alongside Shakespeare’s great tragedy Othello.  Many of the psychological techniques Iago employs in the play are strikingly similar to those utilized by the media.  The resemblance is uncanny, and it reinforces the notion that cunning consistently functions in a peculiar form.  I point to Iago in particular because he dupes Othello into acting in a manner which ultimately culminates in the Moor’s suicide, much like what the climate change deniers are attempting to do to an entire society.  Furthermore, it’s enticing to ask the same questions about both the Iago/Othello predicament and the global warming misinformation/public perception phenomenon: when we read Othello, our initial reaction is, how could this happen?  Surely, Othello must realize Desdemona’s chaste and true!  But let’s be clear.  The Moor is no fool.  A brilliant general and a survivor of “moving accidents by flood and field,” he is not an easy target for Iago.  It is the latter’s genius for deception, however, which enmeshes Othello in a web of wicked lies and leads to his undoing.  Identical patterns permeate global warming denial.  The scientific consensus is clear, but disinformation is rampant and effective.  How can this be?  Although it is probably unintentional, deniers incorporate the very strategies which I like to refer to as “Iago logic” in their efforts to deceive.  Their victims are not stupid.  They merely trust what they see and don’t have the time or will to fact-check these sources.  Hopefully, the ensuing analysis will make clear the distinction between reality and fiction.

 

Chapter I– Legitimate Skepticism: 

Let’s take a look at two examples of how it is possible to express honest, accurate skepticism.  First, Mark Maslin’s book, Global Warming, A Very Short Introduction.  As mentioned previously, Maslin is a climate expert whose book presents the realities of global warming, and it includes sections in which he discusses skepticism.  In some cases he dismisses common critical claims, but in others he acknowledges their legitimacy.  For instance, here is his take on how conflicting satellite data cast doubt on the accuracy of climate change models:

There were some major inconsistencies within the satellite data: first, as a result of trying to compare the data from different instruments on different satellites; and, second, because of the need to adjust the altitude of the satellite as its orbit shrinks as a result of friction with the atmosphere.  The final problem with the satellite data is that 20 years is just too short a time period to find a temperature trend with any confidence.  This is because climatic cycles or events will have a major influence on the record and will not be averaged out: for example, the sunspot cycle is 11 years, El Nino-Southern Oscillation is 3-7 years, and the North Atlantic Oscillation is 10 years.  So which of these cycles is picked up by the 20-year satellite data will strongly influence the direction of the temperature trend (Maslin, PP: 57).

Before we go any further we must recognize that Maslin does not intend to invalidate the climate change theory.  Rather, he is merely saying satellite data, which is one of many components of the theory, is not reliable.  To start, does his point sound right?  In other words, does common sense suggest this is reasonable?  I think the answer is yes.  To pinpoint more precisely, his remark about the “need to adjust the altitude of the satellite as its orbit shrinks as a result of friction with the atmosphere” seems logical: of course physical friction pervades the atmosphere, and so it makes sense to accept the idea that such circumstances can cause complications.  In addition, is “20 years” too little time to evaluate a significant temperature trend?  Well, since the overall climate change theory relies on, at the very least, roughly 150 years’ worth of systematically recorded CO2 levels and temperature patterns (Maslin PP: 50) and, more dramatically and germane, on proxy evidence such as ice core data which dates back to 650,000 years, it is fair to assert that a mere 20 years’ worth of satellite data is insufficient information with which to draw any significant conclusions.

Next, notice how Maslin cogently articulates his argument with specifics: “the sunspot cycle is 11 years, El Nino-Southern Oscillation is 3-7 years,” etc.  Speaking of which, we must now fact-check at least one of these numerical figures with the understanding that if we discover via an alternative, reliable source that the number in question is incorrect, than Maslin’s whole argument could collapse.  In taking his assertion that sunspot cycles last for 11 years to task, one can look to Science for confirmation that the 11-year span is indeed accurate.  So, since Maslin’s treatment of satellite statistics passes all the tests—i.e., it makes sense in theory, does not directly contradict widely accepted principles and is based on accurate facts—it is fair to deem his conclusion trustworthy.

Another example of reasonable skepticism lies in a report released by the American Meteorological Society.  During its discussion about whether or not the recent patterns of substantially more intense hurricanes is due to anthropogenic activity (i.e. man’s burning fossil fuels and other carbon releasing processes), the report points out that a growing body of recent scientific work suggests that hurricanes have become more intense over the last several decades.  There is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date.  Though hurricanes are projected to intensify with further warming of sea surface temperatures, significant uncertainty remains as to how other influences on hurricane strength will change in the future.  Midlatitude storm tracks are likely to shift poleward, with fewer but more intense storms.

Though not as detail-oriented as the Maslin piece, the AMS report nevertheless adequately articulates the uncertainties inherent in the hurricane controversy by evaluating both sides of the debate with equal credence: the report does not dismiss the notion that climate change is causing more severe storms, but it also does not rule out other possibilities.  All it says is “there is evidence both for and against,” and “significant uncertainty remains as to how other influences on hurricane strength will change in the future.”  Consequently, by emphasizing the uncertainties which characterize the question, the AMS report enriches the debate without distorting facts and disparaging popularly held principles because it does not marginalize either side of the equation.  It therefore passes our skepticism test.  As will be seen, this approach strongly contrasts with that used by disinformation campaigners, who promote the uncertainties tied into climate change as evidence that the overall theory is false.

Chapter II–Factually Sound but Misleading Skepticism:

The only work I came across in my research which calls the climate change theory into question and does not rely on outright lies is Climate Confusion, by Roy W. Spencer.  Spencer is a climate expert who once worked for NASA, and his central argument is that, although there is indeed more CO2 in the atmosphere, and though temperatures are rising (he considers the rise to be slight), we have nothing to fear, the direful predictions by most experts are overblown because water vapor is counterbalancing the greenhouse effect, and this process currently maintains and will continue to maintain a favorable average global temperature (Spencer PP: 79).  This is barely true as things stand, since average global temperature is at least 1 degree C higher than it’s been at any point during the last 1,000 years, and almost all experts, such as those who worked on the IPCC, strongly disagree with his predictions for the future (consult works cited sources).

He makes many misleading points, but the ones I want to focus on are his take on the relationship between CO2 rise and temperature rise and his opinion about ice core data.  First, with CO2/temperature, his explanation for the conjunctive rise of the two is this:  “so, carbon dioxide concentrations have risen, and globally averaged temperatures have risen.  But to what extent has the first caused the second?  Coincidences do, after all, exist…  It is very difficult to confidently attribute the current warming to a specific cause or causes.  And that is what makes the claim that global warming is due to humans more of a belief system than a scientific observation” (Spencer PP: 82).  This claim falls into the category described above of exaggerating uncertainties in an attempt to debunk the theory.  In truth, spite of Spencer’s statement, scientists possess a precise understanding of historical CO2 and temperature patterns: they rise in unison, sometimes with a slight delay, but always eventually in the same direction (consult works cited sources)— to chalk the recent rise up to coincidence is foolish because it ignores history and basic common sense.  As Thomas Friedman puts it, you’re betting against 650,000 years of evidence showing an indissoluble link between CO2 and temperature trends.  Do you really think that all of a sudden the relationship between CO2 and temperature has changed?  I certainly do not.

But there’s a reason why Spencer does not buy into the 650,000 years’ worth of evidence, and that is because he considers proxy evidence, specifically ice core data, to be nothing more than misleading magic tricks:  says Spencer, “a number of scientists, apparently frustrated historians, have created a discipline called paleoclimatology.  This is where scientists look at tree rings and ice core layers and magically divine the historical temperature record.  While normal people would call such an interpretation questionable, the researchers prefer to call it science” (Spencer PP: 14).  As we can gather from this aggressive critique of one of the great scientific achievements of the 20^th century, Spencer feels proxy devices cannot be trusted, and he later explains that he feels this way because no external evidence can verify the accuracy of paleoclimatology.  However, his treatment of the subject conveniently omits all the overwhelming evidence establishing the validity of ice core findings detailed by many scientists and scholars, such as Spencer Weart, whose book The Discovery of Global Warming I recommend reading for those who care to look further into the matter.  Last, we must also take into account Spencer’s belief in creationism and rejection of evolution: he has said “intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.”  Though this does not invalidate his argument about climate change, it suggests that he regularly disagrees with most scientists, and it also serves as an impetus for him to spurn proxy data.

