Australia had its hottest winter on record with temperatures up by
two degrees celsius on average and it is related to worsening climate
change, according to a leading scientific group.
Winter warm
spells are lasting longer, occurring more often and becoming more
intense, a report by not-for-profit group the Climate Council found.
Australia has posted a record warm winter - even if it didn't always feel that way. Photo: Nick Moir
In addition to the warmth, the nation experienced its second driest June on record and the driest winter since 2002, the Hot & Dry: Australia's Weird Winter report found.
Ecologist Professor Lesley Hughes said there were more than 260 heat and low rainfall records set throughout the season.
"Without any meaningful action to tackle climate change, we will continue to see many more hot winters, just like this, as global temperatures rise," Ms Hughes said.
"We must take meaningful action to strongly reduce Australia's emissions from fossil fuels.
"The current situation in which the government continues to not only delay real action to reduce emissions, but is actively supporting further development of coal-fired power is simply nonsensical."
The unseasonable weather has led to an earlier start to the bushfire season in many parts of Australia, especially Victoria and other southern states, she said.
Professor Hughes urged the federal government to get on with tackling climate change.
"The solution remains the same - clean, efficient and affordable renewable energy and storage technology."
Australia's average winter temperatures have increased by about one degree celsius since 1910, driven by climate change as a direct result of burning fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas, the council said.
The council was formed by Australia's biggest crowd-funding campaign after the Tony Abbott government abolished the Climate Commission in 2013.
Climate Change made Australia’s warmest winter on record an astounding 60 times more likely, our new report highlights.
The “Hot & Dry: Australia’s Weird Winter,” report shows the nation experienced its warmest winter on record (for average maximum temperatures), while more than 260 heat and low rainfall records were also broken throughout the season.
Climate Councillor and ecologist, Professor Lesley Hughes said Australia’s hottest winter in history was related to worsening climate change.
“Without any meaningful action to tackle climate change, we will continue to see many more hot winters, just like this, as global temperatures rise,” she said.
“We must take meaningful action to strongly reduce Australia’s emissions from fossil fuels."
Key findings include:
Australia had its warmest winter on record, in terms of average maximum temperatures, reaching nearly 2ºC above average.
More than 260 heat and low rainfall records were broken during the winter months.
The nation experienced its second driest June on record and the driest winter since 2002.
The exceptionally warm and dry winter was made 60 times more likely by climate change.
Australia’s
average winter temperatures have increased by around 1ºC since 1910,
driven by climate change, as a direct result of burning fossil fuels –
coal, oil and gas.
Winter warm spells are lasting longer, occurring more often and becoming more intense.
Global ocean circulation appears to be slowing. NASA
Scientists have long known about the anomalous "warming hole"
in the North Atlantic Ocean, an area immune to warming of Earth's
oceans. This cool zone in the North Atlantic Ocean appears to be
associated with a slowdown in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning
Circulation (AMOC), one of the key drivers in global ocean circulation.
A recent study published in Nature outlines
research by a team of Yale University and University of Southhampton
scientists. The team found evidence that Arctic ice loss is potentially
negatively impacting the planet's largest ocean circulation system.
While scientists do have some analogs as to how this may impact the
world, we will be largely in uncharted territory. AMOC
is one of the largest current systems in the Atlantic Ocean and the
world. Generally speaking, it transports warm and salty water northward
from the tropics to South and East of Greenland. This warm water cools
to ambient water temperature then sinks as it is saltier and thus denser
than the relatively more fresh surrounding water. The dense mass of
water sinks to the base of the North Atlantic Ocean and is pushed south
along the abyss of the Atlantic Ocean.
