One of the biggest problems in the climate change debate is the fact that many people out there fail to understand the finer points of "scientific consensus."
For an example of this misunderstanding, see Ron Rosenbaum's recent article in Slate. (h/t Dot Earth.)
His article trots out one of the staples of the denial industry: Science has been wrong in the past, so how do we know that a scientific consensus on climate change is right? Because of this, reporters should report all sides of the argument.
So if you're writing an article about climate change, you can interview one of the thousands of climate scientists out there who basically agree with the scientific assessment described by the IPCC reports, and then you can balance them out by quoting one of the the dozen or so credible scientific skeptics out there. After all, you don't want to be biased.
To support this well-worn canard, he trots out the usual examples of scientific consensus being overturned, such as Ignaz Semmelweis, who recognized that proper hygiene could greatly reduce disease, and Einstein, whose theory of general relativity superseded Newton's. Of course, the fact that the author had to go back more than a century to find these examples should give the reader pause. And never mind that Einstein's theory didn't overturn Newton's, but extended it.
Why is this such a ridiculous argument? As all scientists know, the confidence in any "consensus" can range from low to very high. For some, such as the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer, or the observation that the Earth's temperature is increasing, there is virtual 100 percent certainty that the scientific consensus is correct.
For the statement that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming, the consensus is slightly weaker. The IPCC estimates that there is about a one-in-ten chance that this statement is wrong.
For statements about changes in precipitation patterns under climate change, the consensus is weak. We think we know generally how precipitation will change, but no one would be surprised if it turns out to be substantially wrong.
Dissenting voices exist on just about every scientific question that touches the political sphere. For example, there are dissenters out there arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS, such as Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry.
Because they are always out there, the existence of dissenting voices actually tells you nothing about the actual scientific strength of a position. I doubt that even Rosenbaum would argue that journalists writing an article about HIV should balance their work by providing the dissenting view that perhaps HIV does not cause AIDS.
Rather, journalists need to evaluate the strength of the consensus that they are reporting on. For confidently held scientific views, such as the connection between increasing greenhouse gases and climate change or the connection between cigarettes and cancer, it is highly unlikely that the scientific community is wrong.
What Rosenbaum fails to understand is that promoting uncertainty is a technique to forestall action. In other words, those opposed to action want the debate to focus on the science. As long as people are debating whether climate change is happening or not, and whether humans are responsible or not, then the debate will not be about what to do, and the status quo is maintained.
In these cases, providing balance is, in reality, bias.
IBM places big bet on lithium-air batteries
We are what we think: Why the press fails us and how to fix it
Obama endorses climate bill, press corps asks about his cigarettes
Comments View as Flat
Seafang Posted 9:54 am
13 Aug 2008
Dessler's Uncertainty Agenda
Well Dessler seems to have at least two errors in just his first paragraph.
1/
There is NO climate debate, remember ! The science is settled, so there is nothing to debate; except who is going to pay for the lunatic actions being proposed to change the climate. (In what direction ?)
2/
There is no concensus either; unless you regard 2500 or so IPCC "scientists" who disagree with many thousands of "scientists" who have publicly expressed their non belief in the conclusions of the IPCC, as representing concensus. And we all know what Dame Margaret Thatcher had to say about "concensus"
Was the Big Bang , just the bottom end of the 1/f noise spectrum ?
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 2:46 pm
13 Aug 2008
Subversion of science
We can preserve the beauty and bounty of nature so that our children's children can enjoy it or we can let Earth get toasted by continuing to burn fossil fuels instead of switching to alternatives like wind and solar. The science is new, most people did not learn it in school.
For information about scientific consensus check out
'Ten popular myths about global climate change' at http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-ene ...
US National Academy of Sciences reported in 2001 that the United Nations' IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. ... Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years"
For answers to why some people persist in claiming that the science is not settled see Union of Concerned Scientists at http://www.ucsusa.org/
An excerpt reads: "Despite the widespread agreement in the scientific community that human activity is contributing to global climate change, as demonstrated by the consensus of international experts on the IPCC, the Bush administration has sought to exaggerate uncertainty by relying on disreputable and fringe science reports and preventing informed discussion on the issue. As one current EPA scientist puts it, the Bush administration often "does not even invite the EPA into the discussion" on climate change issues."
Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, a Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), offers a disturbing window on the process. From the start, Bierbaum contends, "The scientists [who] knew the most about climate change at OSTP were not allowed to participate in deliberations on the issue within the White House inner circle." 23
Through such consistent tactics, the Bush administration has not only distorted scientific and technical analysis on global climate change and suppressed the dissemination of research results, but has avoided fashioning any policies that would significantly reduce the threat implied by those findings.
"It is not just a case of micromanagement, but really of censorship of government information,"
.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:23 pm
13 Aug 2008
re: Seafang
re: Seafang
Can you find me ANY scientific institution in the world which says that manmade actions aren't a primary cause of the warming we've experienced in the past few decades.
Because I seriously doubt you can.
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwoldittake
And that even includes the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
eheath1000 Posted 10:34 pm
13 Aug 2008
Maybe by referencing the Wikipedia
Yesterday I discovered the Wikipedia has a page on the Global Warming Controversy (including who/what is causing it). It's a long page, and I suspect it includes the major figures who either dispute global warming or its origins. I think that anyone who wants to be fair who reads it would agree that it seems balanced. For example, it makes clear that essentially all legitimate scientific societies agree global warming exists and that man is a, if not the, major contributor to it. The page also notes the peer reviewed status of global warming dissenters. I think that proponents of either position would be annoyed that their opponents are even given a hearing on the Wikipedia. But this would seem to be a way for journalists to cover their asses, by directing people to that Wikipedia page for a lot more detail.
Permalink
sindark Posted 1:23 am
14 Aug 2008
Scientific consensus
Good points.
I have also written a response to Rosenbaum.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Bob B Posted 4:41 am
14 Aug 2008
The uncertainty agenda
Science is NOT about consensus. Thirty years ago the consensus was that stress casued stomach ulcers. It only took ONE scientist to prove ulcers were caused by bacteria.
Recently the Earth has been cooling and climate models are not matching the cooling. The climate models were held up as proof for AGW. That proof will fall apart as the Earth continues to cool.
Witness Hansens's silly model back in 1988--we now know that modeling is wrong!
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN.JPG
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:55 am
14 Aug 2008
Bob,
I realize it's pointless discussing this with you, but I'm genuinely curious: for the vast majority of us who are not scientists and are not in a position to evaluate primary data, how are we to know what to believe? If we're not to base our beliefs on the size and strength of current scientific consensus, what do we use? Does everyone just get to pick the results and theories they like, regardless of how well-supported they are or how few scientists back them?
For non-scientists, what's the alternative to assessing the consensus? This particular skeptical talking point makes no damn sense to me.
grist.org
Permalink
Bob B Posted 5:16 am
14 Aug 2008
Consensus
Very good question. Journalists usually already know this answer---follow the money--Read the reason why so many meteorologists are climate skeptics:
http://icecap.us/
Aug 11, 2008
Why Are So Many TV Meteorologists and Weathercasters Climate `Skeptics'?
By Bill Dawson
All three staff meteorologists at KLTV, the ABC affiliate broadcasting to the Tyler-Longview-Jacksonville area of Northeast Texas, joined forces last November to deliver an on-air rebuttal of the idea that humans are changing the earth's climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC,
The answer:
Icecap Note: The answer to the writer's question is that they look at real data, know how poorly even short term models perform, tend to be objective and more outspoken and are not being paid
grant money
to think one way. The AMS's actions to try and pressure them to accept the alarmist position and make them evangelists for their main constituency, the academic community where grants pay the bills is a sin against science. It is an abdication of their role as a once great and truly scientific organization. They have become just another advocacy group. It fact advocacy is one of their organization's goals, I guess replacing good science. Good for you TV mets stand up for the truth or at lest for your right to make up your own mind.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:27 am
14 Aug 2008
Expanding On Dave's Point
I have a friend who, while we generally agree on things, sometimes argues what I call the "no nothing" position that Dave's arguing against. And when he does, I ask him the same question. The point is, no one can predict the future with complete accuracy, or even in most cases, with significant accuracy. However, we can make educated guesses that inform our behavior, the key word being "educated."