So, to conclude, let’s put Spencer through the same test with which we evaluated legitimate skepticism: do his claims sound right in theory?  To start with his argument that the earth is currently maintaining a favorable temperature, we can simply go outside and pay attention to how abnormal the weather has been in recent years.  If temperature trends are indeed favorable, why the transformation?  Without doing any hard research, we therefore immediately have good reason to be suspicious.  Next, does he disagree with widely accepted opinions?  The answer is obvious, even Spencer himself acknowledges that his take on the matter is unpopular among experts (though he believes this should not be the case).  Last, does he build his arguments on solid facts?  I have not found an instance in which he fabricates any data, but he does omit information which would obliterate his central points.  Thus, unlike with the Maslin piece or the AMS report, there is good reason to distrust everything Spencer says.

Chapter III– Deliberate Disinformation

When I fact-checked the claims I am about to put forth, I was shocked and horrified.  As I said at the beginning of this essay, I previously assumed there are convincing, honest sources which compellingly dispute the realities of global warming out there.  But if such a thing exists, I have not come across it.  What follows is pure evil of Shakespearean proportions.  As such, to reiterate, in this section we will examine a handful of examples of disinformation and compare the strategies employed to those used by Iago.  Let us also bear in mind that each piece of denial I will present profoundly fails our skepticism test.

Investor’s Business Daily:  First, in an editorial titled James Hansen’s Political Science, the IBD refers to Dr. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University (notice that he is not a climatologist), to combat the “global warming alarmists.”  I will now present a two paragraph block from this piece and then analyze it through the lens of Iago logic to put the level of deception into proper perspective:

Despite Dr. Hansen’s hysterical animus towards carbon, the fact is that CO2 is still a mere 0.038% of the gaseous layer that surrounds the earth, and only 3% of that thin slice is released by man.  According to Dr. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University, current atmospheric CO2 levels are inadequate in historical terms and even higher levels “will be good for mankind.”  Happer, who was fired by Gore at the department of Energy in 1993 for disagreeing with the vice president on the effects of ozone to human and plant life, disagrees with both Gore and Hansen on the issue of the impact of man-made carbon emissions.  He testified before the Senate’s environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) on Feb.25 that CO2 levels are in fact at a historical low.  ‘Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now.  Almost never has CO2 been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch)—280 (parts per million)—that’s unheard of,’ said Harper.  He notes the earth and humanity did just fine when CO2 levels were much higher.

To start, we must immediately question the authors’ assertion that current CO2 levels are “at a historical low,” since most experts strongly disagree.  The IBD refers to current CO2 levels as “a mere 0.038%,” which is another way of saying 380 ppm (parts per million: 380 ppm is, as Thomas Friedman puts it In hot, Flat and Crowded, if we would “cut out a block of a million molecules of air from the atmosphere” (PP: 117) the amount of CO2 would consist of .038% of all those million molecules.  Alternatively, this number (380 ppm) represents what percentage of the earth’s gases consists of CO2, i.e., .038%).  The authors deliberately neglect to use the figure 380 because 0.038% seems miniscule in comparison.

This leads the reader to what Iago refers to as “the door of truth”: when he builds his case against Desdemona, the villain never actually brings Othello to watch his wife copulate with anyone (because that never occurs), but he provides Othello with deceptive “proofs” (which we will analyze later) that lead Othello to draw his own erroneous conclusions about his wife’s unfaithfulness.  Likewise here, the IBD seeks to induce you to conclude for yourself that CO2 is not really a problem after all because it accounts for only 0.038%– how could such a small percentage affect anything? the credulous reader would ask.  In truth, the figure in question is tremendously significant, as it indicates we are currently experiencing atmospheric conditions previously unseen by man: never before have we lived in an earth with CO2 levels exceeding 280 ppm, let alone 380! (See works cited)

Now notice another duplicitous move: in referring to the amount of CO2 during the Holocene period– a clever period to pick because it ranges from the present to 11,000 years ago, making it easy to create the illusion that they are pointing to a specific era from the distant past– the IBD uses the figure 280 ppm, an alternative to 0.028%.  Because they want to make it seem as though there was more CO2 during the Holocene than today they include the ppm number instead of the comparatively small percentage figure.  Ironically, if you pay attention to what they’re really saying, you will perceive that they are in the most confusing way possible actually telling you there is 100 ppm (or .01%) more CO2 in the atmosphere today than during the instance in the Holocene to which they refer!

Next, the IBD declares “higher levels of CO2 will be ‘good for mankind,” without actually explaining how this could be the case.  Though there are ways to view excess CO2 as beneficial, since CO2 helps fertilize soil, nevertheless, everyone educated about the matter knows the amount of CO2 the environment currently contains is unquestionably dangerous.

