In an otherwise fascinating story on the growing "icebreaker gap" in the rapidly defrosting Arctic Ocean, NYT reporter Andy Revkin writes:
Even with the increasing summer retreats of sea ice, which many polar scientists say probably are being driven in part by global warming caused by humans, there will always be enough ice in certain parts of the Arctic to require icebreakers.
I do not view a quadruple-hedged climate impact attribution as acceptable for a major media outlet: "many" and "polar" and "probably" and "in part"!
It isn't just "many polar scientists" who say this, it is pretty much "the overwhelming majority of climate scientists" -- especially because he threw in two more hedges "probably are being driven in part." Heck, with those two hedges, you could probably just drop "many polar" and say "which scientists say probably are being driven in part by global warming caused by humans."
Second, "always" is forever, but ice isn't, especially since on our current greenhouse gas emissions path, we may see more than 5°C global warming this century). Had Revkin said "there will always be enough ice in certain parts of the Arctic during some parts of the year," that I think would be something many polar scientists would probably agree with (in part). But as is now written, I think not.
Note to media on hedging climate science:
I think it is a central role of the media to let the public know just how solid the overall scientific understanding of climate science is. I think matters of climate science should have two hedges at the very, very most -- and only then if it is a relatively controversial matter and your editor refuses to let you use a single hedge.
I think well-established reporters on climate science, like Revkin, should have at most one hedge, especially for areas that are not especially controversial.
Using this story as an example, if my editor would let me, I'd have written:
Even with the increasing summer retreats of sea ice, which climate scientists say are being driven in large part by global warming caused by humans ...
I think the very least that is acceptable would be:
Even with the increasing summer retreats of sea ice, which polar scientists say probably are being driven in large part by global warming caused by humans ...
Though even there, I think "climate scientists" would be preferable.
I think one could also drop "in part" entirely, since the word "driven" has its own ambiguities. Thus the strongest version could read:
Even with the increasing summer retreats of sea ice, which climate scientists say are being driven by global warming caused by humans ...
Yes, that is strong. But how many climate scientists could you find do disagree with that statment? In 10 or 20 years, historians and sciences and even the general public of the scratching their heads at how we could have been so wishy-washy reporting the obvious.
Note to Revkin: Going back to your original phrasing, can you even find three polar scientists who disagree with the claim that "the increasing summer retreats of sea ice ... probably are being driven in part by global warming caused by humans"? Not with the words "in part" there. Heck, how many would disagree with the statement if it read "in large part."
Bottom Line: I'm not certain how the public is going to understand the dire nature of our climate situation in time to avert calamity if the media keeps filling their climate science articles with multiple hedges.
Update: I really do not mean to single out Revkin. He just happens to be the gold standard -- the most prolific and high profile climate journalist. That's why I changed the post headline (though the slug remains unchanged since changing it screws up those with an RSS feed). I have complaints about many other major media outlets, for instance, Dateline NBC
That said, I view part of Revkin's next comment as outrageous. He writes, "hardly any would say there's sufficient evidence to characterize it as the dominant force up there." Now the best spin on that remark is that he is referring just to the explanation for the full extent of the 2007 ice melt. The problem is, his article was about "the increasing summer retreats of sea ice." That makes his comment simply untrue.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
The science behind a climate headline
Comments
View as Flat
Andy Revkin Posted 1:02 am
21 Aug 2008
Andy Revkin Says:
August 17th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Joe,
I think you've completely missed the boat this time in your chiding about inappropriate media multiple hedges (including mine). These are scientists' hedges, not mine. They are based on the extraordinary complexity of the Arctic Ocean system. Arctic sea ice is varying there because of dynamics AND thermodynamics on many time scales and driven by all manner of influences -- with much of the recent drop due to a big flush of thick old ice many years ago. For that October story [link above], I interviewed two dozen Arctic hands, almost all of whom said there had to be a human element.
But hardly any would say there's sufficient evidence to characterize it as the dominant force up there. Marika Holland at NCAR warned that the same variability that caused the remarkable dip in 2007 (and less remarkable one this year) could just as easily throw a wrinkle in the other direction.
In nearly 25 years of writing on humans and climate, I've learned to try to distinguish between the facets that are clear and those that remain uncertain. I think that is serving a greater public service than saying we know everything now only to have, say, the Arctic flicker back into cool, icy mode for awhile.
So while there are few caveats any more about the basics (as in the IPCC saying that more than half of the global warming since 1950 is "very likely" human caused), when it comes to regions (Arctic particularly), the complexities and uncertainty rise. But don't take my word for it. Come with me to the sea ice some time, or simply to the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, or an Arcus meeting, and let me introduce you to 20 or 30 scientists working incredibly hard to clarify that Arctic Ocean pixel point in the climate picture.
Click here for more about what's up with North Pole sea ice.
[JR: Andy, I think this is one of those cases where you have let your own abundant knowledge of the Arctic blind you to the obvious. I am very well aware and have previously blogged that there are multiple factors that determine the degree of ice lost any given year -- but the literature is clear that even in 2007, global warming played "a large part" (see "What drove the dramatic retreat of arctic sea ice during summer 2007?").
But your paragraph was not about the specific details explaining the full extent of the 2007 ice melt. It was about "the increasing summer retreats of sea ice." Again, to say that MANY POLAR scientists say that is PROBABLY being driven IN PART by global warming caused by humans is to eviscerate everything we know about climate science. I assert in the strongest possible terms that at the very least "many" should have been replaced by "most" and "in part" by "in large part" -- the latter of which is not mean "the dominant cause." Although again I challenge you to name even five polar scientists who do not think human-caused global warming is the dominant cause of "the increasing summer retreats of sea ice."
Andy -- Four hedges is at least two too many.]
Andy Revkin Says:
August 17th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I stand by what I said in the story and response above. You have a PhD and understand evidence and statistics and complexity. I'll send out a query, rather than speaking for the sea-ice community, and post anew at Dot Earth.
But as a starting point, I'll propose now -- and I'll change this if they disagree -- the names of some leading scientists in this field who I'm quite sure would NOT say there is sufficient evidence to conclude that human-caused global warming IS the main cause of increasing summer retreats of sea ice (although they would say there is strong likelihood that it will eventually dominate):
James Morison, U. of Washington
Igor Polyakov, U of Alaska, Fairbanks
Claire Parkinson, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Son Nghiem, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Marika Holland, National Center for Atmospheric Research
John Walsh, U. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (and UAF)
I stand by the summation of ice experts' views in my 2007 story:
"More than a dozen experts said in interviews that the extreme summer ice retreat had revealed at least as much about what remains unknown in the Arctic as what is clear. Still, many of those scientists said they were becoming convinced that the system is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role."
- Andy Revkin
nytimes.com/revkin
Permalink