By in Rhode Island’s Future
Achorn made his comment to
me on Facebook, after I wrote that “publishing anti-climate change op-eds from
conservative disinformation groups” is “completely irresponsible ‘journalism.’”
The piece seems innocuous
enough, until you realize that it’s a piece in defense of Ted Cruz, Republican nominee for President, who repeatedly claims that there has been “no significant
warming whatsoever for the last 18 years.”
As Chris Mooney ably
demonstrates in his Washington Post piece, Cruz is seriously misleading
the public when he makes these claims. He’s taking a minor (if interesting)
debate about the accuracy of surface thermometers versus satellites when taking
global temperature readings and using it as a way of calling into question the
very existence of human caused climate change, which is not a seriously debated
issue at all.
Nowhere in the op/ed does
Stevens mention Cruz. He writes as if he is simply covering an interesting
meteorological topic, apropos of nothing. But Stevens ideological bent is
revealed when he includes obvious falsehoods, such as when he says, “Back in
the early 1990s NASA recommended that satellite
measurements be used as the preferred method of measurement because it was the
most accurate method.”
The truth is that “Roy Spencer and John Christy, two satellite
experts affiliated with NASA and the University of Alabama in Huntsville,
argued in the prominent journal Science that satellite measurements are able to
deliver “more precise atmospheric temperature information than that obtained
from the relatively sparse distribution of thermometers over the earth’s
surface.”
Two university experts
“affiliated with” NASA is a far cry from an official NASA statement. But it
gets worse. One of those experts, John Christy, is known as a climate “skeptic”
and he’s one of the key people that Cruz seems to be depending on for his
climate denial position, a position that Stevens seems happy to echo in the
pages of the ProJo, without proper attribution.
The idea that satellites
are more or less accurate than surface thermometers is not settled science, and
that debate is interesting, but that’s not the context in which Stevens frames
his article. Stevens wants us to believe that satellite data is more accurate
and that this more accurate data somehow contradicts the idea that the Earth is
warming. Therein lies his second falsehood.
Stevens claims that the
data shows that there has been “no net warming of the planet over the past 18
years and 8 months,” ignoring the fact that we have satellite data going back
to 1979, not just 1998.
As Mooney points out in his piece debunking Cruz,
18 years gives us a starting point during the “very warm El Niño event of
1997/1998.” Starting in 1998 shows little to no warming, because our starting
point is artificially higher due to El Niño. If we start in 1979, however, even
the satellites show a warming trend that can only be caused by humans using
fossil fuels.
Stevens has committed a
serious scientific fallacy called cherry picking that even a climate skeptic like John
Christy has disavowed. Stevens is only looking at the evidence that bolsters
his claim, not the evidence that runs counter to what he’s trying to prove.
That’s dishonest.
In response to Achorn
telling me that I have a “Totalitarian mindset” I said, “Following the science,
rather than the vested opinions of think tanks and cranks, is not totalitarian.
Using that word [Totalitarian] against critics to silence them is.”
Instead of acknowledging
my point, Achorn doubled down saying, “I strongly believe that discussion of
major matters of public interest is healthy. I strongly oppose the totalitarian
mindset that those who disagree with me must be silenced.”
Is disinformation
masquerading as science contributing to the healthy “discussion of major
matters of public interest,” as Achorn seems to be claiming? Is it
“totalitarian” to demand something akin to the truth and honesty – even in a
ProJo op/ed?
I wish I had taken the
time to compose a better response to Achorn, but Facebook is a place of quick
writing and off the cuff thoughts. Achorn graciously allowed me the last word,
not responding to me when I wrote:
“Though as an editor, you choose all the time who to print and [who] to silence, by not printing their opinions. One of the qualifying rationales for accepting a[n op/ed] piece must be truth, as informed by reason and science. If not, what are you basing the decisions on? There are disagreements in the community of climate scientists, but these are not the subjects you traditionally cover. Instead, you print pieces by deniers following the same playbook as the tobacco lobby followed in the 50s, 60s and 70s. This does nothing to further the discourse, but instead hinders and reduces it.”
Steve Ahlquist is an award-winning journalist, writer, artist and
founding member of the Humanists of Rhode Island, a non-profit group dedicated
to reason, compassion, optimism, courage and action. The views expressed are
his own and not necessarily those of any organization of which he is a member. atomicsteve@gmail.com and Twitter:
@SteveAhlquist