The Real “Glaciergate”

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/phobia/2308371224/sizes/z/in/photostream/">hans.gerwitz</a> (<a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a>).

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Sometimes I wonder how the public can still be so confused about global warming. But reading the news sometimes, it’s really fairly obvious. Take, for example, today’s top candidate for most misleading headline of the year, from the Telegraph: “Cancun climate change summit: glaciers increasing despite climate change.”

Holy counterintuitive, Batman! But wait—that’s not actually what the article, or the report it refers to, really says. Good thing you only have to read to the second paragraph to get the real story:

However, overall ice and snow on mountains has been retreating since the industrial age, according to scientists from around the world.

In some regions, it is very likely that glaciers will largely disappear by the end of this century, whereas in others ice cover will persist but in a reduced form for many centuries to come.

The report, released yesterday at the Cancun climate talks by the United Nations Environment Program, finds that glaciers in Patagonia, Alaska, the northwest United States, southwest Canada, the Hindu Kush region of the Himalayas, the Arctic and the Andes are all rapidly losing mass. Europe’s glaciers were gaining mass from the mid-1970s until 2000, when the trend started reversing. Some may disappear by the end of the century—the consequence of rising temperatures.

Indeed, the report does note that there are some glaciers that have grown—though the trend overall is still decline. Why? Higher levels of precipitation in some areas has caused the growth in places like western Norway, New Zealand, and part of the Tierra del Fuego region of South America. Other mountain ranges are experiencing some contradictory effects—parts of Asia’s Karakoram range, for instance, have seen glaciers making a comeback after 50 years.

To say the headline is disingenuous would, of course, be an understatement. It’s particularly problematic given all the attention to the glaciers issue this year. Skeptics latched on to a minor error in a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that gave an incorrect estimate of the rate of decline for Himalayan glaciers. The error has since been acknowledged and corrected, but has nevertheless been used to undermine the entirety of the IPCC’s work. This regardless of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the earth’s glaciers are receding—just maybe not quite as fast.

The press has really blown it on coverage of this and other issues of science on global warming in the past year. The Sunday Times had to publish a retraction for a horrible story that dramatically distorted the IPCC’s findings on impacts in the Amazon. They did retract it, but these things do have consequences—that story was repeated 20,000 times on the web before the correction.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate