The Climate Debate Froth
In an interesting essay in the NYT, a philosopher reminds us that there is
no denying that there is a strong consensus among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. “” in their view, human activities are warming the planet.
Since there is no denying this, hardcore climate skeptics (who don’t believe in AGW) take a broad brush approach to tar an entire discipline: they will point to Climategate or IPCC mishaps as a means to condemn all of climate science as hogwash. I don’t get this. It’s like saying all journalism is rotten because of a plagiarism scandal or the deviant behavior of a newspaper. And the journalism scandals I cited are way worse than any controversy (in terms of actual misdeeds) that’s dinged the climate science profession.
Moreover, there’s an erosion of public faith in journalism after such incidents that is way deeper than what the climate science community experienced after Climategate. I know some people like to think that public confidence in climate scientists plummeted after Climatemage, but it’s not borne out by polls. (See here and here.)
Also, as Roger Pielke, Jr. has said many times,
the battle for public opinion on climate change has been won by those who argue that there is a profound human influence on climate and action is warranted.
At any rate, what I like best about the philosopher’s piece in the NYT is this:
I am not arguing the absolute authority of scientific conclusions in democratic debates. It is not a matter of replacing Plato’s philosopher-kings with scientist-kings in our polis. We the people still need to decide (perhaps through our elected representatives) which groups we accept as having cognitive authority in our policy deliberations. Nor am I denying that there may be a logical gap between established scientific results and specific policy decisions. The fact that there is significant global warming due to human activity does not of itself imply any particular response to this fact. There remain pressing questions, for example, about the likely long-term effects of various plans for limiting CO2 emissions, the more immediate economic effects of such plans, and, especially, the proper balance between actual present sacrifices and probable long-term gains. Here we still require the input of experts, but we must also make fundamental value judgments, a task that, pace Plato, we cannot turn over to experts.
Sure the battle over global warming’s particulars, such as climate sensitivity, time scales, impacts, and threat risk continues apace. Combine that with the overheated, politicized rhetoric and the dueling value judgments that people bring to this debate and you have the frothy state of the climate debate.
Very true.
It is indeed peculiar that when faced with such a strong scientific consensus, that implicitly or explicitly critics resort to conspiracy theories that the whole field is just bunk/biased/fraudulent/all of the above.
The sooner we recognize that
“The fact that there is significant global warming due to human activity does not of itself imply any particular response to this fact.”
the sooner the public debate can focus on the important question of how we want to respond to this ensuing situation?
There is no such thing as a ” strong scientific consensus “. Either scientist agree or they do not agree as a whole. The fact is that scientist do not agree with AGW as a whole. Furthermore, there has been no global warming since 1998 even based on the ” homogenized data” that is used to support AGW. Show me the data, methods, procedures, and the truth will be out. Hiding the data, methods, and procedures only shows a lack of confidence in AGW as a whole. A true scientist is eager to publish his/her findings so that the rest of the scientific community can confirm or correct their work. True science is open science. The function of scientific journals is to present the data, methods, and procedures of ongoing research and their results.
Keith any chance you’d consider some new blog rules? As a start, I’d suggest disemvowelling anyone who brings up the ‘no warming since 1998’ canard…
I agree that we ultimately have to make value judgments.
However, in order to make value judgments, or do a proper cost-benefit analysis, we need to know where we are today, compared to where we have been in the past.
That is what a lot of the fighting is really about – do we really know know, today, how much the planet has warmed, since 1850? Or in the last 1000 years, or the last 2000 years?
Yes it has warmed – but it seems that all we can really say is it seems to have warmed around .8C.
A lot of the fighting is really around the error bars on that .8C, and how much of it is do to carbon, versus adjustments to the temperature record, UHI, land-use changes, cloud cover changes, etc.
Most skeptics are really just trying to get a handle on where we are, and how accurately we know where we are, to give some foundation for the predictions of where we may go in the future.
It doesn’t help when scientists say it is the warmest it has been in 1000 years (which turns out not to necessarily be correct, within the margin of error of our data) – or warmest in 2000 years – or the like.
It is claims like these, made to persuade or advocate, which give rise to what alarmists like to consider nit-picking – but which is really just people (called skeptics) trying to get a handle on where we really are today, compared to the past, in order to ground any predictions for the future.
So I agree with much of what you quoted.
However, to really look at “the proper balance between actual present sacrifices and probable long-term gains”, you really need to agree on a common set of data to measure these items against – which is where I think much of the present battle lies.
Marlowe #3:
Seems like a harsh rule – especially given peer reviewed papers like the recent PNAS paper called “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008″ by Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stock.
The abstract states “Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming . . .”
Even Phil Jones was quoted as saying that no statistically significant warming has occurred since 1995. He changed his mind based on later data, but for a time agreed with the “hiatus” position (from 1995 not 1998).
As did Trenberth (at least arguably).
So, I would not suggest “disemvowelling” anyone over this statement – as it seems at least arguable.
The consensus is that humans are causing global warming. Nothing more than that. To wit, here’s another testimony (surely a canard in Marlowe’s world) from Phil Jones:
Q. When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?
A. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
I don’t see much evidence of what Pielke is claiming. Looks like wishful thinking to me.
@ Bart
how we want to respond to this ensuing situation?
We need a rational framework to respond to the situation but it doesn’t exist.
Bart V wants the public to focus on the important question of how we want to respond to this ensuing situation. That question has already been answered. We want an as rapid as possible movement away from carbon fuels.
Get a grip folks, climate change is dead. The USA, Japan and Canada are out of the Kyoto protocol, there is nothing to replace it and by 2012 there will be more countries backing out. This spells the end of carbon pricing, global government, global wealth re-distribution, global taxes, population control, forced veganism, wind, solar power and all of the rest of the goofy greenie left ‘save the planet’ aspirations.
Cheers
@5
Here is what Jones said:
“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
As I’m sure you know, the 1998 start point was suggested by that paragon of honesty, Dick Lindzen, precisely because the interval length was too short to establish statistical significance at the 95% confidence level.
Of course when you add an extra year, you do get statistically significant warming at the 95% confidence level:
“Last year’s analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.
“The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use,” Professor Jones told BBC News.
“Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
“It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that’s why longer series – 20 or 30 years – would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis.”
@7
“We want an as rapid as possible movement away from carbon fuels.”
As long as it doesn’t cost anything…
@ Paul
That question has already been answered. We want an as rapid as possible movement away from carbon fuels.
Did I miss something? Who is “we”?
Keith,
I think your comparison of journalism with climate science utterly misses the mark. How exactly did the rest of the journalism community react to these scandals ? Do you see overwhelming and public disapproval or do you see sophistic efforts to hide it under the carpet and pretend no problem exists ? Therein lies the difference.
If the New York Times flatly denied that the events ever occurred, the Chicago Tribune diverted to a discussion of how it really couldn’t be plagiarism because there were a few misspellings that didn’t exist in the original and Los Angeles Times decided it really wasn’t so bad because the Tea Party had done worse, then yes, I would paint modern journalism with the same broad and disdainful brush.
I would hold that what really drives the skeptics is more the reaction to the mistakes and scandals by the entrenched interests than the mistakes and scandals themselves.
disemvowelling
An interesting concept.
It is my understanding the human pattern recognition allows most adults to read english with most of the vowels missing, so this might not as much of a punishment as MJ imagines. It might even be fun:
thr hs bn n glbl wrmng snc 1998.
Now that I think about it, disemvoweling reminds me a lot of the new “texting” english that younguns use.
Keith writes: “I know some people like to think that public confidence in climate scientists plummeted after Climatemage, but it’s not borne out by polls…
Also, as Roger Pielke, Jr. has said many times…”
But, without even getting into the poll details and sources, your links are out of date:
“Survey shows 71% of Britons are concerned about climate, despite hacked emails, failure at Copenhagen and cold weather”
guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 June 2010
“The Climate Majority”
June 8, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09krosnick.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Same for Pielke Jr. = 09 June 2010
And all from the same week, more than a year ago.
Nostalgia for the good old days?
Due to more information and political climate change, those polls are obsolete. How about addressing something more current?
@12
yes there has 🙂
the point is that its a form of censure that helps to keep the discussion from devolving to the same tired talking points…it’s not about ‘punishment’…
Here’s a more recent (July 11, 2011) American poll:
“Only 44 percent say they “believe the theory” that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the Earth, down from 51 percent in 2009 and 71 percent in 2007, but most movement has been into the “not sure” column.”
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/07/11/Poll-Most-see-disasters-few-climate-turn/UPI-71691310419193/#ixzz1S0yWaC5U
15. On what basis do you keep insisting on your ‘there has been warming’ point?
Keith, the comparison between a branch of science and journalism doesn’t work.
Science does not advance in a smooth linear way – instead it’s jerky. There are breakthroughs followed by periods with no movement.
Climate science is in a stationary period right now – waiting for its FIRST breakthrough. They are still on the start line: no laws no underlying principles.
