Peter Doran- "I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming."

[larkinmj]

Prof. Peter Doran published a paper in 2002 that indicated the Antarctic Peninsula is warming. This study, along with one the same year by Curt Davis on the thickening of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, have been used extensively by the deniers of global warming to support their contention that global warming is a "myth." Prof. Davis published a news release in May after his research was misrepresented in ads by the (front for oil companies) Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Today, Peter Doran published the following on the Op-Ed page of the NY Times, on the distortion of his research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/...r=1&oref=slogin

July 27, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

Cold, Hard Facts

By PETER DORAN
Chicago

IN the debate on global warming, the data on the climate of Antarctica has been distorted, at different times, by both sides. As a polar researcher caught in the middle, I’d like to set the record straight.

In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear.

My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change.

Newspaper and television reports focused on this part of the paper. And many news and opinion writers linked our study with another bit of polar research published that month, in Science, showing that part of Antarctica’s ice sheet had been thickening — and erroneously concluded that the earth was not warming at all. “Scientific findings run counter to theory of global warming,” said a headline on an editorial in The San Diego Union-Tribune. One conservative commentator wrote, “It’s ironic that two studies suggesting that a new Ice Age may be under way may end the global warming debate.”

In a rebuttal in The Providence Journal, in Rhode Island, the lead author of the Science paper and I explained that our studies offered no evidence that the earth was cooling. But the misinterpretation had already become legend, and in the four and half years since, it has only grown.

Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either.

Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?

Also missing from the skeptics’ arguments is the debate over our conclusions. Another group of researchers who took a different approach found no clear cooling trend in Antarctica. We still stand by our results for the period we analyzed, but unbiased reporting would acknowledge differences of scientific opinion.

The disappointing thing is that we are even debating the direction of climate change on this globally important continent. And it may not end until we have more weather stations on Antarctica and longer-term data that demonstrate a clear trend.

In the meantime, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well.

Peter Doran is an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

[Mirza]

In a recent post I stated that it didn't bother me much that there were still deniers... it was only a thought... the more I read the research and what the scientists say, the more frustrated and flat out PISSED at the corporate idiots trying to subvert science for their monetary benefit of some 0.0000000001% of the population. I am at my f**king wit's end trying to get my friends to watch either Al Gore's documentary or the Discovery Channel one... they all f**king backed out... everyone wants to live their life as if their's no tomorrow and with no consequences. It's a disposable economy... and the attitude is ingrained in many (the obesity problem and how it's taxing our health care system comes to mind). I ended up going to Al Gore's film ALONE because my friends just want to live their life free from any damn consequences... just keep on partying and let the good times roll. Right now I so wish I didn't live Coal Country... f**k all these idiots trying to subvert science!!!!!! Sorry for the cursing... I am beyond frustrated right now.

[hyo silver]

It's a mad world, Mirza. Your anger shows how deeply you care.

[Suburban600]

[quote]
Prof. Peter Doran published a paper in 2002 that indicated the Antarctic Peninsula is warming. This study, along with one the same year by Curt Davis on the thickening of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, have been used extensively by the deniers of global warming to support their contention that global warming is a "myth."

Even though I am not a scientist I believe I can understand Prof. Peter Doran's frustration at having his work misrepresented. Why are some fighting so hard against the theory of Global Warming? In my non-scientific mind I'm having trouble understanding the downside to helping to curb the possibility of Global Warming.

It seems that less pollution, more forests and less urbanization would be viewed as good by most folks.

What is the fear? Is it that corporations will lose the profit margins of declining petrol based industries? I remember some decades ago that a car was written about that achieved hundreds of miles to the gallon. Perhaps there is a thread of truth in the rumors we have all heard about oil companies buying the patents to truly revolutionary fuel saving technologies? Or, perhaps the larger question is a concern over what role should the government play in fighting the widely accepted but still debated theory of Global Warming.

In my efforts to market carbon offsets I have found, that to date, there is little if any interest in individual investments in forests that sequester carbon. [At least from my naive and clumsy marketing perspective.] So, I am unclear as to what really drives vocal Global Warming proponents. It seems that for some fully accepting and taking action necessary to curb Global Warming is something best left to government or corporations. Am I correct?