Last, the point about how Gore fired Happer is an attempt to instill in the reader the perception that Happer and the IBD are the ones who are really trying to reveal the truth that no one else in the media will let you in on, and as a result of their heroic efforts they are being silenced by guys like Gore and the rest of the “mainstream media.”  This reminds me of how, in the height of his treachery, when Othello demands “ocular proof” of Iago in a most menacing manner, Iago exclaims, “O monstrous world!  Take note, take note, O world, to be direct and honest is not safe” (3.3. 375-79).  Of course, as with the IBD, the boundless irony is that Iago is the one who deceives, in spite or perhaps because of his efforts to lead others to think the opposite.

Exhibit #2:  In an article entitled Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow, the IBD claims there has been a trend of “global cooling that has been both obvious and documented since 1998.”  This is extremely misleading.  It also contains much Iago logic.  Though it is technically true that the earth every year since 1998 has been cooler than it was in 1998, this does not at all prove the climate change theory false, as the IBD argues.  In1998 the Pacific Ocean experienced an intense El Nino Cycle, which is a naturally occurring temperature shift in those waters.  The waters hit by the El Nino Cycle warm for a few months and then revert to normal temperatures, but this temporary transformation causes global temperature to rise for some time.  Consequently, 1998 was the hottest year on record by a long shot (Maslin PP: 30).  As such, each subsequent year has been cool in comparison, but, more important, just about each subsequent year has also been much hotter than all other years on record over the last century and a half.

Here we see one of Iago’s favorite strategies—provide something which is technically true but fatally misleading.  At one point in the play the ancient convinces Othello that because Desdemona deceived her father by covertly marrying the Moor she cannot be trusted and must likewise be cuckolding him: “she did deceive her father, marring you, and when she seemed to shake and fear your looks, she loved them most” (3.3. 108-10).  Though it is most true Desdemona eloped with the Moor in secret, this is no proof she would do the same with someone other than her husband, whom she loves.  Similarly, though average temperatures have decreased in comparison to 1998, the earth is not cooling because we’ve seen 11 of the 12 hottest years on record between 1995 and 2006.

The final disinformation technique the IBD incorporates is misrepresentation.  In an article called Everything’s Cool, the IBD reports: “according to Daily Tech blogger Michael Asher, ‘thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.’  This isn’t Asher’s opinion, but fact based on data from the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center.”  I fact-checked this claim and uncovered a post on the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center web site explaining how thoroughly their findings have been misrepresented.  They explain that “in the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator” in relation to determining the validity of the climate change theory since certain areas experience different types of shifts in sea ice levels than others—some receive an increase while others undergo a decrease which leads to global balance but precarious disproportion in individual areas; read the post for yourself.

Iago also utilizes this method of malicious misrepresentation by first advising Cassio to importune Desdemona to repair his broken status with Othello and then by influencing Othello to misinterpret Desdemona’s pleas that he restore Cassio to his former position of lieutenant as evidence that she is really in love with Cassio.  Iago viciously and gleefully muses in one of his soliloquies that, with this tactic, he will “turn her [Desdemona’s] virtue into pitch/ And out of her own goodness make the net/ That shall enmesh them all” (2.3.337-39).  Like Desdemona, the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center seeks to do good and aid society by researching and releasing reports about the realities of global warming.  But the IBD consciously manipulates its audience to misconstrue the university’s message.

Climate of Extremes by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling JR:  Let’s look at the most egregious misrepresentation of the book.  In discussing the situation in Greenland, the authors claim that “in fact, there’s nothing very new going on” (109).  They point to a study published by NASA’s Scott Luthcke in which “the real amount [of ice lost in Greenland] determined by meticulous analysis of recent satellite data is around 25 cubic miles per year” (108).  Michaels and Balling then go on to explain that 25 cubic miles is insignificant since the ice sheet extends for hundreds of thousands of miles, rendering the ice loss to account for a mere “four hundred thousandths of Greenland’s total ice per year” (108-09).