The fact that they pretend otherwise and pretend their discipline has something to say is the scandal. They are cargo-cult scientists – building the bamboo control towers and waiting for the planes to land.
Ed (#16),
Most of the movement (mainly towards “unsure”) in your Harris poll occurred before the manufactured controversy known as “ClimateGate”, and the rest is probably near the margin of error, so I’d say 2010 polls are still very relevant.
The move coincided with the U.S. political shift in 2008 (being highly concentrated among political conservatives suddenly alarmed at the prospect of being “taxed”), consequent attacks by media outlets on climate science as a response to growing momentum towards climate action, and a few colder winters in some populated portions of the United States (which extended beyond 2009), which deniers took full advantage of. “ClimateGate” impact was very limited, mainly reinforcing views among those already inclined.
http://woods.stanford.edu/research/americans-support-govt-solutions-global-warming.html
Despite significant public skepticism, much of which is fairly light (one could say they are skeptical of rhetoric from “skeptics” too), a large majority of Americans favor action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 76% in the poll above. Specific actions such as cap and trade tends to garner majority support as well.
I read this article earlier this morning and wasn’t as impressed with it as Keith was. It basically came off as a giant appeal to authority and then was punctuated with the tossed off “but I’m not just arguing for total scientific authority”.
Take this little nugget from the column: “Precisely because we are not experts, we are in no position to adjudicate disputes among those who are. Finally, given a consensus on a claim among recognized experts, we nonexperts have no basis for rejecting the truth of the claim.”
So what about when a group of experts (climatologists)and their supporters use their credentials in one field of expertise to claim authority in fields where they have none(economics, politics)?
What about when the conclusion of the experts is not a black and white, -either it exists or it doesn’t- fact such as say germ theory for example, but a spectrum of possibility like the IPCC sensitivity range?
I understand and support trust in scientific rationalism as a means of safeguarding a healthy, successful society. However, when a particular field of study makes claims that have the cultural, technological and policy implications that climatology does it is demanding an immense amount of trust from society. When proponents of these claims do not acknowledge this trust that is being requested but quite the opposite -ridicule and dismiss those that are justifiably skeptical as either idiot bumpkins, industry shills or mentally deficient in some manner you can bet that skepticism will solidify.
19. NewYorkJ
So many polls. But it seems to me that if cap & trade or any real action on this did “garner majority support” as suggested, the real polling experts would be riding that… yet Obama et al are virtually silent on the issue and it seems to have become a litmus test for the Repub contenders.
Not to mention what is happening in Australia now.
And I do believe that Climategate, combined with the not unrelated blowout at Copenhagen, was the tipping point. On many levels. The shock film presented as the intro to that conference was so far over the top that it perfectly symbolized the hysterical wolf crying that is now having inevitable result.
And true, to paraphrase Trenberth, that missing heat is a bit of a PR, not to mention scientific, problem. And the recent ‘AGW causes everything’ mantra just adds to that.
Ed (#21),
And I do believe that Climategate…
I’m not sure what you “believe” is terribly relevant, unless there is evidence to support it. Your argument seems to be more associated with what you want reality to be.
There’s definitely a cry wolf thing going on among global warming deniers and individuals looking to stop action on the issue. For example, there are many in Australia proclaiming calamitous economic consequences as the first nationwide carbon tax in history is set to be enacted. If Australia goes forward with the program and that catastrophe doesn’t materialize as proclaimed, it won’t look good for the media outlets pedaling it, and Australians affected by the fear-mongering might be pleasantly surprised when they see their taxes reduced. Fear-mongering on global warming mitigation might have long-term consequences for those doing it, but most particularly if they fail to stop legislation and citizens realize it’s not the monster some have claimed it was.
http://theconversation.edu.au/frank-jotzo-popular-tax-cuts-and-a-carbon-price-that-just-might-deliver-2255
One could say the same for those using cold weather events as evidence against global warming, although the goal of deniers is mainly to spread doubt, not necessarily win the argument, and so I think such rhetoric is at least somewhat effective. But doubt isn’t always sufficient to cause people to oppose policy.
There’s another recent poll that I found to be interesting, one that surprised me a little, but one that might indicate that the effectiveness of global warming denial as a political position is confined at most to Republican primaries, or perhaps accepting the science while opposing policy is acceptable enough among their ranks…
Political candidates get more votes by taking a “green” position on climate change – acknowledging that global warming is occurring, recognizing that human activities are at least partially to blame and advocating the need for action – according to a June 2011 study by researchers at Stanford University.