Schematic of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Wikipedia
This process whereby water is transported into the Northern Atlantic
Ocean acts to distribute ocean water globally. What's more important,
and the basis for concern of many scientists is this mechanism is one of
the most efficient ways Earth transports heat from the tropics to the
northern latitudes. The warm water transported from the tropics to the
North Atlantic releases heat to the atmosphere, playing a key role in
warming of western Europe. You likely have heard of one of the more
popular components of the AMOC, the Gulf Stream which brings warm
tropical water to the western coasts of Europe.
Evidence is growing that the comparatively cold zone within the
Northern Atlantic could be due to a slowdown of this global ocean water
circulation. Hence, a slowdown in the planet's ability to transfer heat
from the tropics to the northern latitudes. The cold zone could be due
to melting of ice in the Arctic and Greenland. This would cause a cold
fresh water cap over the North Atlantic, inhibiting sinking of salty
tropical waters. This would in effect slow down the global circulation
and hinder the transport of warm tropical waters north.
Measured trend in temperature variations from 1900 to 2012. NOAA
Melting of the Arctic sea ice has rapidly increased in the recent
decades. Satellite image records indicate that September Arctic sea ice
is 30% less today than it was in 1979. This trend of increased sea ice
melting during summer months does not appear to be slowing. Hence,
indications are that we will see a continued weakening of the global
ocean circulation system.
This scenario of a collapse in AMOC
and global ocean circulation is the premise for the movie "The Day
After Tomorrow." As a disclaimer, the plot line in which much of New
England and Western Europe gets plunged into an ice age is significantly
over exaggerated and unrealistic on human time scales.
While geologists have studied events in the past similar to what
appears to be happening today, scientists are largely unsure of what
lies ahead. Links
High mountains of Asia hold biggest store of frozen water outside the poles and feed many of the world’s great rivers, including the Ganges
The Asian high mountains are already warming more rapidly than the global average.
Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo
Asia’s mountain glaciers will lose at least a third of their mass
through global warming by the century’s end, with dire consequences for
millions of people who rely on them for fresh water, researchers have
said.
This is a best-case scenario, based on the assumption that the world
manages to limit average global warming to 1.5C (2.7F) over
pre-industrial levels, a team wrote in the journal Nature.
“To meet the 1.5C target will be a task of unprecedented difficulty,”
the researchers said, “and even then, 36% (give or take 7%) of the ice
mass in the high mountains of Asia is projected to be lost” by 2100.
With warming of 3.5C, 4C and 6C respectively, Asian glacier losses
could amount to 49%, 51% or 65% by the end of the century, according to
the team’s modelling study.
The high mountains of Asia comprise a geographical region surrounding
the Tibetan plateau, holding the biggest store of frozen water outside
the poles.
It feeds many of the world’s great rivers, including the Ganges, the
Indus and the Brahmaputra, on which hundreds of millions of people
depend.
Nearly 200 nations adopted the Paris agreement in 2015, which sets
the goal of limiting warming to a level “well below” 2C, while “pursuing
efforts” to achieve a lower ceiling of 1.5C.
Earth’s surface has already warmed by about 1C, according to scientists.
For high warming scenarios, experts predict land-gobbling sea-level
rise, worsening storms, more frequent droughts and floods, species loss
and disease spread.
The Asian high mountains, the new study said, were already warming more rapidly than the global average.
A global temperature rise of 1.5C would mean an average increase in
the region of about 2.1C, with differences between mountain ranges – all
of which will warm by more than 1.5C.
The Hindu Kush mountain range would warm by about 2.3C and the eastern Himalayas by 1.9C, the study forecast.
“Even if temperatures stabilise at their current level, [glacier]
mass loss will continue for decades to come,” the researchers added.
For the high mountain glaciers to survive, “it is essential to minimise the global temperature increase”.
Swaths of south Asia and China depend on meltwater from Himalayan glaciers for drinking water, electricity generation and irrigation.
At the same time, the regions are also vulnerable to more intense
flooding from accelerated glacier melt, combined with heavier rains and
superstorms boosted by global warming.
A study in July in the journal Nature Climate Change said there was only a 5% chance of holding global warming under 2C. For 1.5C, the odds were about 1%.
On current trends, some experts project Earth is on track to warm by about 3C.
Let's start with the smelly, dead chicken the Turnbull government is seeking to hang around the Shorten opposition's neck.
In
a variation of the children's party game, pass the parcel, or, should
we say, pass the chicken, Malcolm Turnbull and his Energy Minister, Josh
Frydenberg, are seeking to impose on their political opponents
responsibility for an energy mess, including crippling power bills.
The public could care less about the source of power as long as the lights remain on. Photo: Liam Driver
This is self-serving politics.
Culpability for two decades of
policy paralysis going back to the Howard government's failure to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol – setting the tone for an aimless debate on climate
and energy – rests with the political class of all stripes, including
the hapless Greens.
In their failure back in 2009 to support reasonable proposals for an
emissions trading scheme known as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
(CPRS), the Greens scarred the Rudd prime ministership, contributed to
Turnbull's demise as opposition leader and helped prolong a lost decade
in energy policy.
Our purpose is not to
argue the merits, or otherwise, of the case for sustaining AGL's Liddell
power station in the Hunter Valley beyond a five-year shelf life, but
to ask a simple question.
How did we get into this mess, and how do we get out of it?
In answering this question, history is important.
As far back
as the 1990's the Coalition debated in its internal processes the merits
of an emissions trading scheme as a means of setting a price on carbon,
thereby constructing a rational energy policy for the 21st century.
Several proposals were discussed in cabinet, one in 2000 and the other
in 2003.
Neither made it past the opposition of cabinet climate sceptics, including then prime minister John Howard himself.
However, by 2007 with defeat in prospect, Howard capitulated.
On
July 17, 2007 he said: "Implementing an emissions trading scheme and
setting a long-term goal for reducing emissions will be the most
momentous decision Australia will take in the next decade."
More
than a decade later, Howard's forecast remains stillborn, ensnared by
rancid politics in which Kevin Rudd squibbed an opportunity for a double
dissolution election on the Senate's rejection of his CPRS.
To
her great cost, Julia Gillard introduced a carbon tax after having
pledged not do so. Then Tony Abbott replaced it with a Direct Action
plan to compensate emitters who reduced their carbon footprint, or got
out of the emitting business altogether.
In one of politics'
ironies, the problematical Direct Action plan – described by Turnbull in
2009 as "bullshit" – is subject to an internal review by the government
with a result due by the end of the year.
Perhaps nothing has
confused Turnbull's credentials more as an environmentally-responsible
small 'l' liberal centrist than his positions on energy and climate
policy under a Coalition agreement struck with the Nationals after he
deposed Abbott.
Basically, Turnbull fell into line with his
predecessor's policies on climate change, carbon taxes and emissions
reduction targets.
Implicit in all of this was support for the coal industry.
On
occasions, Turnbull has sought to edge away from these commitments such
as when his energy minister talked about an emissions intensity target.
Under fire from his right flank over this heresy, Turnbull quickly disavowed any such idea.
In
this latest period, we are witnessing an intense bout of blame-shifting
in light of the most politically sensitive of cost of living issues –
power prices.
The Turnbull government is also seeking to shield
itself from the fury that would surely follow a summer of power outages
due to insufficient baseload power.
In the debate about baseload
power provided by coal-fired power stations versus renewables, the
public could care less about the source of power, as long as the lights
remain on.
What all this points to is a failure by successive
Federal governments, Labor and conservative, to develop a national
energy policy that provides a reasonable balance between conventional
coal and gas-fired sources and renewables within a framework that
satisfies Australia's international emissions-reduction obligations.
Speaking
of gas, one of the more surprising aspects of the current debate is the
lack of focus on gas as a cleaner energy alternative to coal. According
to chief scientist Alan Finkel's National Electricity Market report,
gas accounts for just 10 per cent of the country's power generation.
