Posts
Climate Science Versus the Ether
In my last post I highlighted the release of the National Climate Assessment (NCA) and stated that I would hardly have noticed it if it weren't for some of the reaction to it. It was brought to my attention that Bret Baier on Fox News hosted a panel discussion that included George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Mara Liasson. Will and Krauthammer spent their portion of the time throwing doubt and contempt on climate science, while Liasson played it mostly down the middle.
To be honest, I found myself thinking that if this is what conservative thought-leaders have to say about climate science, then climate science is in a good place. I say this because I thought Will and Krauthammer's opposition was frankly pathetic. Krauthammer appealed to the weather and short-term variations as an excuse to dismiss climate science as legitimate (he should have consulted the report's FAQ). Then, somewhat self-contradictory, he said he would support reductions in carbon emissions if other countries would sign on. Will's argument was that his house in South Carolina hasn't been hit by a hurricane, and that climate scientists are socially induced to support mainstream climate science.
Jonathan Chait at The New Yorker did a nice job of responding to the panel, pointing out that Will was adopting an argument that applies to all of science. (All Science Is Wrong, Concludes Esteemed Fox News Panel.) I don't want to re-do the work done by Chait, so I will refer you to his column. However, I do want to comment on a few specifics. But before doing so, I want to provide a little historical framework.
A fair-minded public cannot weigh scientific evidence themselves, so they look to experts. However, when there is a dispute among experts, the public naturally has trouble coming to a conclusion. Many special interests have discovered that if they can find even a few experts to take their side, it helps to level the playing field in the public arena. This kind of confusion was perfected by the tobacco industry. As scientists increasingly found that tobacco caused cancer, the tobacco industry decided that the best way to defend themselves from the threat of legislation was to cast doubt on the science. One way that they did so was to appeal to scientists who did not think there was a link between tobacco and cancer. It didn't matter how much those scientists were in the minority; their mere existence served to strengthen the tobacco industry's side of the debate. What the tobacco industry understood was that a loud spokesperson for the extreme minority appears equally legitimate to a spokesperson for the majority in the eyes of the public. We see this same model employed for many issues, whether it be vaccination and autism, evolution vs creationism in public schools, or any other number of fringe controversies involving science. In each case, a few clear thinkers stand against the establishment, like David and Goliath.
It is a matter of historical record that some of the same people who fought on the side of the tobacco industry went on to take up opposition to climate science and were the early pioneering skeptics, presumably because of their ideological opposition to government regulation. So perhaps it is not coincidental that some of the same tactics have been used: always emphasizing the limitations of the science, and elevating the waning number of credentialed skeptics who disagree with the mainstream understanding of the science. Whatever the case, when Dr. So-and-so says that global warming is happening because of humans, but Dr. Other-guy says it is not, what conclusion should the public draw?
This is why, to certain extent, there is a proxy rhetorical battle. The word 'consensus' is often invoked by supporters of mainstream climate science. It is an attempt to put the debate in context for the general public. In response, skeptics of mainstream climate science accuse the mainstream of being unscientific for agreeing TOO much and thinking the science is 'settled.' It is a rhetorical battle over expertise.
With that as background, let's come back to the Fox News panel.
BAIER: So you don't buy that 97 percent of scientists who studied the issue --You can see what Will has done here. First he implies that the consensus does not exist because the 97 percent number has been invented out of nothing. Actually, the number comes from a study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences where the authors did a literature search in order to quantify the size of the debate in the published literature. The authors reported:
WILL: Who measured it? Where did that figure come from? They pluck these things from the ether. I do not. The New Yorker magazine, which is impeccably upset about climate change, recently spoke about the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as "the last word on climate change." Now, try that phrase, "the last word on microbiology, quantum mechanics, physics, chemistry." Since when does science come to the end? The New Yorker has discovered the end of this. Who else has?
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.It may be that George Will has difficulty distinguishing science from the ether [1].
