• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

  • Start here
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics
  • Surface temperature graphics
You are here: Home / Climate Science / Arctic and Antarctic / Peter Doran and how misleading talking points propagate

Peter Doran and how misleading talking points propagate

28 Jul 2006 by group

Peter Doran, the lead author on a oft-cited, but less-often read, Nature study on Antarctic climate in 2002 had an Op-Ed in the NY Times today decrying the misuse of his team’s results in the on-going climate science ‘debate’. As we discussed a while back (Antarctic cooling, global warming?), there is a lot of interesting stuff going on in Antarctica: the complexities of different forcings (ozone in particular), the importance of dynamical as well as radiative processes, and the difficulties of dealing with very inhomogeneous and insufficiently long data series. But like so many results in this field, it has become a politicized ‘talking point’, shorn of its context, that is mis-quoted and mis-used by many who should (and often do) know better. Doran complained about the media coverage of his paper at the time, and with the passage of time, the distortion has predictably increased. Give it another few years, maybe we’ll be having congressional hearings about it…

Filed Under: Arctic and Antarctic, Climate Science, RC Forum

Reader Interactions

152 Responses to "Peter Doran and how misleading talking points propagate"

Comments pagination

« Previous 1 2 3 4
  1. JohnLopresti says

    16 Aug 2006 at 12:03 PM

    I wonder if anyone has seen the July 28, 2006 issue of Science article reporting on a study of 3He and terrestrial dust particles in EPICA during timeframe 6-28 K-years. An announcement appears on the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory website; the alert is titled “Cosmic Dust in Ice Cores Sheds Light on Earth’s Past Climate”, there. Although the announcement divulges very little, I imagine the actual article in Science might have some content interesting to RC authors and readers.

  2. Hank Roberts says

    17 Aug 2006 at 7:56 PM

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17wire-tobacco.html?ei=5094&en=2aa8667eeeb4b036&hp=&ex=1155873600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

    “WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge ordered tobacco companies Thursday to admit they lied about the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes and to warn consumers in advertisements and packaging that tobacco is addictive.

    “U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the industry conspired for decades to deceive the public about the dangers of smoking and now must pay to help smokers kick the habit.

    “Sharon Eubanks, who recently stepped down as the head of the government’s tobacco team said of the cigarette makers, “This is the first time they’ve been found to violate the racketeering statute. For crying out loud that’s significant. They’re racketeers.”

« Older Comments

Primary Sidebar

Search

Search for:

Email Notification

get new posts sent to you automatically (free)
Loading

Recent Posts

  • Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • Who should pay?
  • Site updates etc.
  • Raising Climate Literacy
  • Unforced variations: Nov 2025
  • High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)

Our Books

Book covers
This list of books since 2005 (in reverse chronological order) that we have been involved in, accompanied by the publisher’s official description, and some comments of independent reviewers of the work.
All Books >>

Recent Comments

  • Mr. Know It All on Who should pay?
  • patrick o twentyseven on Who should pay?
  • Eddy on Raising Climate Literacy
  • patrick o twentyseven on Who should pay?
  • patrick o twentyseven on Who should pay?
  • Piotr on Who should pay?
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced variations: Nov 2025
  • Nigelj on Who should pay?
  • Nigelj on Who should pay?
  • patrick o twentyseven on Who should pay?
  • Radge Havers on Who should pay?
  • Ray Ladbury on Who should pay?
  • Ron R. on Who should pay?
  • Barry E Finch on Unforced variations: Nov 2025
  • Ron R. on Who should pay?
  • Barton Paul Levenson on Who should pay?
  • E. Schaffer on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • MA Rodger on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • Atomsk’s Sanakan on Raising Climate Literacy
  • Kevin McKinney on Who should pay?
  • Kevin McKinney on Who should pay?
  • Atomsk’s Sanakan on Raising Climate Literacy
  • Ken Towe on Who should pay?
  • Mr. Know It All on Who should pay?
  • Adam Lea on Who should pay?
  • Nigelj on Who should pay?
  • patrick o twentyseven on Unforced variations: Nov 2025
  • patrick o twentyseven on Unforced variations: Nov 2025
  • Yebo Kando on Raising Climate Literacy
  • Nigelj on Who should pay?

Footer

ABOUT

  • About
  • Translations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Page
  • Login

DATA AND GRAPHICS

  • Data Sources
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Surface temperature graphics
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics

INDEX

  • Acronym index
  • Index
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Realclimate Stats

1,389 posts

15 pages

248,719 comments

Copyright © 2025 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.