That
could be increased significantly using existing modified infrastructure
at a much lower emissions cost than coal: gas emits around 400kg/MWh
compared with 1272kg/MWh for the highest emitting coal-fired plants.
One
might have thought the country's secure energy future lies in a mix of
gas and renewables, with Australia's ageing coal-fired plants being
phased out over time, leaving aside the government vacillation on a
Clean Energy Target recommended by Finkel.
Turnbull might serve
the national interest more effectively by putting aside politics for a
moment and listening to expert advice – from Finkel and the power
generation industry itself – about the best energy mix.
Bullying
corporate representatives in the manner of an early NSW governor named
Bligh may serve a political purpose, but it hardly solves the problem.
As climate change makes their lives increasingly precarious, Nepalis reflect on the US withdrawal from the Paris Accord.
Significant changes in weather patterns are affecting farming communities across Nepal [Gregory Reck/Al Jazeera]
Saipu, Nepal - Three weeks after US President Donald Trump announced
that "as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of
the… Paris Accord," Shiva, a subsistence farmer in the Nepali village of
Saipu, says: "It's like God is mad and has disappeared and something
evil is taking over the sky."
"Look at my corn. It's thirsty, but
there is no water any more." He pauses and then quietly adds, "climate
change. The people who are causing this are killing us."
Trump promised to end the "draconian financial and economic burdens
the agreement imposes on our country" because "we don't want other
countries laughing at us any more". But Shiva and his fellow farmers
aren't laughing as they speak about how climate change is threatening them all.
We were in Saipu to research the politics of reconstruction in post-earthquake Nepal.
More than 80 percent of the structures in Saipu were rendered
uninhabitable by the earthquakes of April and May 2015. Only about 20
percent have been repaired or rebuilt with the aid of government grants
and loans that have burdened many with excessive debt.
'The whole cycle of life is changing'
Despite the suffering that they have endured for more than two years,
Shiva and the other subsistence farmers who have gathered know that
climate change is the real danger.
"The earthquakes destroyed our
homes, school and health clinic, but those we will eventually rebuild,"
a man named Gopal interjects. "But erratic weather with little rain is
already bringing the final disaster."
Scientists link Hurricane Harvey to climate change
Anguished expressions settle on their faces as the conversation
escalates. "It rained heavily in March when we needed dry weather to
plant corn," a woman named Kalpana adds.
"And then it was dry in April and May when planted corn needed water.
It's never been this way. The corn is small. We should be harvesting it
now and getting ready to plant rice, but everything is running behind.
The whole cycle of life is changing."
She looks up at the cloudless sky, which should be dark and full of
life-giving rain at the beginning of the monsoon season. She knows that
the rhythm of subsistence farming that has evolved over the centuries is
not some arbitrary human choice, but is dependent upon reasonably
predictable natural cycles.
Her observations about climate change are not made causally. They are
the result of traditional knowledge of a topic that has always been a
matter of survival.
Farmer after farmer tells the same story: it rains when it's supposed
to be dry, and it's dry when it's supposed to rain; rotating crops of
corn, millet, rice and vegetables requires weather predictability which
is no more; mountain streams that make agriculture possible on the steep
slopes and which provide drinking water are drying up; days are warmer,
making mosquitoes flourish and goats and cattle sick.
Climate change: A catastrophic reality
In this village with no electricity, where the basic fuel is wood,
and there are no vehicles aside from a couple of tractors and four-wheel
drives to ferry people and supplies up and down the landslide-prone
road, residents know they contribute nothing to the factors creating
climate change and, yet, are on the receiving end of its consequences.
According to the World Bank, Nepal's entire CO2 output
in 2013 was only 0.2 of a metric tonne. Before 1995, it was less than
0.1 of a metric tonne per year. Despite Trump's claim that the United States
is the world's leader in environmental policy, the World Bank says that
in 2013 the US contributed 16.4 metric tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere.
