Debunking five claims by climate science denier politician Malcolm Roberts
his views could now have relevance and importance – not because they are potentially true, but because they could influence the workings of parliament.
Debunking Malcolm Roberts: the case against a climate science denier
In his first speech to Parliament on Tuesday, Roberts made many false claims about climate change. He said that climate change was a “scam” and implied that it was some sort of conspiracy between all the major international research agencies. “ … there is no data proving human use of hydro-carbon fuels affects climate,” he said.
Most news outlets had stopped covering the views of climate science deniers in regular reporting. There is a clear scientific consensus that the world is warming and that human carbon emissions have caused it, so reporting the views of a few non-experts who push fanciful theories with no credible evidence is seen as “false balance”.
But journalists are in a different position when someone in an important office holds such views………
to avoid repeatedly having to debunk Roberts’ views, we have produced a handy reference list of his main arguments, as outlined on the ABC’s Q&A program on 15 August. This list may be updated if he introduces new elements to back his claims.:
The ‘pause’
Another inconvenient fact, temperatures statistically have not been warming since 1995
One main strategy used by climate change deniers is to argue that there is no trend in warming, or that the recent trend is not at all unusual…. (graph) …..The most obvious thing wrong with this argument is that no climate scientist thinks global warming means temperatures will always increase at the same rate. ……Of course, choosing a record hot year as your starting point is cheating – just as choosing a record cold year would be. When you zoom out and look at the longer-term picture, there is a clear trend………Understanding the precise causes of that short period of slower warming was of interest to scientists but it was not a challenge to the general picture that the globe was warming – and continued to warm – on larger timescales.
Manipulating data
MALCOLM ROBERTS: Yeah, 1930s and 40s were warmer than the current decades … The original records are … first of all, that the data has been corrupted and we know that the 1930s were warmer than today.
BRIAN COX, fellow Q&A panellist and physicist: What do you mean by corrupted? Corrupted? What do you mean corrupted?
ROBERTS: Been manipulated.
COX: By who?
ROBERTS: By Nasa.
COX: Nasa?
ROBERTS: Yes.
This is an example of two strategies in one. The first is to deny there is a warming trend, or that it is unusual, as in the “hiatus” claim. When scientists point out that the data contradicts the claim, climate change deniers sometimes resort to conspiracy theories. In this case, Roberts argues that all the major science organisations around the world have collaborated, manipulating climate data to suppress temperatures in the 30s and 40s, thereby making today’s temperatures look unusual…………
Trashing the models
The models have already been proven wrong, hopelessly wrong.
The truth is that climate models have been shown to work remarkably well.
Models predict trends in climate, not particular events. So a few years – even up to a decade or so – that isn’t quite what a model predicted is not evidence the model is flawed.
But the performance of climate models over the past few decades has been amazingly accurate. (excellent graph)
Historical distractions
The latest warming cycle in the 17th century going into the 18th century was faster and greater than the latest warming …
It’s not clear what Roberts is talking about here.
In the northern hemisphere there was a period of relatively cold weather between about 1550 and 1800, known as the “little ice age”.
No recent or even outdated studies suggest it was warmer around 1700 than it is today……This statement highlights another strategy used by climate deniers. Making a spurious claim about temperature records attempts to put the onus of proof on the interlocutor. It is so unclear what Roberts is talking about that it is hard to make a case against him……..
‘It’s basic’
It is basic. The sun warms the earth’s surface. The surface, by contact, warms the moving, circulating atmosphere. That means the atmosphere cools the surface. How then can the atmosphere warm it? It cannot. That is why their computer models are wrong.
It’s honestly just not clear where to start with this quote. Is he doubting that the sun can warm the atmosphere? If so, then why is the atmosphere not freezing? Is he arguing that because the earth’s surface is warmer than the air above it (which is true over land), that the atmosphere can’t warm?…..
How should the media cover Roberts’ claims?
Media outlets are drawn in two competing directions when deciding how to cover Robert’s false claims.
On the one hand, it has become common practice not to report climate change denier views as a matter of course. And so editors might be drawn to ignore his claims. But as discussed above, his views could now have relevance and importance – not because they are potentially true, but because they could influence the workings of parliament.
On the other hand there can be the opposite drive too. His views can be such good fodder for headlines, that there is a temptation to cover everything he says. But taking that path allows politicians to manipulate the media, driving them to say even more outrageous things to garner even more headlines.
Roberts’ views should simply be reported when they are newsworthy, no more and no less. Of course this can be a tricky thing to judge, but newsrooms should be experienced at making such decisions. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/14/debunking-malcolm-roberts-the-case-against-a-climate-science-denier
No comments yet.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Leave a comment