Having dismissed the 97 percent number, Will then sought to re-cast the meaning of consensus. Rather than a sign of experts converging on truth, Will asserts that agreement is actually a sign of closed sclerotic minds. Krauthammer joined in:
99 percent of physicists [were] convinced that space and time were fixed until Einstein working in a patent office wrote a paper in which he showed that they are not. I'm not impressed by numbers.Put aside the fact that the kind of revolution that Einstein started is rare, and that his work did not so much invalidate Newtonian physics as incorporate it into something larger. Do you see the dilemma here? If climate scientists disagree, then we are told that we should await further research. But if scientists come to largely agree, then we are told it is a sign of scientific weakness.
My favorite part was toward the very end, when George Will was obviously caught a little off guard by Mara Liasson.
WILL: ...Again, there is a sociology of science, there is a sociology in all of this, and engaging the politics of this, we have to understand the enormous interests now invested in climate change.The transcript doesn't capture it, but in the video Will seemed to stammer a little before squeaking out that "sure." But he's a pro, so he recovered quickly by emphasizing the magnitude of the money from the federal government propping up climate science. Thus, according to Will, mainstream science is a product of a combination of financial dependence on the federal government and factors of socialization. For some reason it never seems to cross the minds of Will and Krauthammer that there just might be a powerful sociology in the conservative disbelief in climate science. In fact, their appearance on Fox News bad-mouthing climate science is itself one contributor to the sociological currents of conservatives. How many people came away from that segment thinking, "Well, if George Will and Charles Krauthammer don't buy it, then I don't either?"
LIASSON: On both sides.
WILL: Sure.
LIASSON: The fossil fuel industry has a big interest and you say environmentalists have an interest.
WILL: It pales in comparison to the money flowing from the federal government.
Back to Will, does the interest of the fossil fuel industry pale in comparison to the federal government? A quick search turned up a GAO report showing that in 2012 the federal government spent about $2 billion on climate science, about $4 billion supporting technological research, and about $1 billion in aid to developing countries. $7 billion is a lot of money. For comparison, the NIH budget for 2012 was almost $31 billion. What about the fossil fuel industry? I'm not a business guy, so this kind of stuff isn't really my thing. But maybe this is an indicator: excluding divestments and tax-related sources of profit, Exxon Mobile made $8.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2012. I'm not a mathematician, but if the U.S. federal government's total spending on climate-related science in 2012 was about equal to Exxon Mobile's profits in one quarter of the same year, I'm going to go with "George Will is full of hot air" on this one.
Will and Krauthammer's analysis makes for good cable TV. Their arguments have a veneer of truth (science is an imperfect and social activity, and we can't know exactly what the future will bring), and they articulate them with gravitas. This makes their skepticism emotionally appealing and helps the viewer to feel superior to the other side. But when you drill down into their assertions, it turns out that their wells of truth have run dry. Fans of Will and Krauthammer ought to demand better.
Notes:
1. Chait caught someone else trying to knock down the 97 percent claim. My favorite quote is at the end:
[Anthropogenic global warming is] not a topic of serious debate among the climate science field. It’s a topic of serious debate in American politics because one of the two major parties is controlled by a movement that resorts to bizarre, paranoid explanations for facts that complicate its ideological priors.
10 comments:
My ward is proof that you can have a congregation of highly educated but predominately conservative members and still take climate change seriously. One of my former bishops takes the view that even if there were no human component, why would we want to continue polluting our earth and its precious air and water? It's like an extension of the Word of Wisdom to him. I kind of like that.
Jared,
On May 16 President Obama made reference to proverbial 97% of scientists who support anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several studies have come up with approximately that number, but I assume he referred to the most recent, i.e. 2013 by Cook et al. published in Environmental Research Letters. To the credit of Cook and his associates, they made all their results available in a searchable database. Michael Mann could take a lesson from them.