While I don't worship western science due to its anthropocentric nature and its gross over reliance on reductionist methods and thinking, there is absolutely no basis on which to claim that emitting massive amounts of industrial pollutants into our atmosphere will not have serious consequences, even if we don't fully understand them at this point. By allowing morality, spirituality, and a strong respect and love for all life to guide what we learn from science, we can make the best decisions. On the other hand, we will make very poor decisions if we just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that there's no way to really know anything.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:53 am
14 Aug 2008
Bob,
Let me get this straight. Instead of trusting the bulk of scientists I should trust bizarre conspiracy theories on obscure skeptical websites, which counsel rejecting the experts and instead accepting the assertions of a group of people with no training in the relevant science.
And this is alleged to be a better heuristic than accepting the consensus?
grist.org
Permalink
Bob B Posted 6:42 am
14 Aug 2008
Bob B
David science is not about trust. But if you are a journalist try this:
Get off your butt and go talk to the many scientists who were once on the AGW gravy train and have announced they are now skeptics. Go Google it and find them and talk to them.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 6:46 am
14 Aug 2008
Bob
That's a rather bizarre endorsement. As far as I can tell, weathermen are a generally reliable source of very short-term forecasts. They do a pretty good job of telling me whether I should bring an umbrella to work tomorrow, and a great job of telling me whether or not it is presently raining. They do a perfectly lousy job at medium-to-long term forecasts though. Forget about really hard questions like "will next year be a big hurricane year?" - even on the easy ones like should I have the caterer provide a tent for my wedding next month in case it rains, they're essentially useless.
So tell me again why this particular group's input on the interpretation of 100,000 year ice core samples and contributory factors affecting 50 year foreward temperature gradients is even remotely relevant? And if it is, does it not naturally follow that the Patriots should fire Bill Belichick and replace him with Ryan Asselta?
Permalink
Bob B Posted 6:51 am
14 Aug 2008
Bob B
David, why don;t you do an article on why there is no big fuss among the alarmists that Hansen's 1988 climate modeling has now been proven wrong?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN.JPG
The Earths temps are way below scenario C where CO2 increases stop all together--so much for climate models and the chicken little modelers
The Earth has been cooling and each of the alarmists rants in time will be proven wrong as well.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:11 am
14 Aug 2008
weathermen vs. climate scientists
This is an interesting point that comes up frequently. I do not know why weathermen tend to be skeptics, but I do know this: as a faculty member at one of the largest undergrad meteorology programs in the U.S., I can tell you that our undergrads take no climate courses. They come out with solid educations in weather forecasting but zero knowledge about climate change. This is true for most meteorologists. (And yes, forecasting and climate are fundamentally different problems)
Ultimately, expertise matters. I blogged on this here. And those skeptical of climate change tend not to be experts. Hmmmm.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:40 am
14 Aug 2008
Bob,
Let's stay focused for a minute on the principle, not the particular subject matter. You say "science isn't about consensus" and that there's no particular reason we should trust one when one exists.
Is that generalizable? How about, say, evolution? The consensus there is pretty strong as well. But there are plenty of people running around say it's made up, it's a conspiracy, there are flaws in the theory science can't explain, etc. etc.
If a) I'm not a scientist so I can't evaluate the primary data, and b) I'm not supposed to trust the consensus, how am I to decide what to believe about evolution? Different people are saying different things. You say I can't take how many into account. So what then? What's my heuristic?
Get away from climate change for a minute and tell me how your principle applies in other areas of science.
grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:41 am
14 Aug 2008
Hey Bob
Who is Lucia Liljegren?
http://twitter.com/lucialiljegren
What's more, have you ever thought to look for evidence which would counter your argument?