Among Democratic and Independent voters, a hypothetical United States Senate candidate gained votes by making a “green” statement on climate change and lost votes by making a “not-green” statement – expressing skepticism about global warming – compared to making no statement on climate, the study found. Among Republican voters, the hypothetical candidate neither gained nor lost votes by taking either position.
http://woods.stanford.edu/research/climate-politics.html
well since the comment section there is shut down i’ll have to slum a bit and comment here:
” Since we are not experts on the subject, our judgment has no standing.”
The problem with this formulation of the problem is that it assumes there is some ‘thing’ called the ‘subject’ of climate science. There is no such thing. Or rather there are many little things which we choose to call ‘climate science.’
Let me take a simple example. The global temperature index. That, most would argue, is a bit of climate science. But really what is ‘it’. It is history and it is statistics. There isnt much science in it at all. That is why, for example, ‘non experts’ like Ryan Odonnell can correct the findings of a ‘climate’ scientist. Of course, there are other corners of the discipline that are more scientific and less statistical, but there are large swaths of the disciplines that are merely historical and merely statistical. I’ll give you another example: radiative transfer equations. This fundamental physics forms the core of the argument for AGW. More C02 causes more warming. That science is so well established that it has been turned into an engineering TOOL. a tool many non scientists use and understand.
more later..
CO2 by NIR
I look at it this way:
If committed activists are not willing to embrace nuclear power (warts and all) then that proves that they do not really believe that their is a problem and their motivation is something other that what they claim.
Exactly TimG. To many “activists”, (though far from all) it is just a political, idealogical, moral, even religious cause. They resent wealth, capitalism and the West in general. They are not interested in solutions, only in flagellation.
22. NewYorkJ
“acknowledging that global warming is occurring, recognizing that human activities are at least partially to blame and advocating the need for action”
That’s not exactly a powerful statement that is likely to drive much at all. “at least partially.” Nice mushy Politician-speak.
No doubt that there is wolf crying, and false certainty, on all sides. But not in that poll question.
RickA Says:
July 13th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Very well said Rick. A skeptic like me needs at least a year of casual reading to come up to speed on the science, methods and data to begin understand the issues. I only achieved a 4 yr. degree in Physics so some of the discussions between the PHd’s are difficult to follow at times. The thing that shocked me the most was the demeanor of the “scientists”; the so called the “climate experts”.
Refusing to release data that the public funded, playing tricks with the air conditioners and windows in congress, condescending blog posts dismissing scientific skepticism, remaining silent while bad science is presented in popular movies billed as the truth. These chaps don’t resemble any kind of scientist or scientific principle that I hold in high regard. I’ve never seen such bad behavior from learned people. Something else is driving their enthusiastic quest to win on the issue of taxing carbon dioxide. I believe it is a mix of religious expression and plain old greed for the money makers in their congregation.
I much prefer to remove “belief” from the study of climate and understand the basic science first. Then we might move on to discussion of policy if it is even indicated by what we learn from the science.
Keith says –
“Since there is no denying this, hardcore climate skeptics (who don’t believe in AGW) take a broad brush approach to tar an entire discipline: they will point to Climategate or IPCC mishaps as a means to condemn all of climate science as hogwash. I don’t get this.”
This is a problem (I can’t define myself as a ‘hard core’ skeptic according to your definition here)- but don’t forget that the opposite of your paragraph is interesting as well. Which is the fact that since there is such consensus on AGW, that any criticism made by someone over various claims inevetibly gets that person lumped in some nefarious disinformation campaign, paid coal interests or whatever. I think the two extreme sides of this coin are mutually destructive of rational or constructive dialogue, and certainly to truth and understanding.
The writer is obviously misinformed about climate science and “experts.” The most prominent climate scientist, James Hansen, is a nut-case bully who advocates the jailing of his opponents (a violation of international law, which prohibits ex post facto prosecutions) and who has likened coal production to Nazi death trains. John Holdren, Obama’s chief science advisor and advocate for CO2 restrictions is a colossal failure who was also elected as President of the AAAS. The writer confuses occupying an academic position with real world knowledge. True scientists would not label their opponents as deniers and would welcome data that corrected their work. The Phil Jones & Michael Manns take the unscientific position and try to stifle scientific challenges to their work. They are infused with the bias of advocacy and practitioners of 3rd rate science.
The fact that journalists are generally uncritical of the 3rd rate “mainstream” climate “science” shows that the journalists are lacking in real world experience and have generally been the recipient of a narrow educational experience.
JD