They reviewed 12,271 scientific abstracts that contained the words “global warming” or “global Climate change” published from 1991-2011. They used seven categories to classify conclusions of the papers. Only 65 (0.5%) were rated category 1 which is explicit endorsement of AGW. At the other end of the spectrum, 78 (0.6%) were rate categories 5, 6, or 7 which essentially deny AWG. So where did all the rest go?
Well, 8,261 (67%) were deemed category 4, which is neutral, and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 33%, 98% (not 97%, but let’s not quibble over details) were rated categories 1-3, which were deemed to be in support of AWG. Hence, “97% of scientists support AGW”. But it is really 97% of the 33% that were not neutral, which is 32%, or 1/3 for practical purposes. So the real headline should be “1/3 of Climate Scientists Endorse AGW”.
But even the 1/3 is misleading because the vast majority of that is in category 3, which is only implicit endorsement of AGW. If you look at the definition of category 3 there are statements like, “endorse that greenhouse gases (GHG) cause warming” or “link CO2 to climate change” or “imply warming from CO2”. Well, no reasonable scientist denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes some global warming, but so do cow farts for heaven’s sake! The question is not about the physics of greenhouse gases. That is indisputable. The question should be about the impact of the anthropogenic component of greenhouse gases and category 3 is silent of that.
Now I’d like to make a call for references for a few claims you make. You say “A fair-minded public cannot weigh scientific evidence themselves, so they look to expert”. Really? No we don’t! I don’t trust scientists any more than I trust politicians. You say “It is a matter of historical record that some of the same people who fought on the side of the tobacco industry went on to take up opposition to climate science”. I suppose that may be true, but I’d like to see a reference. You refer to “the waning number of credential skeptics who disagree with the mainstream understanding of science”. Now that is a reference I’d really like to see, because I would consider that significant.
Matt,
The Cook study (different from the one I cited) can be found here. Of the abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97% agreed. However, as you point out, ~66% of the abstracts expressed no position. However, when the authors themselves were surveyed about their papers, 67% agreed with AGW. I would highlight a couple of caveats here:
1. The initial rating was done by abstract alone. The self-rating was done using the whole paper. However, the survey specifically asked the authors to rate based on the paper's contents, not their opinion or beliefs.
2. The self-rating evidence suggests that AGW is not particularly controversial. Hardly anyone in the published literature denies it (in either measure). Moreover, if you look at the proportions in the self-rated data, there was an interesting change that occurred just before 2000. The pro-AGW actually dropped, and the neutral increased--and they've held pretty steady. Why? It can't be because the data started to show something different (i.e. the alleged 'pause') because the 1990s warmed quickly, with 1998 as the peak. I think the most logical explanation is given by the authors in their conclusion. Namely, that it's not considered controversial anymore. After all, it's rare that a scientific paper makes reference to the germ theory of disease anymore. Scientists don't write papers with future categorization studies in mind, they write them to communicate with each other.
So the way I see it, based on this study, the agreement over AGW in the published literature is somewhere between 67 and 97%, with rejection at less than 3%.
Matt,
If you are such a polymath that you are able to personally evaluate the evidence for every important question, then great for you. The rest of us rely on experts to guide us, either because we don't have the specialized knowledge or the time. I wouldn't have guessed that that is a controversial statement.
Re tobacco: See Frederick Seitz, and secondarily Fred Singer. I presume that Naomi Oreskes covers this in her book, Merchants of Doubt, but you can see her discuss it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
The whole thing is worth watching, but you can skip to the second half for this specific topic.
As for the waning number of skeptics, I was referring to a number of controversies. But didn't we just establish that less than 3% of the published papers disagree with the AGW?
