The new editor of the Washington Times vowed to ensure accuracy at the paper; however, a recent column by the Times‘ Jeffrey Kuhner contained several significant falsehoods about climate change, which Kuhner claims is “the greatest hoax of our time.”
Incoming
Wash. Times Editor Vowed To Ensure Accuracy
Ed Kelley Said He
Would “Tackle” Errors And Distortions. Ed Kelley, the new editor of the Washington
Times told Media Matters in June:
"Certainly
on a case by case basis, if I come in and there is an individual or a group
that complains that this editorial says something out of context, that it is
just a flat-out error, or to use your term … a distortion, you know we're
going to take a look at it," said [Ed] Kelley, who takes over the Times
on July 1. "We want the editorials to be strong, to be
persuasive, but to do so they both have to be grounded in accuracy. So, if these
things are brought forth, I want people to contact me. Whether it's you or
whether it's the public or any other organization if there are examples of
these things occurring. I'm not there yet, won't be there for another 10 or 11
days. But certainly if this is an issue, I'm going to tackle it." [Media
Matters, 6/27/11]
Wash. Times Column Butchers
Climate Facts
An August 25 Washington
Times column by Jeffrey Kuhner claimed that “the greenhouse-gas theory is
evaporating into thin air. Climate Change has been the greatest hoax of our
time.” To support this assertion, the column made the following claims:
- “Earth’s atmospheric temperatures have cooled during the past
decade”
- “The polar bear population is growing”
- “The Arctic ice caps are not melting”
- “Sea levels have remained relatively stable” [Washington
Times, 8/25/11]
Past Decade Was The
Warmest On Record
Wash. Times Claimed “Earth’s
Atmospheric Temperatures Have Cooled During The Past Decade.” [Washington
Times, 8/25/11]
NOAA: “2001-2010 Was
The Warmest Decade On Record For The Globe.” In its 2010 State of the Climate
report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that "2010
tied with 2005 as the warmest year since record began in 1880" and "the decadal
global land and ocean average temperature anomaly for 2001-2010 was the warmest
decade on record for the globe, with a surface global temperature of 0.56°C
(1.01°F) above the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous
decadal record (1991-2000) value of 0.36°C (0.65°F)." [NOAA, 1/14/11]

[NOAA, accessed 8/26/11]
Claims Of Cooling
Require Cherry-Picking Of The Data. In December 2009, the Associated Press noted
that claims of global cooling are often based “on an unusually hot year in
1998.” AP “gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked
them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented.”
They concluded:
Statisticians
who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the
numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either
data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in
data as far back as 1880.
Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate,
said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of
those analyzing the numbers.
[...]
Statisticians
say that in sizing up climate change, it’s important to look at moving averages
of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of
2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the
last five years than in any previous years. [Associated Press, 12/1/09]
No Evidence Of
Cooling In Past Decade. Scientists say it’s important to look at several decades
of data to distinguish the long-term trend from short-term variations.
However, even just the past 10 years of data refutes the Washington Times’ claim
of cooling. The following chart shows monthly global temperature anomalies
derived from satellites from 2001-2011:

[WoodForTrees.org, accessed
8/26/11]
Data Show Declining
Polar Bear Subpopulations
Wash.
Times Claimed “The Polar Bear Population Is Growing.” [Washington
Times, 8/25/11]
IUCN: Polar Bears Are
Not A Single Population, “But Rather Occur In 19 Relatively Discrete
Subpopulations.” The
IUCN’s Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), which compiles information on polar
bear populations, stated:
Polar
bears are not evenly distributed throughout the Arctic, nor do they comprise a
single nomadic cosmopolitan population, but rather occur in 19 relatively
discrete subpopulations. There is however an uncertainty about the discreteness
of the less studied subpopulations, particularly in the Russian Arctic and
neighbouring areas, due to very restricted data on live capture and tagging.
[International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2/10/09]
Eight Polar Bear
Subpopulations Are Listed As “Declining.” As of 2010, the PBSG states that of
the 19 subpopulations, 8 are declining, 3 are stable, 1 is increasing, and
there is not enough data for the other 7. [International Union for Conservation
of Nature, 5/11/10]
The following chart
from Polar Bears International displays the PBSG designations:

[Polar Bears
International, accessed 8/1/11]
Polar Bear Scientist:
It Is “Simply Dishonest” To Say The Polar Bear Population Is Booming. In an email
responding to previous right-wing media claims that the number of polar bears
is “booming”, polar bear expert Dr. Ian Stirling wrote:
There
are 19 recognized subpopulations of polar bears in the circumpolar
Arctic. For several, we have no reliable information, particularly those
in Russia but in some cases, estimates for Canadian populations are out of
date. So, one cannot say whether, on a circumpolar basis, the total number of
bears is declining but it probably is. The data are quite clear for some
populations, such as western Hudson Bay or the southern Beaufort Sea, and they
are declining seriously. There are other populations that are likely declining,
in part or largely because of climate warming but usually you don't have long
enough data series to say this with confidence. Polar bear research in general
and population estimation in particular are expensive so it is not surprising
that we don't have information over a long enough span of time to answer some
of the questions.
However,
declines are happening for sure with some populations, and very likely in
several others but we simply don’t have the data to say one way or the other
with certainly. Such scientific honestly is seized upon and misinterpreted
freely by the deniers, as you can see from the small sample of comments you
list below. The basic approach of most is quite similar though.
But,
the total polar bear population is definitely not “booming”. Just
saying so many, many times, and ignoring the factual, peer-reviewed, scientific
data, is simply dishonest. [Email to Media Matters, 8/1/11]
Arctic
Summer Sea Ice Is Expected To Disappear By Mid-Century
Wash. Times
Claimed “The Arctic Ice Caps Are Not Melting.” [Washington
Times, 8/25/11]
Arctic Sea Ice Has Been
Declining For Decades. From the National Snow and Ice Data
Center:

[NSIDC, 10/4/10]
National
Research Council: Thickness Of Arctic Sea Ice Has Also “Declined
Substantially.” A National Research Council report reviewing the state of
climate science said that evidence shows declining thickness of Arctic sea ice and that scientists expect the Arctic “to become permanently ice-free during
summers by the middle of the 21st century”:
[T]here is general scientific consensus that the Arctic,
which is systematically losing summer sea ice thickness and extent on an annual
basis, is expected to become permanently ice-free during summers by the middle
of the 21st century, regardless of how future emissions change. This change to
an ice-free summer Arctic is expected, in part, because of the positive
feedback between warming and sea ice melting.
[...]
Analyses of recently declassified data from naval submarines
(as well as more recent data from satellites) show that the average thickness
of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has declined substantially over the past
half-century, which is yet another indicator of a long-term warming trend (Kwok
and Rothrock, 2009). [National Academy Of Sciences, National Research Council, 2010]
Sea Levels Are Rising
At An Accelerated Pace
Wash. Times Claimed “Sea Levels Have Remained Relatively Stable.” [Washington
Times, 8/25/11]
National Research
Council: “The Rate Of Sea Level Rise Has Accelerated Since The Mid-19th Century.”
The
National Research Council states in its “most comprehensive study of climate
change to date”:
Sea
level has been systematically measured by tide gauges for more than 100 years.
Other direct and indirect observations have allowed oceanographers to estimate
(with lower precision) past sea levels going back many thousands of years. We
know that sea level has risen more than 400 feet (120 meters) since the peak of
the last ice age 26,000 years ago, with periods of rapid rise predating a
relatively steady level over the past 6,000 years. During the past few decades,
tide gauge records augmented by satellite measurements have been used to
produce precise sea level maps across the entire globe. These modern records
indicate that the rate of sea level rise has accelerated since the mid-19th
century, with possibly greater acceleration over the past two decades (Figure
2.6).
[...]
Because
of the huge capacity of the oceans to absorb heat, 80 to 90 percent of the
heating associated with human GHG emissions over the past 50 years has gone
into raising the temperature of the oceans. The subsequent thermal expansion of
the oceans is responsible for an estimated 50 percent of the observed sea level
rise since the late 19th century. Even if GHG concentrations are stabilized,
ocean warming and the accompanying sea level rise will continue until the
oceans reach a new thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere. Ice in the world’s
glaciers and ice sheets contributes directly to sea level rise through melt or
the flow of ice into the sea.
The report included
this graph (Figure 2.6) depicting “annual global mean sea level as determined
by records of tide gauges (red and blue curves) and satellite altimetry (black
curve)”:

[National Research
Council, 2010]
Recent
Study Finds “Greenland And Antarctic Ice Sheets Are Losing Mass At An
Accelerating Pace.” From
the American Geophysical Union:
The
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace,
according to a new study. The findings of the study – the longest to date of
changes in polar ice sheet mass – suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice
loss from Earth’s mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant
contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have
predicted. The results of the study will be published this month in Geophysical
Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
[...]
“That
ice sheets will dominate future sea level rise is not surprising — they hold a
lot more ice mass than mountain glaciers,” said lead author Eric Rignot,
of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, and the University
of California, Irvine. “What is surprising is this increased contribution
by the ice sheets is already happening. If present trends continue, sea level
is likely to be significantly higher than levels projected by the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007. Our study helps
reduce uncertainties in near-term projections of sea level rise.”
[American Geophysical Union, 3/8/11]
