Have we oversold climate science?

What do the climate scientists think?

Posted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 9:14 AM on 26 Dec 2006

Read more about: climate | climate science

No Se Nada had an interesting post last week claiming climate scientists are starting to worry that they've oversold climate change:

What I see is something that I am having a hard time labeling, but that I might call either a "hangover" or a "sophomore slump" or "buyers remorse." None fit perfectly, but perhaps the combination does. I speak for (my interpretation) of the collective: {We tried for years - decades - to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric. We had to figure out ways to tone down our natural skepticism (we are scientists, after all) in order to put on a united face. We knew it would mean pushing the science harder than it should be. We knew it would mean allowing the boundary-pushers on the "it's happening" side free reign while stifling the boundary-pushers on the other side. But knowing the science, we knew the stakes to humanity were high and that the opposition to the truth would be fierce, so we knew we had to dig in. But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they're ready to take action. And now we're wondering if we didn't create a monster. We're wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. We wonder if we've oversold the science. We're wondering what happened to our community, that individuals caveat even the most minor questionings of barely-proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as "skeptics." We're wondering if we've let our alarm at the problem trickle to the public sphere, missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized. And we're wondering if we've let some of our scientists take the science too far, promise too much knowledge, and promote more certainty in ourselves than is warranted.}

I was also at the AGU meeting, and here's my take:

Some people do oversell climate change. Most of them are not scientists, but advocates in favor of polices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., the Sierra Club, Greenpeace). Like all advocates, they use whatever arguments they think will win. To the extent overselling climate change helps them achieve their preferred policy goals, they do it freely and without regret.

They are balanced in the policy debate by advocates on the other side (e.g., CEI, Marshall Institute, Cato Institute), who distort facts in the other direction.

That's political debate, folks. If you don't like it, move to North Korea. The scientific community has no control over either group and should not be held responsible for them.

That said, there are perhaps a few dozen scientists (out of several thousand active climate scientists in the world) that could fairly be described as "selling" climate change to the general public. They are well-known to anyone who reads the paper: Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, Steve Schneider, et al. Some of their statements do, in my opinion, push the envelope of what the science can comfortably confirm. An example: Jim Hansen's statement that we have 10 years to address climate change before we hit a tipping point.

But for every scientist or advocate that's overselling, there's one on the other side -- a Bill Gray or Dick Lindzen or Pat Michaels. In my scientific opinion, the Grays and Lindzens misrepresent and distort the science far more egregiously than the Hansens and Oppenheimers.

For this reason, policymakers (and the general public) should never rely on individual scientists for their understanding of the state of scientific knowledge. Instead, they should instead turn to assessments.

Because assessments are written by literally hundreds of scientists, the biases of individual scientists tend to cancel out. As a result, they have shown themselves remarkably good reflections of the scientific consensus, and remarkably lacking in bias. For example, it is difficult to argue that the working group I report of the IPCC assessments has in any way oversold the science of climate change. The upper range of our climate predictions is indeed dire, but that, unfortunately, is what the data indicate -- they have not been "sexed up" to push a preferred policy.

My view is that the statements of the scientific community (as represented by the IPCC assessments) are remarkably sound and not at all "oversold". During the five days I was at the AGU, I did not encounter anyone who suggested otherwise -- except for Dick Lindzen.

For story: Have we oversold climate science?
24 Comments | Post a Comment

The push of gravity, the mystery of inertia

The global-warming term is just a word to most people, like gravity, an abstraction.

I found at the holiday gatherings of generations of friends that global warming has not been oversold, is not understood, not relevant, not even interesting.

I found a generation gap. While the young listened, the old talked about themselves -- conquests in hunting and gathering. The old found it odd that I would abandon money-making ventures for something devoid of money. I was stunned by the lack of awareness of global warming among my progressive friends, so busy and more busy all the time.

I had to evaluate why I chose this barren path. It seems to me that a few people in the professions of climate, low-carbon energy, energy efficiency, environment, poverty, and politics considered global warming early then later became alarmed by the escalation and the danger while others slept. They are sleeping now.

All that I love is gravely threatened. The science of planetary warming from CO2 is quite simple. The science of human cultural inertia is very mysterious.

by sunflower at 12:01 PM on 26 Dec 2006

Clear or Cloudy Sky ? You Evaluate !

>> missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized

Laypeople do not have the deep background knowledge.... thus the language of science (like the language of Law) is not fully comprehendable to laypeople. A problem of communication.

>> should never rely on individual scientists

OK, ask the committee! LOL.

I think it is past the tipping point, however with this one we must wait.

In between times we can act or not. It would be beneficial to the world to reduce emissions to zero, and make our world totally footprint-less.

But if the global hangover becomes too bad, we might all get to regret inaction. Ain't no god gonna step in and say whoa!!!,
it really is up to us to get our existence back on track.
IMO

by Zarkov at 1:46 PM on 26 Dec 2006

at least we are talking about it over the holidays

i too had some interesting conversations this x-mas. even tho they were horriably mis-guided on their facts (i heard it was the ozone. no, its all the jet contrails. no, that is wrong, its the warming of the oceans...). funny how no one thought it was them...

but i guess the bright spot is that they are talking about it. before action comes talk.

as to oversold the science...here is my take.

if there is even a 10% chance that its correct, we should act. heck, cheney has the 1% policy...i think global warming has a heck of alot more data behind it than did Iraqi WMD's.

froggy

by froggy at 2:40 PM on 26 Dec 2006

When in doubt commision a study

Enough with the scientific certainty (as if that were not an oxymoron!) and the continuation of arguing whose report has the best predictions. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the basic metrics of the problem. Americans constitute 5% of the global population and use over 25% of the resources, contributing over 25% of the GHGs in the process. We are a wasteful, gluttonous culture that continues on the path of planetary destruction while we commission yet another study to document our collective demise.

Let's just take on the biggest problem facing us right now--the American Way of Life and the potential of distributing this consuming virus to the rest of the earth's inhabitants. That is truly frighting!

Earth Pope

by earthpope at 4:37 PM on 26 Dec 2006

Tell it like it is

It refreshing to read:

"Like all advocates, they use whatever arguments they think will win"
"That's political debate, folks. If you don't like it, move to North Korea. The scientific community has no control over either group and should not be held responsible for them"

Its important to differentiate between the activist and scientific community.

by josullivan58 at 4:56 PM on 26 Dec 2006

Are we playing too much insider baseball?

My scholarly side can empathize with the expressed concerns. If one is dedicated to the pursuit of scientific "truth" then a chronic case of self-questioning can be a useful accountability tool.

The trouble is how to translate the "insider ballball" of the scholarly realm into the public sphere, where values can matter much more than the latest scientific findings.

Scientific memes have so dominated global warming discourse that all too often we forget that this issue is first and foremost a a political crisis of unprecedented constitutional proportions. That crisis will not be resolved by greater scientific "certainty" regarding any particular scenario.

What level of commitment do we have to protecting the rights of future generations against risks imposed on them by current citizen-consumers? That is a question for the philosophers, not the number crunchers. The latter may have played a crucial role in legitimizing the general scope of the hazard, but that bridge has now been crossed.

Scientists will be scientists. But their day-to-day food fights have become an increasingly large distraction for those of us primarily or exclusively operating in the public sphere.

by Steven T at 10:33 PM on 26 Dec 2006

What is AGU?

Assembly of God / Unitarians ?

Do not be so elitist as to leave out your potential readers. Not that I matter a jot, but FYI, I have no clue whatsoever what this event was about, nor what might have been discussed.

Steven T's advisories are terrificly well put: "insider baseball," "insider ballball," day-to-day food-fights among scientists.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 2:05 AM on 27 Dec 2006

We Need Certainty

>> That crisis will not be resolved by greater scientific "certainty" regarding any particular scenario.

You have to know what is causing Climate change, for sure
otherwise you could inadvertently ignore the real cause or exacerbate the problem

You can not fix a problem if you don't really know the cause.

by Zarkov at 6:59 AM on 27 Dec 2006

On purpose and the AGU

American Geophysical Union, the professional organization of planetary science, including the Earth. The AGU policy statement on the human impacts on climate can be found here.

I too am troubled by the disingenuous nature of Vranes' post and have written about it. Lots of deniability but the purpose is clear. I simply do not believe that anyone in policy studies writes anything without carefully considering the implications and that everything that is written has a purpose.

by EliRabett at 7:08 AM on 27 Dec 2006

overselling? when the effects outrun the models?

It appears that the more scientists find out, the more trouble we appear to be in.

Take the recent revision of forecasts for arctic summer ice

If you continue the trend you'll see that at this rate in two years time scientists will forcast the end of summer ice in the arctic for 2010.
[see graph]

Scientists may feel thay have oversold climate change, but at the rate they revise their predictions, I doubt it.

by truffula at 8:18 AM on 27 Dec 2006

Advocating, distorting and selling

Andrew, I think you need to differentiate between advocating and distorting. I would argue that Hansen advocates, but does not distort. I would also argue that Michaels distorts. Gray is simply nuts (see the Aschenbach interview).

It is useful to contrast the opinions of James Hansen, James Annan and Roger Pielke Sr.. Hansen, as a modeler, understands the limits of the model, and is concerned about things that are not included. His tipping point argument is based on things that are external to today's models, but none the less serious threats. Annan's argument assumes that there are no externalities or gottchas, Pielke assumes that all externalities will break to the optimistic side.

by EliRabett at 8:20 AM on 27 Dec 2006

Me, too

I had the same experience as Sunflower and froggy, although in my case it wasn't the old folks (my generation, I presume) it was the younger generation, with the exception of two of my sons, who seemed pretty unconcerned. What I see is people thinking of themselves in simplistic terms. Saying things such as, "I like it warmer, I don't think it's so bad." And then when you point out the other issues, like rising oceans, they just don't think it's real. They can't imagine it. I, on the other hand, have no problem imagining it. So it's a strange mixture of nonchalance combined with fatalism - "We can't do anything about it anyway." It's frustrating because I often found myself on the fine line between having a conversation and pushing. It was the holidays, after all. But, yes, we were talking about it and that's a good thing. Meanwhile it rained instead of snowed, and hardly got below freezing in an area that should be well below freezing, especially at night, with plenty of snow on the ground. I got home to Maine to about an inch of yucky white slush which is probably all we'll see of snow for at least a week. But at least it will get below freezing tonight. The wildlife and plants are quite confused. It seems to me we're noticing warming effects much sooner than "they" predicted, but I don't hear anyone making the connection in the media, not even on the weather reports. No, we're not overselling the science. Not even close.

by SMLowry at 4:52 PM on 27 Dec 2006

advent calendar and elephant droppings

Thank you, Eli, for your explanations. "Advent calendar" is an excellent image, but I wonder how many readers get it.

Sunflower, Froggy and SMLowry are unusually fortunate, that at least they find themselves in circles in which e.g. global warming can be raised as a subject. Not so where we were, though indeed I distributed swirl bulbs, Larson day-by-day calendars and Oceana cookie cutters.

SMLowry is absolutely right about the weird weather here in the North East. Plants are being coaxed to bloom, which normally would not bloom till March.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 12:42 AM on 28 Dec 2006

Back to Gore

"If you continue the trend you'll see that at this rate in two years time scientists will forcast the end of summer ice in the arctic for 2010."

Once again Gore's movie addresses this.

The way the water forming on top of the ice works to collect more solar heat and melt channels down through. That lubricates the bottom of the ice and it slides into the ocean. In the case of floating ice, the water around it heats up and melts it.

It is really shocking just how much faster ice is melting than predicted.

The distinction between scientists and advocates is not really useful given the dire state we are in. Al said it, his proffessor spotted the trend in the 60s.

We are figuratively (almost literally) all standing in a burning building and debating wether to get out and call the fire department. Sorry deniers, but you are dead wrong. It's time to stop fiddling with purveyors of propaganda and act.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 5:56 AM on 28 Dec 2006

so many voices

I don't think the issue is that we've oversold climate science. I think the issue is that the world has so many voices now ... it's hard to know who to believe. On the internet, people are tending to form groups around various niches ... like the one here at Grist. These various groups have widely different points of view, and the "truth" is different for all of them.

To us here at Grist, we can question whether climate science is being oversold. Meanwhile - at the same time, but in another part of the virtual space of the web - people are strongly disputing that climate change is caused by humanity, and that it should be allowed to disrupt "business as usual."

I blogged about this yesterday on the Earth & Sky website, referring to an article by Jeff Jacoby at townhall.com titled "Climate of Fear." My post was called Climate of fear or climate of folly?

But why should some readers believe me in contrast to Jeff Jacoby ... or vice versa? I think the real question centers on why people carry the belief systems that they do ... it's a question of values.

Deborah Byrd Earth & Sky Radio Series "A clear voice for science."

by Deborah Byrd at 8:19 AM on 28 Dec 2006

only one voice

deborah-

check out my blog on "who to believe" here.

regards

by Andrew Dessler at 8:37 AM on 28 Dec 2006

Watch Gore

Watch the movie again. The graph goes back 650,000 years Deborah.

Forget the nonsense about fearfull predictions from the past that didn't come true. That is hindsight. It is so easy to pick them out now, that doesn't prove anything.

It is the corralary to true believers who pick out 2 or 3 apparently accurate predictions of a "psychic" who made thousands of predictions, and ignore the 99% of predictions he made that never came true.

The graph Al used in the movie does prove human caused global climate change. That's how science works. Massive amounts of empirical evdidence. 650,000 years of data more than meets that criteria.

And as Al points out, there are no peer reviewed articles that disprove global climate change. But a high percentage of media articles DO question it. Who's behind those articles? The same propgandists who raised "doubt" about the link between smoking and cancer, when there really was no scientific doubt at all.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 9:37 AM on 28 Dec 2006

yes yes

Andrew, I looked at your post, and I agree with you. As someone who has written about science for 30 years, all of the sources your describe are one that I'd look to, if I wanted to understand the scientific truth about climate change.

But then I'm a left-leaning, enviro, science type myself. And I've just come from a website where right-leaning, non-enviro, non-science types have an entirely different kind of truth.

I'm not asking how to find the scientific truth. I'm asking how to overcome the problem that there are so many voices in the world today ... it's hard for people (not me, maybe, and not you ... but people generally) to know what to believe.

So many voices shouting ...

It's come down to WHO you believe.

And meanwhile the climate is out there doing its thing, which, as any good scientist knows, is essentialy unpredictable.

I keep wondering ... do most people really want the same thing? A world that their children can live in? How will the voices ever stop shouting all these differences long enough for us to see that - as humans on planet Earth - we have more in common than not ... ?

Deborah

Deborah Byrd Earth & Sky Radio Series "A clear voice for science."

by Deborah Byrd at 9:44 AM on 28 Dec 2006

I still say

we have to wake up and look around. The "proof", if you will, is everywhere. Perhaps, living in a colder climate makes it easier to see than if one lived in a warmer climate year-round. But everywhere I look, and everything I read about what's happening in other, normally colder climates, indicates something is afoot. Most people want to believe that what we're experiencing is "within the bounds of normal" or is "an anomaly and next year will be different", at least this is what I keep hearing even from the weather people on tv and radio. Or they say, "Well, it's winter and so it's bound to get cold, we're bound to get snow at some point, right?" And they'll just keep on saying this until spring comes, earlier than "normal", etc.
So, yes, it comes down to who one wants to believe, but we also have to look and see for ourselves, and believe what we see rather than go into denial mode like the powers-that-be want us to.
Unfortunately, not everyone is convinced that climate change is a bad thing. Face it, most people do not read as much in depth on this subject as those of us posting on Grist appear to. I've been keeping up on climate change for 15 years or more and so have many others who post here. And so many of you can get into the nitty gritty of the science, much more than I do. What I try to do is translate what I learn, to the best of my ability, into language so-called ordinary people can understand. This is what I've tried to do on many topics in the course of my writing/activist "career". I also bring emotion and spirit into it, hoping to touch people, awaken people that way because the intellect isn't always enough. But I have come to understand that not everyone even cares. Not everyone mourns the loss of snow or cares if the maple trees die. Something else will fill the niche, or that's what is assumed, and life goes on. And really, the fate of snow and certain tree, plant, and animal species is, pardon the expression, just the tip of the iceberg. But if one is in denial or lacks the ability to think in terms of the whole rather than what will impact them immediately (which is a lot of folks), things like rising oceans, stuck jet streams, melting permafrost sound like the stuff of science fiction. Certaintly not something that will impact them in their lifetimes. I'm not sure what can be done about this but I can't help but think that if enough people were convinced that climate change would negatively impact their lives in two or five or even ten years they just might act differently today. We're in a situation that causes us to live in two different worlds: the world of everyday - work, pay bills, save for the future; and the world of tomorrow where none of that will matter because we'll be in crisis mode and whether your house is paid for or you have a few thousand in savings or investments (assuming investments are worth anything) just have no relevance. We need to act as though things were "normal" and, at the same time, act as though they aren't. A difficult task and it goes against the way we are taught in a system that strives to create square pegs for square holes so the system keeps chugging along.

by SMLowry at 10:24 AM on 28 Dec 2006

Exactly right SM

Look around. Smell the smoke in the warmer regions, alternating with floods.