One more thing, it sounds like you are on board with the basics of AGW. The FAQ of the NCA contains this statement in section J. It sounds like you might be on board with it:
----------------
"The conclusion that the world is warming, and that this is primarily due to human activity, is based on multiple lines of evidence, from basic physics to the patterns of change through the climate system (including the atmosphere, oceans, land, biosphere, and cryosphere). The warming of global climate and its causes are not matters of opinion; they are matters of scientific evidence, and that evidence is clear. Scientists do not “believe” in human-induced climate change; rather, the widespread agreement among scientists is based on the vast array of evidence that has accumulated over the last 200 years. When all of the evidence is considered, the conclusions are clear.
There is more work to be done to fully understand the many complex and interacting aspects of climate change, and important questions remain. Scientific debate continues on questions such as: Exactly how sensitive is the Earth’s climate to human emissions of heat-trapping gases? How will climate change affect clouds? How will climate change affect snowstorms in Chicago, tornadoes in Oklahoma, and droughts in California? How do particle and soot emissions affect clouds? How will climate change be affected by changes in clouds and the oceans? These detailed questions, and more, serve as healthy indicators that the scientific method is alive and well in the field of climate science. But the fact that climate is changing, that this is primarily in response to human activities, and that climate will continue to change in response to these activities, is not in dispute (see FAQ I)."
-----------------
Jared,
With regard to relying upon experts, I have of course done that on occasion with tax accountants, lawyers and doctors, but only if I trusted them individually. I can assure you that it would be a mistake to trust any of them as an entire group. There is conventional wisdom among all three of those groups that I disagree with for various reasons, so I have to find one I can trust. It should be the same with scientists, or any other experts. Scientists are just as susceptible to bias and groupthink as any other group of people. Scientists are not above reproach.
With regard to the quote from the NCA, let me be clear, I do not deny data or physics. The physics of greenhouse gases is indisputable. The approximately 1.5 degree Celsius increase in average global temperature since the Little Ice Age is indisputable. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since approximately WWII is indisputable, and it is indisputable that some portion of that is anthropogenic. It is indisputable that sea level has been rising since coming out of the last ice age approximately 12,000 years ago. But none of that proves that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver. As far as I can see, the NCA just asserts that, it does not prove it to anywhere near my level of satisfaction.
I have so many questions. How can we trust scientists on this issue when this issue breaks so clearly along partisan political lines? How can we trust forecast models that have been shown to be so spectacularly wrong in the past? Given all the changes in earth’s climate that happened in the past, how can we be sure the change we are observing now is primarily anthropogenic and not natural? Either way, how do we know we can do anything about it, and how much it will cost? How will our economy absorb the cost? How can anything the USA does or does not do have any significant impact of the climate of the entire earth? How do we know a warming climate is a net detriment to earth, and not a net advantage? How do we know rising CO2 is a net detriment to earth, and not a net advantage? If a warming climate and increasing CO2 are proven to be a net detriment, how do we know that mitigation will not be a better choice than reducing CO2?
I could go on, but I assume you get the idea. I do not deny data, and I do not deny physics, but the theory of AGW is nowhere near as well established as say the theory of Quantum Mechanics, for example. I have an undergraduate degree in biology, but I readily admit I am not a scientist. I certainly have not made my living as a scientist. But I can read, I am educated, and I do care. If you, President Obama and the Democrats (approximately 1/3 of the electorate) want to do something about AGW, you need to start answering the questions from the other 2/3 of us, and stop arguing from authority. You need to employ the approach described in D&C 121.
Jared,
I don't know how to create a link you can click on, but here is an article from the Wall Street Journal about the 97%. This link will take to a "denier" web site, but you can also read it at the WSJ web site if you have a subscription. I am willing to sipulate that the majority of scientists support AGW, but I don't believe it is anywhere near 97%.
So how about it? Can we debate the real questions instead of straw man arguments?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/wsj-myth-of-climate-change-97-what-is.html
Matt,
I applaud your desire to understand everything, and you ask some good questions. If only there were resources that address your questions. I know, maybe you could read the NCA and the IPCC reports in closer detail. They will help you understand the evidence behind the mainstream view, and you will find lots of references to the primary literature.