According to Statista, a website that compiles statistics on a variety of topics, in 2016 the US produced 15.99 percent of global CO2 emissions, second only to China.
The Berkeley Energy and Resource Collaborative in 2014 concluded that the US had contributed more than 20 percent of all global warming since pre-industrial times.
The subsistence farmers of Nepal, like billions of vulnerable people
across the globe, are the victims of the excesses of a bloated global
economy that fattens the few at the expense of the many. For these
people, climate change is not some abstract, debatable idea that a
country like the US can wish out of existence. For them, it is a
catastrophic reality.
Floods in the US, floods in South Asia
The August 2017 floods in Nepal, India and Bangladesh are a case in point. While the US - and much of the global - news media focused on the floods in Houston, Texas, the human cost of the flooding in South Asia was largely overlooked.
Although the calculation of the damage is still mounting, at least
200 people died as a result of the floods in Nepal, and 1.7 million have
been severely affected, as 65,000 homes were damaged or destroyed.
As many as 40 million people have been directly impacted across Nepal, India
and Bangladesh. While monsoon rains are part of the normal climatic
cycle in the region, there is little doubt that the ferocity of the rain
increased dramatically as a result of climate change.
The farmers of Saipu do what they can. They protect their forests
with the razor-thin hope that this might mitigate the fury of climate
change. They conserve as much water as possible hoping that the rain
will fall normally once again. They plant seeds hoping that, against all
the odds, the crops will produce enough to sustain them. But they know
that it is the decisions made in distant places that truly determine
their fate.
Shiva finally exhibits the satirical humour for which Nepali farmers
are famous. "Now that the US has decided not to cooperate in stopping
climate change," he smiles, alluding to Trump's announcement, "they have
only two choices: reverse the decision and stop putting pollution into
the sky, or move everything and everybody from Nepal to the US."
Everyone around him laughs. For a moment, the anger and frustration
they feel disappear. But then the laughter fades, and a momentary quiet
takes over.
We recall the statement US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator Scott Pruitt made at the Paris Accord withdrawal ceremony:
"We owe no apologies to other nations for our environmental
stewardship."
We wonder whether Pruitt could bring himself to tell these Nepali farmers that.
Then an elderly man named Devi, who has so far remained silent,
speaks softly. "I used to think the USA was smart, but now I know that
they are just selfish and irresponsible," he says.
Everyone nods in agreement.
*Gregory
Reck is a professor in the Department of Anthropology at Appalachian
State University in the US. *Dinesh
Paudel is an assistant professor in the Department of Sustainable
Development at Appalachian State University. Links
Wall Street Journal's glib snark over Harvey completes its Fox News-ification
Rupert Murdoch-owned news outlets including Fox News and the Wall Street
Journal included climate change denial in its coverage of hurricanes
Irma and Harvey—even mocking the view pushed by climate scientists that
climate change has added to the severity of storms. (Photo:
FAIR.org/screen capture)
A recent survey by progressive watchdog Public Citizen (9/12/17)
on the media’s coverage of hurricanes Harvey and Irma confirms what’s
long been known: Corporate media are indifferent to the causal
relationship between climate change and extreme weather, and by far the
worst offenders are the Rupert Murdoch–owned Fox News, Wall Street Journal and New York Post.
The survey covered 18 outlets hurricane coverage for the week of
August 25–September 1: ten major newspapers, three weekly news
magazines, and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News. Out of 2,000 media items, there were only 136 mentions of climate change, many denialist in content.
Fox‘s Tucker Carlson (8/31/17) to The Hill‘s Joe Concha: “Science is complicated. You know what’s not complicated? Moral preening.”
Outlets owned by Murdoch’s umbrella corporations, News Corp and 21st Century Fox,
clearly led the denialist camp. These firms constitute the core
propaganda machine of the right in the English-speaking world, with the
highest-rated cable news network (Fox News) and the first and sixth biggest-circulation newspapers (Wall Street Journal, New York Post) in the United States. As Public Citizen’s media survey reveals, they go beyond indifference to advocate outright denialism.