I leap to the macro impact only conclusion because as another participant indicates people seem to feel helpless in the face of such a daunting and disturbing possibility. Seas rising, no food, no water...doom and gloom...life ending as we know it. So, the individual feels powerless? They don't want to even discuss the issue.

I tend to disagree with people, if there is anyone, who believe that only governments and corporations can make tangible changes.

I do agree that government probably has a role to play similar to the space exploration or the efforts of governments during the Great Depression. However, those types of actions won't work unless people believe they can be successful. So, we arrive at a chicken egg scenario.

The government won't act because only a vocal few are articulating the problem. The majority won't act because dealing with the issue fractures their image of their future. Nothing happens.

Well, I'll have to part ways with those of you who might encourage a more revolutionary shock approach say like what one might see with some animal rights groups or environmental groups.

I'm much more conservative in my preferences. Let's take the Prius for example. After nearly six years the Prius is becoming a common sight. People are taking note. Many folks like myself will likely transition to hybrid technology in the near future...not because of economics but because of our belief that we can make a difference and we like the new technologies.

There are other actions we can take besides buying a hybrid car. Here are a few that could be just as in style as a Prius if couched correctly with our friends and neighbors.

Buy local...you minimize transportation costs. Examples? Buy produce from you local farmer, buy lumber from a local sawmill, by locally manufactured goods. You'll become a leader in your community.

Telecomute...you'll improve your quality of life and eliminate expeditures on gas. Save about $6000 per year for owning a car. Yes, nirvana is not needing even...a Prius. Your friends will be jealous.

Move close to public transportation and use it. I'm tired of seeing empty buses...how about you?

Buy some land and plant some trees preserve land from Urban Sprawl. To expensive? Form a Prius chapter and encourage the chapter to buy some forested land. Buy and hold 10 acres of forested land and make 7 Prius cars completely carbon neutral.

Do all of the common sense things, yes buy a hybrid car, if you need a car, use florescent light bulbs, insulate, reduce air travel, vacation near home, and tune up/check the pressure on the tires of all of your vehicles.

As was said earlier we enjoy our conveniences. Most of us can't do all of the things I've mentioned. I can't either. But by changing our activities and buying habits incrementally we can force industry and government to change. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't make a difference. And when someone stops you at the gas station, give them a little friendly chat about your Prius.

For those of you who don't believe in Global Warming then keep supporting strip malls (lets drive to the mall), Hummers (let's use a lot of gas driving to the mall), and urbanization (let's use a whole lot of gas driving to the city). I think you'll be forced to change eventually if only because you're environment, natural and manmade, will change around you...for the better.

So, what is the downside to believing in theory of Global Warming and working to improve the environment? Why do some so adamantly oppose the idea of Global Warming? What is the downside?

[Mirza]

The downside is that 0.000000000000000000000001% of the population will be making less money... despite the fact that the green revolution can create new jobs.

[Godiva]

The problem is that we're (well, they're) treating the earth as if it's a disposable too.

And by the time we reach the point where there can be no denial....it may be too late. We may just have disposed of the Earth....with no place left to go. (What will we answer when God asks us why we killed his plants and animals. It's not like he didn't warn us.)

Again...it's short term profits over long term......extinction?

I can only hope that the ICE car and oil/coal based industry will go the way of beaver hats.

Beavers were hunted until almost extinction. What finally saved them? Beaver fur hats went out of style. There was no more market for the pelts. So trappers stopped trapping them. (Unfortunately, nothing saved the passenger pidgeon. You'd think we would have learned that lesson.)

I can only hope that technology will solve the problem (insert miracle here) and profits will shift to the new markets.

I really like polar bears. I don't want to see them become extinct. Or those poor sea birds either.

[fshagan]

I think I'll call my view "less cynical".