I don't mean to be overly sarcastic, because I really am glad that you are inquisitive. But if your desire to learn is real, you will need to actually engage with the literature. For example, you ask how we can know that the warming isn't natural? Well, if you look at the NCA's FAQ, you'll find a high level explanation. If it doesn't satisfy you, then keep digging through the reports. Find online resources that explain. Maybe you'll never be convinced, but if you are going to adopt a skeptical stance based on your questions, I think you should at least be conversant with the standard thinking and the evidence behind it.
Speaking of straw men, did you notice that the WSJ op-ed (written by the president of the Heartland Institute and Roy Spencer) trashes studies showing 97% agreement on AGW, but then subtly attributes to them something that they didn't say--that global warming is 'dangerous' or 'catastrophic' (subjective terms)?
Let's look at this a little closer. The WSJ op-ed says, "Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions."
Got that? According to these skeptics, most skeptical scientists would agree that the earth is warming and that humans are a significant cause. Now let's look at the abstract of the Cook study we discussed above:
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
So...what is the problem?
The op-ed then pivots and cites a survey showing "most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change."
Wait, what? Didn't the NCA also express uncertainty about clouds and precipitation (see comment above)?
Then the WSJ op-ed adds that "Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous."
What does that have to do with anything?
The op-ed concludes: "There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem."
Well OK, but who said otherwise? Not the Cook or Oreskes studies.
This all makes more sense if you take a historical view. For years, skeptics denied that the earth was warming or that humans were responsible. For a while, this could be justified based on Roy Spencer's satellite data which, contrary to other measurements, did not show warming. Skeptics touted the satellite data over and against all those manipulated earth-bound measurements. Then it was discovered that the discrepancy was a result of incorrect processing of the satellite data. Oops. Then the climategate pseudo-scandal unleashed a lot of accusations that scientists had manipulated their data to show warming. Some insisted that all apparent warming was an artifact of urban heat islands. As recently as 2011, when the independent Berkley group confirmed that earth has warmed, Fred Singer implied the data was flawed and that various other measurements showed no warming since the 1940s.
It was in this kind of environment that surveys of the literature were done to quantify the agreement that humans are warming the planet. So now Spencer and Bast are here to tell us that many skeptical scientists agree that humans are warming the planet, but that there is no consensus that AGW is or will be dangerous.
To the extent that people misinterpret the 97% statistic as agreement that AGW is 'dangerous,' I suppose Bast and Spencer have done us a service. But I detect a hatchet job intended to further confuse.
(For a rebuttal of the WSJ op-ed, see here.
At the end of the day, quibbling over the percent agreement is a distraction. As my OP stated, it is a proxy rhetorical battle.
I believe there is climate change. I have no problem with many of the tenets in the AGW.
I like to see myself as a practical environmentalist, and prefer living on a clean planet with clean air and water.
That said, I think a big part of the problem on climate change doesn't come from the study or scientists, but by its own propagandists. Many have made predictions that have not come to pass. Or any time there is any type of weather, they quickly jump up and say, "see? there's climate change going on right there!"
Eventually, it feels like someone is crying "wolf!" When we are told we only have 500 more days to save the world from climate change, then we have the climate change crowd sounding as ridiculous (or even more ridiculous) than the skeptics.
Second, radical solutions do not help the situation. Having mankind reduce to 2 billion population and live in caves, is not a solution. In fact, while 97% of climate scientists agree with the study, I'm not convinced all of them necessarily think climate change is necessarily bad. Previous warming was beneficial in Europe, allowing England to grow grapes and the Norse to settle Greenland. Colder periods (Mini Ice Age) allowed the Black Death to eliminate 1/3 of Europe's population. The Great Ice Age slew many species.
So, I'm not sure we need to eliminate climate change, just prepare for it.
Post a Comment