The Journal had three op-eds and Fox News had two
segments that denied—and laughingly mocked—any connection between
hurricane intensity and climate change, the survey found:
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr: “First Houston’s Resilience, Then Washington’s Boondoggle” (Wall Street Journal, 8/29/31)
Roger Pielke Jr: “The Hurricane Lull Couldn’t Last” (Wall Street Journal, 8/31/17)
Editorial Board: “Texas, Thou Hast Sinned” (Wall Street Journal, 8/31/17)
Other media did better, but some not much more so. ABC News and NBC News didn’t mention climate change at all in the context of Hurricane Harvey or Irma. Other outlets, such as USA Today (8/30/17, 8/30/17),
used a “both sides” framing to provide a platform for denialists, but
the paper’s editorial ultimately concluded climate change “juiced
Hurricane Harvey.”
Public Citizen’s survey found that climate coverage in the context of Harvey and Irma was concentrated in four outlets—the Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, New York Times and CNN, which together produced 72 percent of the pieces that mentioned climate change. CNN
led the way with 30 mentions of climate change, only two of which were
denialist in nature: interviews with Rep. Pete Olson (R.–Texas) and Bill
Read, the former director of the National Hurricane Center. The Post had 23, the Chronicle had 22 and the Times had 18. The remaining 28 percent were peppered across 10 sources.
The survey highlighted what it considered the “seven aspects” of climate change coverage:
Clearly connected climate change to Hurricane Harvey (or to events like it)
Framed questions regarding the role of climate change as whether it
contributes to or intensifies the damage from events like Harvey rather
than whether it “causes” them
Discussed relevant clearly connected climate change to Hurricane Harvey (or to events like it);
Noted ways to adapt to climate change (for example with better disaster preparedness or zoning or building policies)
Noted ways to mitigate climate change (for example by reducing
greenhouse gas pollution and switching to renewable sources of energy)
Noted specific relevant policies or actions that have been or could be taken at the local or state level; and
Noted specific relevant policies or actions that have been or could be taken at the federal level.
Only five outlets hit all aspects. Murdoch brands New York Post and Wall Street Journal went 0 for 7 and 1 for 7, respectively, and Fox News went 4 for 7—mentioning these aspects, but doing so in a derisive or dismissive manner.
In reality, the problem is not Texas but Texaco.
As consensus emerges not just around the science of climate change,
but also its amplifying effects on extreme weather events, Murdoch’s
media empire—and the Republican Party that its talking points
inform—will remain the last holdout. Even the nominally respectable Wall Street Journal, bought by Murdoch ten years ago, publishes snarky and glib editorials on the topic (8/31/17):
Who says progressives don’t believe in religion? They may
not believe in Jehovah or Jesus, but they certainly believe in Old
Testament-style wrath against sinners. Real Noah and the Ark stuff.
Witness the emerging theme on the media left that Texas, and especially
Houston, are at fault for the devastation of Hurricane Harvey.
LOL funny stuff, right? A city underwater and extreme weather
amplified by catastrophic climate change is all one big joke. A recent Guardian (9/10/17)
report documented how corrupting Murdoch’s hand has been with the
establishment paper, with dozens of writers quitting after being
pressured to “normalize” Trump. Nevertheless, the Journal
continues to ignore basic science to remain lockstep with their party
and president, becoming more tabloid in tone and more craven in purpose. *Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org.
A
self-policing group within the British news industry has forced the
tabloid The Mail on Sunday to acknowledge that an article it published
asserting that climate researchers in the United States had manipulated
data was inaccurate and misleading.
A
statement saying the news organization “failed to take care over the
accuracy of the article” was posted on The Mail on Sunday’s website early Sunday and was to appear in the print edition as well.
