December 23, 2010, 7:12 am
Climate Change and ‘Balanced’ Coverage
By JUSTIN GILLIS
In
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/science/earth/22carbon.html">an article this week on the relentless rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, I outlined one of the canonical
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html">projections of climate science: if the amount of carbon dioxide doubles, the average surface temperature of the earth is likely to increase by 5 or 6 degrees Fahrenheit, a whopping change. I contrasted that with a prediction from skeptics of climate change
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Energy/17nov/Lindzen_Testimony.pdf">who contend that the increase is likely to be less than 2 degrees.
One major voice on climate science,
http://passporttoknowledge.com/polar-palooza/pps02.php">Richard B. Alley of the Pennsylvania State University, told me he gets annoyed by the way this contrast is often presented in news accounts. The higher estimate is often put forward as a worst case, he pointed out, while the skeptic number is presented as the best case.
In fact, as Dr. Alley reminds anyone who will listen, and as he recently told a
http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2947">Congressional committee, the estimate of 5 or 6 degrees is actually mildly optimistic. Computer programs used to forecast future climate show it as the most likely outcome from a doubling of carbon dioxide, but those programs also show substantial probabilities that the warming will be much greater.
The true worst case from doubled carbon dioxide is closer to 18 or 20 degrees of warming, Dr. Alley said — an addition of heat so radical that it would render the planet unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants.
…