Lake levels are dropping and not coming back up here in northern Wisconsin. We could smell smoke from huge fires in northern Minnesota blowing across Lake Superior here last summer.

What rules the emotions in these troubled times? Sadness? Anger?

It's hard to keep at the hopeless fight with personal energy reserves depleted by these negative feelings.

Better to focus on the reality of how close recent technology could bring us to a solution. If we could get the powers that be to mass produce it. Get even 10% of us speaking in one clear voice and we might just be able to turn this around.

Al Gore is sure doing his part!! We need maybe 20 more leaders of his stature in business, finance, government, and industry to take as strong a stand as he has. that might be just enough leadership to mobilize the 10% vocal activist population we need. From there it's natural momentum.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:56 AM on 28 Dec 2006

Amazing,

You have brought ethics to the podium.

It is not hopeless else I would not be here to educate the officers of the carbon rebellion. Hope is the emotion that will save us.

At what cost, what compromise will we be willing to endure for the greater good?

Will we kill to save, destroy a beast to protect a town, fight wars for peace? How far will we go into the dilemma of ethics.

I am faced with on-the-ground ethics and I hesitate, but for how long?

Just one example: I could raise $25 million for solar engineering, wait for this... to cook and distill ethanol. I hate ethanol. But that same engineering could displace gigatons of coal and eventually launch a new way of life that has nothing to do with ethanol. Should I hold my nose and proceed against my instincts of ethics, or wait and wait and wait for a more perfect world, one without compromise.

by sunflower at 2:22 PM on 28 Dec 2006

Well sunflower

No I think you ought to raise funds and pick graduate students to continue with solar concentrator development. Ethanol from solar collector algae would be ok too.

I personally like biodiesel from algae because it's much safer in vehicles. But fuel farming really stinks, give it no quarter!

You don't have to do all the development work anymore, let the youngsters do that and spend your time tinkering. But direct the projects.

You know you could build on your previous work and really get concentrators that would boost efficiency way up and cogenerate heat at the same time.

You gotta do it. You've been there already and know the territory so well.

You know I have a real good feeling lately that this really isn't hopeless.

Here's a good phrase to keep in mind. The difficult we acomplish immediately, the impossible takes a little longer.

You know you can count on me for lots of farfetched suggestions, hehey. But maybe some might actually work?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 2:54 PM on 28 Dec 2006

No comment on the actual science,

just thought I'd tell everyone that, today, one week after the winter solstice, in Massachusetts, my quince tree is flowering.

I don't even know what to think.

Sometimes, as I try to figure out what I'm going to do when I grow up (that is, when I finish grad school), I wonder if there will even be a job market that at all resembles today's?

I do try to limit my consumption, and I do give to organizations I think will help, but other than that I fundamentally live my life in a "business as usual" way, and I think of my future, usually, in a business-as-usual way. It isn't so much that I don't care--obviously I do, I'm here--but more that I don't really know what I can do, other than conserve everywhere I can.

I tend to assume that the world will be about the same in ten years as it is now, as it was ten years ago--everything changes, of course, but I tend to think that the same general options will be available in the future as have been available in my lifetime so far. Is that crazy? How does one prepare for what's coming?

I'm not sure this is the place for this comment, but I'm too tired to figure it out right now. This is sort of a background state of anxiety for me, and this thread, with its this-may-be-much-worse-than-we-thought slant, brought it to the foreground.

by willa at 3:21 PM on 28 Dec 2006

science, policy and assessment

I wrote a post elaborating on the need for assessment as a crucial element of science for policy, on the The Post-Normal Times, linking to your earlier one on politicization of science but could have also appropriately linked to this one.

by Sylvia S Tognetti at 11:21 AM on 04 Jan 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.