Publication
of the statement was required after the self-regulating group, the
Independent Press Standards Organization, ruled in favor of a complaint
that the article,
which was published on Feb. 5, had misrepresented the comments of a
former scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration about a 2015 climate change paper by a leading NOAA climate researcher, Thomas R. Karl, and others.
John J. Bates, a retired
government scientist, at his home in Arden, N.C. His criticism of a
former boss resulted in a furor among climate change deniers.Credit
Chris Bott
The
Mail on Sunday, the statement said, also failed to correct
“significantly misleading statements” in the article, which was written
by David Rose and based on the claims of the former NOAA scientist, John
J. Bates. The press standards group, known as IPSO, was expected to
publish the full text of its ruling on its website.
The man who brought the complaint against The Mail on Sunday, Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said that he had immediate concerns about the article when he read it.
“It
was fairly obvious right from the start it was bound to be suspicious
because David Rose has a long history of promoting climate change
denial,” Mr. Ward said.
“It was grossly overblown,” Mr. Ward added, “and that was clearly what he was trying to do.”
Efforts
to reach Mr. Rose were not successful. John Wellington, managing editor
of The Mail on Sunday, confirmed in an email that the news organization
was going to post what he referred to as an adjudication.
Mr.
Rose’s article was published with the print headline, “EXPOSED: How
world leaders were duped over global warming,” and a similar headline
online. It detailed assertions by Dr. Bates about temperature data that
had been used in the 2015 paper, which provided evidence against the
idea that global warming had slowed in the first decade of this century.
In
The Mail on Sunday’s article, Mr. Rose described Dr. Bates as a
“high-level whistle-blower” and said Dr. Bates had told him that NOAA
had “breached its own rules on scientific integrity” by using what was
described as “unverified” data for the study. The article also asserted
that the study was rushed into print in June 2015 to have “maximum
possible impact on world leaders” at the Paris climate talks later that
year.
Most of the article’s assertions were rejected by scientists
in the days after it was published. Former colleagues of Dr. Bates, who
at one time was in charge of archiving data at the National Centers for
Environmental Information, where Mr. Karl served as director, ascribed
Dr. Bates’s assertions to lingering resentment over a demotion.
Dr. Bates himself, in an interview after the Mail article was published, said he had not intended to accuse Mr. Karl of manipulating data.
But
the article made Dr. Bates into something of a hero in the community of
climate change denialists and others who claim that some climate
scientists are politicizing the subject.
Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, a Republican who heads the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, tweeted
at the time that “NOAA sr officials played fast & loose w/data in
order 2 meet politically predetermined conclusion on climate change.”
Mr. Smith, who previously had accused the Obama administration of having a “suspect climate agenda,” also wrote to NOAA
seeking more information on Mr. Karl’s study, which he said raised
questions “as to whether the science at NOAA is objective and free from
political interference.”
An email request for comment from a spokeswoman for Mr. Smith’s committee was not returned.
Mr.
Ward of the Grantham Institute also filed a complaint about an opinion
piece in The Times of London on Dr. Bates’s claims. That complaint was dismissed by IPSO in July.
Mr.
Ward said he thought his complaint against The Mail was upheld because
it was not about whether Dr. Bates’s claims were true, but about whether
the article had accurately reflected his views.
“In this case the newspaper article was considered to have gone well beyond those views,” Mr. Ward said.
IPSO
was established in 2014 after a phone-hacking scandal rocked the
British news industry and revealed deficiencies in the previous system
for self-policing. The Mail on Sunday and other news organizations are
part of the effort, but some news organizations, including The Guardian
and the Financial Times, are not involved.
Mr.
Ward said The Mail on Sunday had a long history of publishing articles
that were inaccurate and misleading about climate change.
“We’re
hopeful that following this the editor will be somewhat more skeptical
about stories that Mr. Rose brings to them,” he said.