I looked up Luthcke’s findings, and in truth, although Greenland did lose 25 cubic miles of ice on average per year between 2003 and 2005, Michaels and Balling conveniently ignore the fact that according to Luthcke, in the summer of 2004 Greenland lost 98 cubic miles, the most rapid rate of reduction ever recorded, in unbelievably quick and terrifying fashion, and that in 2007, Greenland shattered all previous annual records by shedding off 131 cubic miles of ice!  Also noteworthy is the fact that, in regards to the loss of 25 cubic miles per year between 03 and 05, Luthcke’s take on the matter is the exact opposite of Michaels’ and Balling’s: “with this new analysis we observe dramatic ice mass losses…  In the 1990’s the ice was very close to balance with gains at about the same level as losses.  That situation has changed now significantly, with an annual net loss of ice equal to nearly six years of average water flow from the Colorado River.”

This is yet another case of textbook Iago manipulation since it makes it seem as though plenty of other climatologists dismiss global warming.  Iago does the same to Othello when he tries to convince him that Desdemona is untrue by saying “In Venice they [all Venetian women] do let heaven see the pranks/ they dare not show their husbands.  Their best conscience/ is not to leave undone, but keep unknown” (3.3.202-05).  Just as Desdemona does not cheat on her husband, and just as there is no proof that most Venetian women cuckold their spouses, Luthcke is not a climate change denier nor are most of his colleagues.

The Great Global Warming Swindle BBC Movie:  To give you an idea of how much (justified) outrage this film has caused, I present a quote released by the British Antarctic Survey, which is the UK’s national Antarctic operation: “any scientist found to have falsified data in the manner of the Channel 4 programme would be guilty of serious professional misconduct.”  First, it behooves us to bear in mind that the film prominently features Roy Spencer and Patrick J. Michaels.  Also, the man who produced the movie, Martin Durkin, has historically been a vocal critic of environmentalism—producing films such as Against Nature—and so it is no surprise that he distorted evidence in an effort to disprove global warming.  Last, Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists interviewed, sued Durkin for misrepresenting him, charging that he has not seen such blatant politicized science and vicious propaganda since World War II.   Now, let’s look at two central arguments upon which The Great Global Warming Swindle relies.

1—The Medieval Warm Period (which lasted from around the 10th century till the 14^thcentury A.D. was hotter than ours, and since nothing went wrong then, today’s rising temperatures are no cause for concern.  It is only the narrator who articulates this claim roughly 10 to 13 minutes into the movie, not an interviewed scientist, (Philip Stott, who makes a related comment, never explicitly states he believes the earth was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, and even if he does subscribe to such a notion, he is not a climate expert, but rather a professor of biogeography), and there is not a shred of evidence to support this.  According to the experts at Science, it is at least 1 degree Celsius hotter today than at any point during the last thousand years.

Iago resorts to blatant lies as well.  In his case against Cassio, he tells Othello of how the lieutenant muttered in his sleep, “sweet Desdemona/ let us be wary, let us hide our loves, / and then, sir, would he gripe and wring my hand, / cry, ‘O, sweet creature,’ then kiss me hard… and sigh, and then kiss, and then cry ‘Cursed fate/ that gave thee to the Moor” (3.3. 420-25).  Othello believes this because Cassio is a handsome man.  Likewise, an ignorant viewer can also be easily convinced that the Medieval Warm Period was hotter than today, because, after all, it has the word “warm” in it.  (For the record, this is the only exception in which a disinformation campaign sounds correct at least in theory.)

2— Since the upper atmosphere is cooling, the global warming theory is non-sense.  The upper atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming, which revolves around surface temperature.  As Mark Maslin states (PP:49), everyone agrees the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere, is cooling.  As the climate scientists at realclimate.org point out, just thinking about this conceptually, it makes no sense to assume the upper atmosphere would warm because of climate change since the theory stipulates that greenhouse gases trap heat at the earth’s surface. 

Like Durkin and his cohorts, Iago also incorporates irrelevant but related facts to sabotage Othello’s marriage.  He takes advantage of the notion that Desdemona, who is a beautiful woman of noble descent, dismissed all of her conventional, Caucasian suitors and instead chose the black Othello, by convincing the Moor that nature dictates his wife must have left him for more suitable, white, Venetian men.  Says Iago, Desdemona’s decision “not to affect many proposed matches, / Of her own clime, complexion, and degree, / Whereto we see in all things nature tends” (3.3.230-32) must compel him to “smell in such a will most rank” (3.3.233).  Yes, Desdemona did spurn the “wealthy curled darlings” of Venice, as her father Brabantio bitterly laments in the beginning of the play.  But this is irrelevant.  She rejects them because she does not love them.  She does love Othello, however.  Likewise, the upper atmosphere’s cooling does not invalidate the climate change theory, since the stratosphere has no significant, palpable impact on global warming.

FOX NEWS:  FOX News is the most popular and notorious source of climate change denial.  Broadcasting to millions of viewers on a daily basis, undoubtedly FOX contributes greatly to the statistic quoted above— that according to a Gallup poll only 49% of Americans believe global warming is man-made.

Let’s look at two perfect examples of how they present misinformation by viewing a video containing two related but separate clips posted on YouTube, in which FOX commentators claim that trees, not man, are responsible for causing climate change.

In the first segment, one reporter opens with “tree-huggers beware,” and then at 0:24 he points to a new study by the Max Planck Institute which has concluded that trees release 10-30% of the methane in the atmosphere, thus justifying Ronald Reagan’s infamous remark about trees being bigger sources of pollution than automobiles.  “This,” argues the anchor named Dan at 0:40, “is causing big problems for the tree-huggers.”  In truth, the Planck report is not causing any problems for environmentalists because the report does not suggest this.  According to a press release issued by the Planck institute the media has “misinterpreted” the findings of the research in question: “the most frequent misinterpretation we find in the media is that emissions of methane from plants are responsible for global warming.”  It professes plants “contribute to the natural greenhouse effect and not to recent temperature increase known as ‘global warming” because plants have existed prior to the industrial era (obviously) and have therefore always impacted the environment to a degree; it is therefore absurd to state that all of a sudden plants have begun to spike global temperature at an alarming rate.  Not surprisingly, the report declares “the fundamental problem still remaining is the global large-scale anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels.”

Mocking one’s opponents with false evidence is yet another manifestation of Iago logic.  After Othello witnesses the fateful conversation in which Bianca appears with Desdemona’s handkerchief, Iago remarks “see how he [Cassio] prizes the/ foolish woman your wife!  She gave it [the handkerchief] him, and he hath/ given it his whore” (4.1.168-70).  In this scenario, though Cassio and Bianca are innocent of any wrongdoing, Iago nevertheless seizes upon the handkerchief as evidence of Cassio’s cruelty: not only does he cuckold Othello, but he is so base that he even gives Desdemona’s token of love to his whore, Bianca.  In this paradigm, the handkerchief, which was once the ultimate symbol of Othello’s union with his wife, now transforms into the emblem of his miserable fate.  Likewise, for environmentalists, or “tree-huggers,” the tree represents the victim of and potential cure to climate change.  As such, FOX perversely attempts to reshape the public perception of the tree as an instrument of harm, not help.

Now let’s analyze the second section of the clip.  It opens with a reporter stating at 1:10 “stop global warming by cutting down the trees.”  Then, during the story, a reporter refers to research conducted by Ken Caldeira which suggests trees in snowy regions are heating up the atmosphere.  FOX subsequently quotes Caldeira at 2:10 as saying “if what you’re trying to do is slow climate change, then planting a tree in a snowy area is not the way to go.”  The reporter then argues at 2:17 that for global warming skeptics this “underscores the imperfect science behind the hype,” at which point FOX shows an interview with a climate change denier who calls the entire theory into question.

Fortunately, I found a New York Times op-ed written by Ken Caldeira, in which he clarifies his views on the matter.  First, he unequivocally asserts “clear-cutting mountains to slow climate change is, of course, nuts,” spite of what the FOX anchor declares.  In addition, Caldeira’s message is simply that planting trees alone will not solve the climate change crisis.  To ensure I do not misrepresent Caldeira’s opinion, I present a lengthy quote from his editorial in which he explains how planting trees can either exacerbate or improve the situation:

“While preserving and restoring forests is unquestionably good for the natural environment, new scientific studies are concluding that preservation and restoration of forests outside the tropics will do little or nothing to help slow climate change.  And some projects intended to slow the heating of the planet may be accelerating it instead.  Trees don’t just absorb carbon dioxide — they soak up the sun’s heating rays, too.  Forests tend to be darker than farms and pastures and therefore tend to absorb more sunlight.  This has a warming influence that appears to cancel, on average, the cooling influence of the forest’s carbon storage.  This effect is most pronounced in snowy areas — snow on bare ground reflects far more sunlight back to space than does a snowed-in forest — so forests in areas with seasonal snow cover can be strongly warming.  In contrast, tropical forests appear to be doubly valuable to the earth’s climate system.  Not only do they store copious amounts of carbon, the roots of tropical trees reach down deep, drawing up water that they evaporate through their leaves.  In the atmosphere, this water may form clouds that reflect sunlight back to space, helping to cool the earth.”

According to Caldeira, we must “transform our energy system to one based on clean, safe and environmentally acceptable energy sources like wind, solar and perhaps nuclear.”  Clearly Caldeira’s research must not be manipulated as evidence of the “imperfect science” behind climate change, but rather, it illustrates how the theory is sound and demands decisive action.

Iago similarly induces Othello to draw erroneous conclusions about Cassio’s motives.  In act III scene III, just before Iago begins to poison the Moor’s mind, Cassio importunes Desdemona to beseech Othello to forgive him for his riotous conduct the night previous and, out of shame, he leaves Desdemona as the general approaches.  But Iago slyly remarks, “Ha?  I like not that…  Sure, I cannot think it/ that he would steal away so guilty-like, / Seeing you coming” (3.3.35-41).  Shortly after, because of Iago’s sinister remark, Othello perceives Cassio’s stalking away as proof that he has something to hide.  But just as Cassio wants only to benefit and serve Othello, Caldeira likewise seeks to help society deal with the climate change crisis.  The last thing Cassio wants is to lead the Moor to believe he is having an affair with Desdemona; similarly, Caldeira’s intent is certainly not to undermine the science behind global warming.

Conclusion:

Because there are many myths out there about climate change, it is necessary for us to be able to distinguish between reality and fiction.  The stakes are simply too high.  Civilization is in great peril.

One final matter to consider about climate change denial is that even if a given media outlet does not actively say global warming is a hoax but merely casts doubt upon the theory, such behavior is damaging—of course, as stated above, scientists and everyone must always question accepted ideas.  But when sources such as FOX News deliberately raise suspicions about the theory it becomes easy for laymen to assume there’s no need to take action since the truth is unclear and equivocal anyway.  I can attest that such media activity produced this effect on me before I conducted my research.  But unquestionably, an overwhelming consensus concurs climate change is real, largely man-made and devastatingly dangerous.  Attached at the end of this essay is a 3 page list of all the prestigious scientific institutions from around the world which have signed a petition stating they agree action must be taken.  As Arnold Schwarzenegger (a rare republican in this regard) has said, “if ninety-eight doctors say my son is ill and needs medication and two say ‘no, he doesn’t, he is fine,’ I will go with the ninety-eight.  It’s common sense—the same with global warming.  We go with the majority, the large majority” (138).

The Consensus on Global Warming:
From Science to Industry & Religion
Works Cited

Books

William H. Calvin, Global Fever: How To Treat Climate Change.  USA, 2008, The University of Chicago Press.

Thomas L. Friedman, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need A Green Revolution—And How It Can Renew America.  USA, 2008, Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Elizabeth May and Zoe Caron, Global Warming For Dummies.  Canada, 2009, John Wiley & Sons Canada, LTD

Mark Maslin, Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction.  USA, 2009, Oxford University Press.

Spencer Weart, the Discovery of Global Warming.  Can be found at:http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling JR., Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know.  Massachusetts, 2009, Cato Institute.

Roy W. Spencer, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor.  USA, 2008, Encounter Books.

William Shakespeare, Othello, the Annotated Shakespeare.  USA, 2005, Yale University

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Summary for Policy Makers (You can find this at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf)

The Web

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117772/Awareness-Opinions-Global-Warming-Vary-Worldwide.aspx#2

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.pdf

http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/holocene_epoch.jsp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/mar/11/broadcasting.science

Bradley, Raymond S. Climate System Research Center. “Climate of the Last Millennium.” 2003. February 23, 2007. [1]; E.L. Ladurie, Times of Feast, Times of Famine: a History of Climate Since the Year 1000 (0(Barbara Bray, tr.) (New York: Doubleday)1971.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics.php

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1598915/nasa_develops_new_technique_for_measuring_glaciers/

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/greenland_slide.html

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2006/pressRelease200601131/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16caldeira.html

http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnXToHGldxo

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/456384/200901052040/Everythingand8217s-Cool.aspx

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/467342/200901291905/Let-It-Snow-Let-It-Snow-Let-It-Snow.aspx

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/470128/200903021845/James-Hansens-Political-Science.aspx

 

Television/ Movies

The Great Global Warming Swindle: BBC Film

National Geographic Channel– Naked Science: Glacier Meltdown