• 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: Apr 2026
  • A reflection on reflection
  • Spencer’s Shenanigans: Part II
  • The Puzzling Pleistocene
  • How robust is our accelerometer?
  • Unforced Variations: Mar 2026

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

  • Paul Pukite (@whut) on A reflection on reflection
  • Nigelj on A reflection on reflection
  • CM on Unforced Variations: Apr 2026
  • Matt Skaggs on A reflection on reflection
  • Ray Ladbury on A reflection on reflection
  • Barton Paul Levenson on A reflection on reflection
  • Barton Paul Levenson on A reflection on reflection
  • JCM on A reflection on reflection
  • Rory Allen on A reflection on reflection
  • MA Rodger on Unforced Variations: Apr 2026
  • Jean-Pierre Demol on A reflection on reflection
  • Nigelj on A reflection on reflection
  • Paul Pukite (@whut) on Unforced Variations: Apr 2026
  • John Mashey on A reflection on reflection
  • Robert Cutler on A reflection on reflection
  • Nigelj on A reflection on reflection
  • Robert Cutler on A reflection on reflection
  • Nigelj on A reflection on reflection
  • Tomáš Kalisz on A reflection on reflection
  • Thomas Gordon Hewitt on Unforced Variations: Apr 2026
  • Secular Animist on Unforced Variations: Apr 2026
  • Ray Ladbury on A reflection on reflection
  • MA Rodger on A reflection on reflection
  • Radge Havers on Unforced Variations: Apr 2026
  • zebra on A reflection on reflection
  • Paul Pukite (@whut) on Unforced Variations: Apr 2026
  • Ron R. on Unforced Variations: Apr 2026
  • Robert Cutler on A reflection on reflection
  • MA Rodger on A reflection on reflection
  • Jean-Pierre Demol on A reflection on reflection

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

1,404 posts

15 pages

251,141 comments

Copyright © 2026 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.