From what I read, there are very few scientists who dispute that the earth is warming, but there are a few who don't know if man's actions have anything to do with it. The few who are really out there denying it outright do get funding from energy companies, I'm told, but that just makes sense too. All scientists want funding to continue their research, so they mate up with money interests that support them. That doesn't mean they are "bought", because unless they are independently wealthy, every scientist needs funding. If they can publish papers, have them peer reviewed and found to be with merit, then their views have to be considered no matter the funding source.

As a non-scientist, I have to look at what the "smart guys" think, and see if it makes sense. I usually agree with the majority consensus if I think the smart guys have it right (and usually, they do). Every now and then a new guy comes along and we disagree with him at first, then he proves his case, and we all have to admit he was right. That's how science works.

In the political realm, where the oil company ads and the movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" are, there are polarized positions that will be held even in the face of overwhelming proof because often they are not fighting about the issue itself, but something else entirely. In the political realm in this debate there is a battle going on between those that want nationalization and control of industry and those that want a more Laissez-faire system (commies versus capitalists). On the social front, there are those that want to preserve the status quo and those that desire to see the culture denigrated. On the economic front, there are those that want to take advantage of selling new technologies at higher margins versus those that want to continue selling commodity items at high volume. People tend to work toward what they perceive as their best interest, and we can't really blame them. We can recognize the incentive without assigning vile motives to them.

It does strike me that perhaps the answer to global warming is to bring back hydroflourocarbons and destry the ozone layer ... but I'm sure Professor Doran might object to that conclusion from his article.

[Mirza]

I understand what you're saying fshagan... but it's our world and it's our only planet... most of the energy/oil companies do not have this view... and those that say they do generally don't follow up with action. If you look at what's at stake, you'll see why I have no sympathy for the industry. It is because of this that I feel change is needed (as to some of the societal effects you mentioned).

-------
An interesting scientific look at the ozone issue and its effect on climate change in the Antarctic:

"Ozone hole causes mixed Antarctic message"
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2249

[Betelgeuse]

I think that the problem, sometimes, is a fundamental disconnect in the way that scientists talk vs. the way that the rest of the world talks. Often, people bring up the point that several scientists aren't convinced that humans cause global warming. However, if you were to go ask those scientists what they thought was the most likely cause, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would say that it was humans. It's just that, in science, the threshold for "proof" is much higher than in "real life."

Let me just give an example from my field (Astronomy). Most people (scientist or not) know about black holes. As an astronomer, it's one of the most popular areas of discussion when I talk to people at public astronomy events (I'm in charge of public observing nights at the local observatory). The evidence for black holes is pretty overwhelming and convincing. Basically, in several cases, you can see things moving really fast around some mass, but there's no observed light emmitted from the region of that "mass." There have been several attempts to try to explain this mass by some other explanation and all of them had failed. The evidence is really strong that black holes exist. However, I have a collegue who was trying to publish an article and the referee for the article insisted that they be called "Dynamically Confirmed Black Hole Candidates."

My point is just that, when scientific results are interpreted by the "real world," often the standard scientific skeptism is misinterpreted as some sort of disbelief in the general theory. This is what appears to have happened in Doran's case, anyway.

I'll also point out that if we enact major pollution controls and we're not causing global warming, the economy takes a financial hit (no one really knows how big). However, if we don't enact the pollution controls and we are causing global warming, the consequences are much more severe.

[Mirza]

Thanks for the scientific insights.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Jul 29 2006, 09:19 AM) [snapback]294265[/snapback]</div>

I'll also point out that if we enact major pollution controls and we're not causing global warming, the economy takes a financial hit (no one really knows how big). However, if we don't enact the pollution controls and we are causing global warming, the consequences are much more severe.
[/b]

As in Al Gore's film... weigh what's at stake... you have some pretty gold bars at one side of the balance, and the Earth on the other. It's going to require change, something a lot of people aren't really accustomed to and are willing to make all kinds of excuses to avoid acting on. Obviously, I don't have a lot of faith in the personal responsibility of individuals. A democracy works at its very best when its citizens are informed and responsible... and that's not where things seem to be.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

-Upton Sinclair[/b]