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/models-do ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:02 am
14 Aug 2008
re: David Roberts
The real issue is of course more related to Cognitive Science. Not climate science.
In particular Confirmation Biases created by Cognitive Dissonance.
_
Basically,
People highly question things that tell them that their preconceptions are wrong.
Where as people tend to not question sources that agree with their preconceptions.
_
As Lakoff puts it, Progressives keep scratching their heads how someone who is given incontrovertible facts that lead to only one clear logical conclusion, and yet can still come to completely opposite conclusions.
Because it's not about the facts. It's the Filter of how those facts are viewed. Mix that with no cultural ability to tell the difference between peer reviewed science, and psuedoscience, and you get yourself people who can be thoroughly convinced of things that make no logical sense.
_
What we're really missing is that people don't have a functioning conceptual model of climate change.
And arguably, Gore has done a great disservice by simplifying that model Too Far. Giving the impression of a "CO2 Only" driven climate model.
And whenever you have major factors which go outside that simplified "CO2 Only" model, those who are predisposed to disagreeing, are utterly convinced that this "CO2 Only" model must be incorrect.
It's simple strawman logic.
So you usually see people swing back and forth between the arguments that either
- The climate is too complex, that we can't possibly understand it
- The climate is so simple, that if 1 variable doesn't cause ALL of the climate change, then that 1 variable can't have ANY impact on the climate.
The trick of course is that there's the third option.3. We can understand the climate well enough to within a limited error range. And from that we can figure out scenarios of it's risk implications.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:19 am
14 Aug 2008
Money quote
"Balanced coverage does not, however, always mean accurate coverage."
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Bob B Posted 10:57 am
16 Aug 2008
Uncertainty agenda
David-??
As Lakoff puts it, Progressives keep scratching their heads how someone who is given incontrovertible facts
Please elaborate as to what are the incontrovertable facts for AGW--I would just love to see some warmenista list them for me?? LOL
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:38 pm
16 Aug 2008
Well then
How about a simple one.
If Increased Solar Intensity were a primary cause of the increased warming we've seen for the past few decades, then the area above the Greenhouse layer should be getting more incoming and outgoing heat.
The area above the greenhouse layer should be getting warmer.
However,
If Increased Greenhouse Gases were a primary cause of the increased warming we've seen for the past few decades, then the area above the Greenhouse layer should be getting the same incoming but less outgoing heat.
The area above the greenhouse layer should be getting colder.
Care to guess what's been happening to the area above the Greenhouse layer? (i.e. The Stratosphere)
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Bob B Posted 10:13 pm
16 Aug 2008
Unceratinty principle
Easy one:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3161
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sherwood-allen-and-radi ...
GCM's in no way match the temperature distributions especially missing is the "HOT SPOT"
Permalink
Bob B Posted 10:41 pm
16 Aug 2008
Uncertainty agenda
Come on David--you can do better then that. Please list all the incontrovertable facts that "PROVE" AGW has caused the recent slight warming over the past ~20yrs.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:19 am
17 Aug 2008
Heh
The trick there of course, that is specifically talking about only the tropics.
But you are correct, I haven't seen focus on this smaller niche for my tastes.
However it's not that hard to believe that they are wrong considering the two papers in question come from Fred Singer, and Christy/Spencer (i.e. Rush Limbaugh's favorite meteorologist)
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=4 ...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072308/conten ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/rush-limbaugh-falls-for-global- ...
http://greyfalcon.net/christy
_
Frankly, to this point, I need to do a bit more digging.
Now clearly Realclimate and such went over Douglass et al 2007, in short. If you cherry pick a trend with no error bars, in a limited noisy dataset, you can come up with almost anything.
However I haven't really seen anything on Spencer et al 2007
And I haven't really seen much in the way of a peer reviewed rebuttal of either.
_
But still of course, aside from the Tropics, the Stratosphere is still cooling.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:22 am
17 Aug 2008
Oh
And you might enjoy this.
http://www.desmogblog.com/climateaudit-endorses-1988-clim ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:47 am
17 Aug 2008
It's not global warming
That was an oversimplification all along.
