The Fox global warming propaganda

Following climate news is a serious hobby for me. It is also part of my job as a climate change researcher. As a result, I am more irritated than most when I see pundits  saying that believing in climate change is just following Obama and Gore's propaganda. They are relentless in this, even suggesting that those who believe in global warming are akin to holocaust deniers. Who are their credible experts? Unfortunately, they have no qualifications whatsoever with regard to climate science, such as Bernie Goldberg (a political writer) in the link above.

 Imagine a comparable scenario..... 

Lipitor has designed a new cholesterol medication, but before it can be distributed to the general public, scientists are required to test it for safety. After years of testing, 99% of scientists agree that the medication is dangerous and will likely kill a large percentage of users. The medication is deemed unsafe for the public. Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there. Lipitor spends millions of dollars to convince the public and also congressmen that their drug is perfectly fine, defaming the researchers and questioning the science. Conservatives get behind Lipitor's campaign, claiming that the government wants to control what you consume, that scientists verdict is part of plan to raise money for other comparable drugs. Average Joe political writers are asks for comments and take some strong stands on the issue (without any qualifications of their own). In the end, the drug is released, because the public is convinced, not by the science, but by Lipitor's campaign. 

The fact is, very nearly all climate researchers are reaching the same conclusion, that climate change is real, and is happening fast. The best example of this is the IPCC, or the intergovernmental panel on climate change. From their website:

"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

In other words, the IPCC simply summarized the scientific literature on the subject. They are not biased, and report on the work of thousands of scientists. There is no better source for a summary on climate change than the IPCC, because no other group provides such an extensive review of available material. The IPCC reports require years of work from thousands of scientists and take every effort represent the full spectrum of available data. Here is a small excerpt from the most recent 2007 report, to get a taste, though I would recommend reading all of AR4, available free on the website if you want more info:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level"

"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005 of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1). The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM}"

With this understanding, it is hard to contest the key elements of their reports. When conservatives, like in the clip above (also here, and here, and here, and here) attempt to write off the reports, they are not rejecting the rhetoric of Gore and Obama, they are rejecting the work of the researchers whom have dedicated their lives to studying the issue.