RSS
Home
What went wrong with 'The Cooling World'?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Noted science writer Peter Gwynne
“I was right in 1975,” Gwynne says, of his notorious “The Cooling World” article in the back pages of Newsweek, “but science is dynamic. Just as any 19th century science writer would have correctly described the validity of Newtonian physics, my article on global cooling reflected the scientific understanding of the time; the subject matter. And just as general relativity ‘disproved’ Newtonian physics, so fresh findings and interpretations -- and, for that matter, new behavior in nature – ‘disproved’ global cooling. Whatever the capabilities, science writers can't foretell the future.”
Gwynne’s credentials are impeccable, and out of the thousands of articles he's written, there's bound to be a few screw ups along the way – every reporter with a conscience has nightmares about one of their flubs becoming nationwide talking points as Gwynne’s has.
Yet, it’s pretty clear cooling wasn’t as big of a deal in the scientific literature of the time as Gwynne believed. Even in the popular press, stories on “cooling” were rare, but Gwynne’s stands out as the most alarmist.
Even at that, it’s pretty clear Gwynne did not commit an infraction on the order of, say, cold fusion or Sanjay Gupta’s willingness to pump up the “cloning” story, while ignoring the fact that the source of this scientific breakthrough was the Raelian cult.
It’s important for current science journalists, however, to take a look at this story and see where things might have gone “wrong”.
Let’s start with a look back at some of Gwynne’s sources:
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968.
However, the New York Times obituary for Mitchell (Oct. 8, 1990) says, “In the mid-70’s, when other scientists warned that man’s output of heat threatened to melt the polar ice caps and flood coastal regions, he concurred and warned of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide that an industrial world was spewing into the atmosphere.”
If true, that would mean Mitchell was not convinced the Earth was cooling. It’s unclear whether Gwynne interviewed him or merely cites his paper (Gwynne is fuzzy on the details of what, to him, was an interesting little weather story). Let’s assume he merely cited the paper.
Here’s another:
Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras’ and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
The article, “Pioneer of Climatology Dies at 88”, from the University's news, says, “Bryson was one of the pioneers of modern climatology and was among the first to explore the influence of Climate on humans.” Climate scientist Jonathan Foley said, “Bryson was prescient in grasping the depth and breadth of the many connections between climate, the environment and human society.” He is also one Gwynne specifically remembers being interviewed by a bureau reporter.
Bryson was particularly interested in the influence of climate on human history and culture, and if there was cooling of 1 degree, then you could legitimately say we are “a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.” Bryson's expertise is on the first claim, regarding the temperature difference in an ice age. It’s the same flaw deniers are exploiting to make downs of the natural ups and downs of a steadily rising slope into proof warming is over.
The third source is a bit of an odd egg:
According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72.
Kukla is an anomaly in that he unrepentantly stands by his belief we are heading into a cooling period.
Gelf Magazine, in an attempt to track down the scientists quoted in Gwynne’s article predicting a coming ice age, and talked to Kukla about the article (he was one of the main sources for the New York Times piece, “Scientists ask why world is changing; Major cooling may be ahead.” And 30 years after the Newsweek article, Kukla still believes we are heading into an ice age:
Gelf Magazine: Did you hear about the 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" when it came out? Did you know your research was being referenced in it? How do you feel about that?
George Kukla: No, I didn't know about the article, so the first three of your questions are irrelevant.
GM: What do you think about the article now?
GK: Well, that the basic observation about the cooling in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and the mid-seventies was correct. However, the projection of the cooling into the immediate future was mistaken. Note that none of us expected uninterrupted continuation of the trend. The knowledgeable climate students know that the global climate works in cycles. The relatively short cycles happen to be about 60 to 80 years long, out of which one half goes up and the other half down. Right now the Northern Hemisphere appears to be at the turning point of the warming branch. Just wait!
I think this is a fringe view, but at the time of Gwynne’s piece would have been more mainstream, since the science wasn’t settled on which direction the temperature was going in the big picture. Gwynne could be relying too heavily on Kukla’s views – those of a legitimate climate scientist – that are not reflective of the overwhelmingly majority view of climate scientists, and seem even more outlandish today.
Yet, even Kukla admits we are undergoing global warming: “Yes, the globe is warming, so we do have ‘global warming’ indeed! It proceeds in up and down cycles, but the general trend is up, no doubt about it.” He just sees it as a prelude to the coming ice age.
There are a number of other citations that I have not bothered to verify, but for the moment, I’m willing to stipulate (based on Gwynne’s reputation) that he has legitimate sources for all of them, and the facts, in and of themselves, are correct. Yet, the overall picture his article paints does not seem to entirely jibe with the consensus of the time.
The lesson for the dwindling number of science journalists is how easy it is to slip up. Gwynne cites solid scientific sources, and happens to interview those who are not representative. Is this bad luck, or because he sought out the ones writing the articles on cooling and not the ones about warming?
He might not have called Mitchell who presumably could have set him straight. Starting with a story on “global cooling” might have led Gwynne to unwittingly seek out a certain view, and the fact that climate science was still in its infancy meant there was more of a legitimate dissenting opinion on the matter, and a legitimate debate about what was happening, and therefore a legitimate subject to write about.
Out of the thousands of stories Gwynne has done, Newsweek story remains Gwynne’s most recognizable work. “Absolutely and for all the wrong reasons,” Gwynne says. “I’ve won prizes; I have those hanging up in my office, so that makes up for it.
He just doesn’t feel responsible for what people do with his work. “It’s a slight embarrassment, but, I’m not responsible for it, and it’s a matter of interpretation so it doesn’t bother me all that much.”
Besides, if getting things wrong is part of science writing, so is distorting them for partisan gain. “This is one of the problems when ideologues grab hold of science. It’s very easy to pick a piece of science at a particular time and say this proves we were right, ignoring what went before and what went after,” Gwynne says.
“You see this issue, the whole argument, over Darwinism, over evolution. So much of the right wing says, oh, this is a theory! Well, theory means something quite different in science from what it means to the person on the street. A theory is something that is absolutely established by a great number of facts.
“This is the reason global warming is so controversial is that it has this impact economically and environmentally affecting everybody in a way most science doesn’t – at the time, with the piece on global cooling, there weren’t political groups getting together, there weren’t think tanks thinking hard about what to do about it – it was not an issue of that magnitude of the kind global warming has become.”
If Gwynne’s story is problematic, it is when he drifts into the potential catastrophes if the worst predictions are realized that look foolish if they aren’t. The same problem enters when Gwynne discusses “what to do” about it – they look silly in retrospect.
Most importantly, it’s a warning that when exploring the interesting scientific theories, we do not lose sight of the big picture – the most novel and interesting ideas are not always the most accepted. You can write about them, while reminding the reader when they are the minority view (I did a story on a theologian who thought World of Warcraft was a religion – though, I never thought it was an “accepted” view).
Has Gwynne changed his approach to his stories, in light of his experience with the Newsweek piece?
“I don't worry about how my stories might be interpreted. I've written stories on stem cell technology that I'm sure could be used to label me as satanic, atheistic, or anti-religious. You can't run scared.”
More on Gwynne here.
Click Here to get this from FreeFlashToys.com!
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
CafeMom has posted a list of doctors who, for a modest fee, won't vaccinate your child. Perfect for parents who want all the entertainment of …
Eighteen science organizations said observations make it "clear" climate change is occurring because of greenhouse gases released due to …