It is GHG climate disaster, featuring extra trapped solar energy. Individual temperature trends in various regions going up or down are not part of the proof.
Bob's argument is that since the temperature is not rising in one area, global warming is false. This is just as silly as saying that it's cold outside today, so global warming isn't true. A dimbulb limboob line of astounding popularity. As in "Brrrr..it's cold outside, where's your global warming now?"
It is increased weather volatility that results from the increased solar energy retention. Temps at the poles and on glaciers rising, melting the ice.
Extremes in rain fall, temperature swings, drought, storms and so forth, that make the climate less human friendly.
Even concrete buildings blow away in 300+ mph tornadoes. A nuclear bomb or fire storm set off by humans can produce this level of destruction in relatively small areas. But storms can do this over whole regions.
Drought or flood can kill all the crops in a whole region.
That is why it is properly named GHG climate disaster, instead of global warming. Bob and his blog friends are hiding this basic fallacy behind theory laden terminology that one suspects few if any of them actually understand.
This is an old talking point disguised with technical language that scares most people away. Nice try Bob. This is why "drug" limbaugh still has an audience. Speaking of talking points. Whatever happened to drudge? Haven't heard him mentioned antwhere lately.
Most don't want to prove they are scientifically illiterate when it comes to the incredibly complex mathematics of climate study, they would rather remain silent and cover that common failing up.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob B Posted 5:22 am
17 Aug 2008
Uncertainty agenda
So David. where are the incontrovertable facts that "PROVE" AGW has caused the recent slight warming over the past ~20yrs?
I'll give you a hint---don;t waste your time--there are none. The only thing holding up the AGW scare are climate models which recently have been shown to not include feedbacks correctly and especially don't simulate could cover,ENSO,PDO,AMO etc.
So please next time don;t be so blustery about skeptics until you get your FACTS straight.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:34 am
17 Aug 2008
Bob,
One more try. Let's forget for a moment about global warming. I want you to tell me how your "consensus doesn't matter" principle applies to other areas of science.
Do you accept the prevailing scientific consensus with regard to evolution? Gravitational fields? The behavior of gases at high pressures?
When do you accept the scientific consensus and when do you not? I'm just not clear on the principle at work. Can you answer the question before your recite any more talking points?
grist.org
Permalink
Bob B Posted 6:07 am
17 Aug 2008
Uncertainty agenda
David, the consensus is only as good as the last good measurement. One data point can turn any "theory" into a falsehood. At first quantum theory was not accepted as consensus. Einstein refused to accept some conclusions from quantum mechanics. Recent measurements using delayed choice experiments with photons show "spooky " action at a distance is verified.
Evolution is still a theory, but the data coming from fossils still point to evolution as being a viable theory. But then again one discovery in the future could possibly negate that? As far as gravitational waves, string theory etc need to be verified. If a theory can never be verified one could argue it is useless.
One exciting experiment due to be run soon at CERN could verify the theory of cloud formation due to high energy particles. If CRF does indeed change cloud cover, then that would go a long way to prove the reasons for the slight global warming. Cloud cover has a huge effect ~15W/M-sq
Climate models are suppose to be valid over decade time scales. It is only now that Hansen's original 1988 simulations have shown to be wrong. So what are the consequences for that? None he goes around like a loon talking now about tipping points and that we are all going to die. Why should we believe him now?
So for a journalists, the way I see it is to report on real DATA. Keep away from speculation and keep politics out of science and keep activists like Hansen out of positions where he has huge conflicts of interest.
Follow the money. search out who or how people would benifit from public funding.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:11 am
17 Aug 2008
again
cough
http://www.desmogblog.com/climateaudit-endorses-1988-clim ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:26 am
17 Aug 2008
Also
Does getting a public research grant mean that you personally get a fat paycheck? Or not.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.h ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:58 am
17 Aug 2008
Ah ha
The old moldy "just a theory" talking point. With blather about other scientific theories.
Good one Bob.
Which dimbulb limboob talking point will he use next? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink