Inhofe and Crichton: Together at Last!
Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann
Today we witnessed a rather curious event in the US Senate. Possibly for the first time ever, a chair of a Senate committee, one Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), invited a science fiction writer to advise the committee (Environment and Public Works), on science facts–in this case, the facts behind climate change. The author in question? None other than our old friend, Michael Crichton whom we've had reason to mention before (see here and here). The committee's ranking member, Senator James Jeffords (I) of Vermont, was clearly not impressed. Joining Crichton on climate change issues was William Gray of hurricane forecasting fame, Richard Benedick (a negotiator on the Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting chemicals), and David Sandalow (Brookings Institution). As might be expected, we paid a fair bit of attention to the scientific (and not-so-scientific) points made.
Many of the 'usual suspects' of half-truths and red herrings were put forth variously by Crichton, Gray, and Inhofe over the course of the hearing:
- the claim that scientists were proclaiming an imminent ice age in the 1970s (no, they weren't),
- the claim that the 1940s to 1970s cooling in the northern hemisphere disproves global warming (no, it doesn't),
- the claim that important pieces of the science have not been independently reproduced (yes, they have),
- the claim that global climate models can't reproduce past climate change (yes, they can)
- the claim that climate can't be predicted because weather is chaotic (wrong…)
and so on.
We won't dwell on the testimony that involved us personally since the underlying issues have been discussed and dealt with here before, though we will note that comments from both of us pointing out errors in the testimony were entered into the Senate record by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California). Instead, we will focus on the bigger picture.
First, let's be clear where there is agreement. Climate science doesn't deal in certainties - it deals in probablities and the balance of evidence. We agree with Crichton's statement that 'Prediction is not fact'. That certainly doesn't mean, however, that projections of possible future climate changes are not meaningful or useful, as Crichton claims.
Crichton seemed to imply that "prediction" (such as that provided by weather or climate models) is useless in the decision making process. (As an aside, we wonder how Gray, who is largely known for prediction of hurricane behavior based on (statistical) modeling, felt about this?). We fundamentally disagree. All science is about observation, understanding and prediction. When those predictions work, you make new predictions. When they don't, you revisit the observations, attempt to improve your understanding of the underlying processes, and make a new prediction. And so on. In the case of climate models, this is complicated by the fact that the time scales involved need to be long enough to average out the short-term noise, i.e. the chaotic sequences of 'weather' events. Luckily, we have past climate changes to test the models against. Even more to the point, successful climate predictions have actually been made in past Senate hearings. The figure at the end of this comment by Jim Hansen demonstrates that projections of global mean climate presented in a 1988 senate hearing (17 years ago) have actually been right on the money
Others panelists attempted to combat the onslaught of disinformation. Sandalow sensibly suggested that the National Academy of Sciences be used to inform the Senate on where the consensus of the science is, and Benedick made some excellent points about how legislation can be successful in the face of scientific controversy and uncertain predictions. However, none of that provided as good theater as the other witnesses.
A highlight of the session was Gray making one particular statement that he may be asked to defend (at least financially): "I'll take on any scientist in this field …. I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to cool" (1:10:00 on the video). This would appear to be a direct call to those "global warmers" (see also here, here and here) who are trying to get contrarians to put their money where their mouths are (with very limited success). We eagerly await developments!
Inhofe ended the hearing by declaring his desire to 'sit back and look at [this] in a non-scientific way'. We think he already has.
28 September 2005 at 10:56 PM
Would it not be better to ignore oafs like Imhoaf? It is curious that he calls upon a science fiction writer to appear on climate change. I would think that Crichton, who has had some scientific training as an MD (?), would not intrude on a discipline so far removed from his training and background. Perhaps he views all disciplines as suspect? Has anyone looked into his academic background to see if he published any papers in reputable scientific journals?
28 September 2005 at 11:44 PM
you can’t ignore them, because the Imhoafs of the world can say things that affect how a lot of people think, because unfortunately a lot of the American public is easily swayed by strategies and arguments that dont necessarily hold up under scrutiny. the majority of the public isn’t going to do the research to investigate the validity of such claims. so though it may be better to ignore Imhoaf, you can’t because not everyone else will be.
29 September 2005 at 12:09 AM
Crichton and Inhofe cannot be ignored if for no other reason than that they are influential. Defense of the real science should be no less vigorous than has been the defense of the faith by Christians who recognized the threat posed by the fictional work, “The DaVinci Code.” Often, fiction is not just fiction in the public mind, and the objective of the skeptics is to spread doubt, not engage in true debate.
29 September 2005 at 12:27 AM
like the town that fails to put up a stop light until enough cadavers are carried away from an intersection, i am very pessimistic the United States will act on consequences of warming or mitigate them until the evidence or damage is overwhelming.
mitigation is the name of the game right now. i doubt warming trends can be reversed quickly.
of course, the economic damage from a succession of catastrophes might end the USA’s status as a world leader, simply because prevention is, for the most part, cheaper than reaction.
like consider evacuation as a means of response: if the natural threat is avoided, it seems all it does is teach people to disbelieve in the value of the alarm. if the threat materializes, it’s essentially a means of letting the threat take whatever it wants, “pre-displacing” the population to elsewhere in the States.
29 September 2005 at 8:00 AM
I am not surprised by this take of the government, after all the other options promoted by Green think tanks seem to have failed (Kyoto-Protocol f.e.). I don’t know what kind of climate change we will get and wether humans are responsible. This is for the scientists to work out.
But imo, there is no reason that politics should interfere in it or use it to employ ridiculous policies that only hurt most hard-working people. (I live in Germany and thanks to the Kyoto-protocol my energy provider has raised his rates)
I don’t think that politics is the answer to global warming, but technology and this is the field scientists should engage in. Therefore, I think good forecast methods are necessary and I think Mann et. al. have certain points to make on this.
29 September 2005 at 8:27 AM
Inhofe has a degree in Economics from Tulsa, so he may not be best placed to interpret scientific data. Since then his history has been the army, small business and politics. They wouldn’t seem to be great preparation for scientific interpretation either. But current climate research indicates uncertainty (never mind that we’re speaking about probability) in the future, and as an economist he will know that uncertainty is bad for business. So Crichton’s views are useful because they imbue certainty - it’s all twaddle, all remains as it was, ergo certainty and business-as-usual.
This is going to be a long fight to enable the population at large to be able to appreciate the import of the current climate consensus within the scientific community. Until that happens there will be no political incentive to take things seriously, because no politician will lose their seat over it, because the electorate remains ignorant.
29 September 2005 at 9:28 AM
Re: comment 1 on Crichton viewing all disciplines as suspect…that’s probably close to the truth. Look at the range of his novels. Many deal with science-technology running rampant. And at least one character seems to be the “conscience of humanity” asking: Should we really be doing this? That, and the novels and movies are great-paying gigs. Some science-fictions writers write from a basis of hope they see in the new possiblities science and technology can bring. He seems to write as a Jeremiah. It’s almost as though he has a deep suspicion of science, regardless of what the science acutally is trying to accomplish.
29 September 2005 at 10:12 AM
I commented briefly here. (Tried a trackback but it didn’t work - your fault or mine?)
29 September 2005 at 10:43 AM
“(I live in Germany and thanks to the Kyoto-protocol my energy provider has raised his rates)”
Actually you can mostly blame your government for giving away pollution allowances to generators instead of using the money to reduce rates.
The www.rggi.org trading program in the US will likely auction at least part of the allowances as we’ve learned from Germany and the UK’s mistakes.
Read more here:
http://www.energy-business-review.com/article_feature.asp?guid=56712827-16C9-4A21-AD09-192980B92C28
29 September 2005 at 11:43 AM
To be balanced, the committee should also get the creators of DAY AFTER TOMORROW & WATER WORLD to advise them. I’m doing a fictional piece on runaway global warming, and I’d be happy to advise them. Who needs science, when we have fiction writers. Or, maybe it’s just that gov people don’t want to be balanced or get the truth (stochastic as it may be).
As for Crichton’s medical background, I’d say he’s a hypocrite to the hypocratic oath - First, do no harm, & don’t be in the business of killing people. The “medical model,” unlike the “scientific model,” tries to avoid the false negative (of saying there is no problem, when in fact there is) in order to protect people’s lives. The “scientific model” avoids the false positive (of saying there is a connection, when there isn’t) to maintain their reputation so people will believe them. “Scientific caution” (and the RealClimate folks are right on the mark in that department) is very different from “medical caution” or “policy-making” (which should sort of be like the medical model at the societal level).
Some may argue that prevention costs money, but I’ve found (to my surprise) that “proaction” on GW is not only cheaper (#4) than “reaction,” it actually saves money for households & businesses without lowering living standards or productivity — at least down to reductions of 1/2 our GHG emissions (I modestly figure), maybe 3/4, as Amory Lovins of NATURAL CAPITALISM figures. Now it would probably take five or so years to reduce 1/2 or 3/4 of our GHG emissions cost-effectively (assuming people put forth serious effort to do so). That’s how long it took me. By that time, then we might think about sacrificing a bit. Or new technology or methods by then might even help us reduce more. Let’s do it, people. Anyone out there? Knock, knock.
I happened to talk to an government engineer yesterday about global warming, and he trotted out Crichton’s STATE OF FEAR, suggesting it had a lot of truth in it. I said no it didn’t & he’d better check out RealClimate.org to see its critique by real climate scientists (luckily you’re on that topic again, in case he visits here).
29 September 2005 at 1:01 PM
Re: #10,
“To be balanced, the committee should also get the creators of DAY AFTER TOMORROW & WATER WORLD to advise them.”
I concur, though it would lower the common denominator even more.
What we need is for someone like Drs. Mann, Bradley, Santer, Karl, Trenberth, etc. to go on television to explain what is really happening, in scientific, but understandable, language to raise the bar and the consciousness of North Americans to this urgent issue.
What is unfortunate, though, is that, by doing this, network news stations (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) risk losing advertising. Companies that are opposed to mandatory measures will be unhappy with a real scientist going on television and explaining what is happening and what we must do to combat climate change (i.e. setting significant and mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets), which, they think, will reduce their profit margins.
29 September 2005 at 1:17 PM
It is rather curious that apparently Crichton’s testimony ended up asserting the degree of uncertainty we face in making forecasts regarding future climate or the anthropogenic role in it. Thus, if Inhofe’s goal was to obtain certainty and a particular line, he did not get it from Crichton, certainly not to the extent he was probably hoping for.
29 September 2005 at 1:27 PM
That’s not right Rosser, Crichton said that the best policy is having no policy on climate change and this is my idea, too.
It’s the uncertainty that is dangerous, when used in technocratic rules made by government.
29 September 2005 at 1:49 PM
Thanks for your summary of the “usual suspects”; in reviewing them, I followed the link for the third rebuttal(”yes, they have”), but only found a description of a press release about the submision of two papers about five months ago. Is there any news on when these papers will be available to the general public (e.g. are they now “in press” or are the articles posted somewhere)?
[Response: Rumour has it that both manuscripts are pending final acceptance from the respective journals. - mike]
29 September 2005 at 2:48 PM
I was wondering if you were aware that it appears that aircraft (jet) are a major, if not the major cause of accelerated climate change (both by direct & indirect emissions and also warming effects)?
Some information can be found at: www.areco.org (see “Studies”, “Climate”.
Thank you.
Jack Saporito
29 September 2005 at 4:05 PM
I live in Illinois. My provider of electric power is proposing to raise rates, and will probably succeed in doing so despite some opposition from state officials. More seriously, my natural gas rates are predicted to go up by about 70 percent, as reported in the media. And all this despite the fact that my national leaders, including Senator Inhofe, seem entirely disinclined to do anything to deal seriously with CO_2 emissions.
29 September 2005 at 4:06 PM
Thanks for the tip. Here’s the email I sent to Dr. Gray:
———-
Dear Dr. Gray,
I watched with interest your testimony before the
Senate yesterday, when you said:
“I predict, now I think I know as much as anybody,
I’ll take on any scientist in this field to talk about
this, I predict in the next 5 or 8 years or so the
globe is going to begin to cool as it did in the
middle 40’s.”
I would like to know if you’re willing to make a bet
over this confident prediction of yours.
My global warming bets are here:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_backseatdriving_archive.html#111700433898143899
The bets are for 10 or 20 year periods. The 20 year
bets at the least should be very attractive to you,
based on your testimony before Congress.
I would also note that one of my proposed bets is a
“charity” bet where all proceeds go to the charity of
the winner’s choice, and your choice could easily be
your Tropical Meteorology Project.
While I am not a scientist, I don’t think that should
decrease the value of my bet - my money is still good,
and I would be happy to enter into an enforceable
contract. If you only care to bet scientists,
however, I can also put you in touch with them.
Please contact me if you have any questions, and I
hope to hear from you.
Best,
Brian Schmidt
————–
I literally just sent this, so we’ll have to give him a little while to see if it generates a response.
29 September 2005 at 7:19 PM
Re #13 et al,
“the best policy is having no policy on climate change”
This is hilarious. So the mood now swings from flat denial to suicidal resignation?
29 September 2005 at 7:19 PM
On something of a tangent, I was interested by the five bullet points summarising popular myths about GW (and links to refutations.) I find these, and a few others, come up time and time again in conversation with uninformed people. About a year ago I recklessly announced on Slashdot* that I was so fed up with seeing the same misinformation and misunderstandings repeated ad nauseam that I’d take on the job of collating a FAQ page listing the most common such myths and misunderstandings, along with brief summaries of why and how they’re wrong and links to further information. A lot of nonsense could then be easily refuted by reference to such a ‘GW Myth List’. One of the email responses said “Someone’s already doing this, it’s called realclimate.org”, and I dropped the idea and lost myself in trying to catch up with the dozens of very interesting stories posted here.
One reason I allowed myself to get discouraged was that when I started collecting ‘in the wild’ examples, I stopped collecting at about thirty-five statements which ranged from the utterly wild or ignorant, to the relatively subtle criticisms of the likes of Crichton and Co. I also didn’t have the resources to do the debunking process justice. I wanted to have links to journal articles and the like, or failing that, to articles on credible and authoritative science sites - not to mention that I also doubted my ability not to make hideous blunders or mistakes of my own.
So, my questions is: has anyone else compiled such a list?
If not, would anyone here be interested in helping to compile such a list?
(* No, I don’t really expect learned or informed debate on Slashdot, but repeated clear explanations of how other popular misapprehensions are wrong has eventually caused some to either die out or retreat to the status of ironic in-joke - which leads me to hope, perhaps naively, that the might be true of wider society.)
29 September 2005 at 8:57 PM
Re #19,
“repeated clear explanations”
Yes, it works. Dead slow, but works. Much more needs to be done to push brain lard on. Plus: Don´t be sparing with ironic in-jokes and dark sarcasm. That also works. What else can there be uttered about contemporary U.S. senators?
29 September 2005 at 10:20 PM
Michael Crichton’s basic question was whether the “methodology of climate science is significantly rigorous to yield a reliable result,” given the modification of data by filling in gaps, and the supposed lack of verification of the results. He cited the Mann hockey-stick flap as an example.
His second point was “what to do with research that is unverifiable?” citing the UN’s 3rd assessment report stating that GCM’s are “unverifiable.”
If Michael Crichton understands science at all, then he knows these are unexceptional questions, with rather standard answers. The question therefore remains: why did he do this?
Nonetheless, climate scientists must work very carefully to address these public criticisms at every step, and we may be glad that it will no doubt improve their rhetorical skills.
While the idea of verification of results is a good (if unexceptional) one, it should be remembered that part of the political tactic of the anti-science politicians in Washington on other issues (see examples in Chris Mooney’s book) has been to introduce as many conflicting studies from industry-funded thinktanks as possible, however faulty those studies are, to bury the debate under noise. So look out, the obfuscation has only just begun!
By far the smartest speaker was Richard Benedick, who showed the way into the future for climate policy. This is a brilliant man. He was very persuasive in his depiction of unpredicted consequences, and inferring the possibilities of nonlinear events, in his story of the ozone-damaging chemicals. In addition, his CFC episode showed that market economics is creative enough to find new ways to do things, with no net loss of growth.
Despite the impossibility of predicting the unpredictable, the fact remains that OTHER complex systems we have observed, usually INCREASE the probability of catastrophe under new “forcing.” This is a factual result, and the inference is clear.
It argues for the Precautionary Principle. That is where we are all going to end up.
29 September 2005 at 10:32 PM
“A highlight of the session was Gray making one particular statement that he may be asked to defend (at least financially): “I’ll take on any scientist in this field …. I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to cool.”
I’ll take on any scientist who is a primary or secondary author of the IPCC TAR, as well as William Connolley and Gavin Schmidt, that Michael Chrichton’s prediction of 0.81 degrees Celsius warming in this century will be more accurate than all the scientists who came up with the IPCC TAR:
http://www.longbets.org/180
http://discuss.longbets.org/discuss/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=180
29 September 2005 at 11:31 PM
Re #19:
Tim Lambert wrote a helpful post refuting skeptics’ arguments that I’ve used several times, called “Global Warming Sceptic Bingo” (forgive his Australian misspelling). It’s here:
http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/
While very useful, I think an even more comprehensive version of this idea would be even better.
Different topic: we need some type of clearinghouse to announce when prominent or semi-prominent people deny global warming, so people like me will know to ask them if they’ll put their money where their mouths are.
30 September 2005 at 2:31 AM
Just saw the whole thing in video (amazing what I can do from Yokohama). Much of your criticism seems justified, but to offer a little counterbalance:
I don’t recall them making a claim that scientists, specifically, were making peer-reviewed predictions about an imminent ice age, but rather, such talk (in the popular press) was common at the time. Likewise, I don’t believe they refererred to the cooling in the 40s-70s as proof per se global warming is not occurring, but that it should raise questions in people’s minds about drawing conclusions based on recent trends.
Perhaps unfortunately, the reality is creation of public policy is determined to a far greater extent by popular publications such as Time and CNN than by peer-reviewed journals, since it is inherent in a polician’s nature to seek votes and influence above other considerations, and it is the groundswell of public opinion which gives politicians windows of opportunity to act. Still, we should also be wary of placing too much faith in peer review, since the problem of global climate is interdisciplinary and professional review is rarely done across fields.
I am inclined to support your third point, but it wouldn’t change the fact scientific studies with great influence on policy are often not independently verified. With respect to modeling, it is a great tool for finding the right questions to ask, but by their very definition can not provide answers since a model always has the possibility of carrying the modeller’s biases and blind spots. In particular, unless there’s an accurate model for modern human society — and there isn’t — the blind spot in this case is the very agent for change that is being predicted.
It was disappointing both sides didn’t address the issue of whether anything actually should be done in the face of climate change, be it human-induced, sun-induced, or whatever. Inhofe et al. seem to have allowed that if GW is actually occurring, they would necessarily have to change course and create a specific policy to lower it. Likewise, Clinton et al. (and nearly all climatologists as far as I can tell) seem to take government intervention on an urgent, global level — literally, laws to change the weather — as a given. My preference (and shouldn’t it matter as much as any climatologist?) would be not to attempt a massive global weather “correction” by government bureaucrats (right on, #13).
It is also troubling the term “scientist”, as repeatedly used by both sides, only seems to refer to those with degrees in certain hard sciences. Anyone wanting to understand the human organism as climate participant had better be willing to get dirty in the social sciences. Yes, economics is a science (re #6 above, though I would concede Inhofe is no scientist!), as are anthropology, statistics, behavioral sciences, political science, archaeology, history, sociology, etc., etc.
Peace.
30 September 2005 at 4:59 AM
Re #5 and #13
I would question whether any government can ever have “no policy on climate change”.
The policies which lead to higher emissions are not “do nothing” policies. They involve billions of dollars of subsidies of fossil fuel industries, of airport expansion and of road building, regulations which favour dirty technologies over clearn ones, granting planning permission for coal fire stations but refusing it for wind turbines, etc. The high emission scenarios come about because of very active government policies, and decisions made by businesses and individuals, not because of people doing nothing. And all this is done in the clear knowledge that an unstable climate is threatening most of our cities and food supplies, as well as much of life on earth.
Max complains about his higher energy bills. The main reason for this is that natural gas is not being produced (or delivered to Europe and North America) at a rate which matches demand. I just read that China is becoming a world leader in renewables and can power 35 million homes with solar energy. If your German government (or any other) had shifted support from fossil fuels to renewables, perhaps Max’s home would now be powered with solar energy or wind and he would not have to worry so much about ever higher fuel prices. Plus his government could be earning a lot of money from exporting renewables - instead of risking a trade deficit by purchasing gas at ever higher costs. After all, supporting clean energies is not necessarily more costly and no less profitable than supporting dirty ones. It also makes people healthier even in the short term, apart from helping to stabilise the climate.
30 September 2005 at 8:05 AM
Robert Heinlein gave testimony on the space program and aging. I think other writers have done so as well.
[Response: You appear to be correct. Heinlein was actually an engineer, but clearly he was called to testify due to his status as a pioneering sci-fi author. It just goes to prove the old maxim about history repeating itself… -gavin]
30 September 2005 at 8:41 AM
I don’t understand it when people who are worried about Global Warming complain about peak oil or high gas prices. High prices REDUCE CONSUMPTION. One of the major levers that people look at in fighting GW is to raise costs of using fossil fuels by taxing them. If we run out of them anyway, then that’s going to reduce consumption ANYWAY. Pick a disaster: (1) run out of fossil fuels, (2) keep using fossil fuels. But THINK about the interaction.
And please don’t come back with some comment about how the government should take care of everything and invent magic foofoo dust of science to fix all energy problems with stuff that is both cheap and clean…you want your renewables…prepare to PAY and have a lower standard of living…
30 September 2005 at 9:40 AM
Leaving the gross misrepresetations about MBH aside. The thing that sticks out to me is the contradicting statements offered by Crchton and Inhofe in the Q & A session. Crichton claims that proxies are useless. Inhofe claims the MWP was warmer than present. How, exactly, does Inhofe know this if proxies are useless? On what basis can he make such such a claim? Where is Inhofe’s science?
30 September 2005 at 9:46 AM
Re #21
I thought these were some of Crichton’s strongest points. I was quite intrigued by his claim that the TAR calls GCM’s unverifiable. Indeed, if there are “rather standard answers” to the above questions, would someone kindly give us the answers and reasons why the questions are “unexceptional”?
Re #24
I second the notion that global cooling was not brought up in terms of what scientists believed, but in terms of hysterical politicians and popular magazines.
[Response: Well the discussion in the TAR is actually very clear about what can be evaluated (current climate conditions and variability, past changes etc.) and the use of GCM projections of possible future climates, and all of the apparently dramatic points made by Crichton are acknowledged and discussed there. We’ve discussed this previously. -gavin]
30 September 2005 at 9:47 AM
I’m just a reader here, but may I, Oliver Twist-like, ask “Please, sir, a little less.”
The info to rebut the likes of Crichton is already available, and coverage of the politics lessens the focus of this site.
[Response: Sorry about that. We’ll be back to normally scheduled programming shortly. -gavin]
30 September 2005 at 9:49 AM
Slightly off topic, but I hope no one minds. Has there been a discussion on this site of the (relatively) recent McKintrick & McIntyre (2005) paper? I’m away from the library and my subscription to Web of Knowledge ran out today!
[Response: here. - gavin]
30 September 2005 at 10:09 AM
Thanks Gavin. Carry on………
30 September 2005 at 10:49 AM
Re #22: The problem with making bets over a long time period like 100 years is that it becomes problematic to define the terms. I happen to agree with you that the middle or upper end of the IPCC scenarios are unlikely to come to pass but for rather different reasons: I believe that if we are headed in that direction, we will change course and avert such a disaster.
Really, what the argument is about is not what the temperature will be in 2100 but what it will be in the absence of taking any measures to prevent climate change from occurring. Those are two very different issues.
Re #27: TCO, I happen to agree with much of what you said about high gas prices. I am happy that prices have gone up. (Well, I am not so happy when I pay $30 to fill up my Prius but I am happy when I think about what is really best for the country and the world.) On the other hand, I think it would be better for our economy if prices went up in a more controlled manner and if some of the money went to the government which could use it for investment in alternative energy resources or to reduce taxes, rather than just going to windfall profits for the oil companies. Still, all things considered, higher gas prices are better than artificially low ones in my book.
30 September 2005 at 11:37 AM
Re #27 [TCO]: The only problem with waiting for peak oil, etc to help us cut CO2 emissions is that the default response of the oil companies is to get the oil from a dirtier, more polluting source [such as the Canadian tar sands]. Also if we burn all the oil that there is, that would probably release too much CO2 to limit global warming to 2 degrees centigrade.
I think that we need to find a way to keep most of the fossil fuels safely underground if we are going to avoid ‘dangerous’ consequences [see perhaps www.stabilisation2005.com] such as melting of the Greenland ice sheet. [OT: New Orleans’ levees would have to be mighty high to keep *that* water out!]
I don’t think this is going to be possible without direct government intervention [mainly making CO2 emissions expensive and subsidising/investing in renewables]
30 September 2005 at 12:07 PM
RE #27, here’s an idea: Create a GHG tax, so that the cost of emitting GHGs goes up, but then put that money from taxes back in people’s pockets, so they haven’t lost one cent. There may be enough smart or poor people out there to start looking into energy efficiency, conservation, and cheaper forms of alt. energy (I’m paying $1 a month less for 100% wind power), who would like to save $$ on this scheme.
I think the way it works right now is on April 15th we pay for other people to lavishly emit GHGs through subsidies & tax breaks to fossil fuels. In other words, we not only pay more at the pump, but also on tax day.
30 September 2005 at 12:14 PM
Re #27:
1. In America, TCO, gas consumption may be relatively inelastic. Land rents force folk farther away from Central Business Districts. The term is called ‘drive ’til you qualify’.
Discretionary trips can be reduced, but not the drive to work without some disruption.
2. You may want to think about the connection you made between worrying and complaining wrt my 1. High fuel prices affect the lower incomes more than the higher incomes. Future scenarios of climate change necessarily consider social change as well, and fuel prices are a component of these scenarios; fuel use being relatively inelastic affects consideration of social change, which affects emissions, which effects climate.
3. Your request is dependent upon the premise that the constructed narrative of gummint solves everything is something that everyone who does not follow your ideology believes. You may want to double-check that premise. Politics is used to help solve these issues, and politics is a component of government. If you have a solution where politics works outside of government, do share.
Best,
D
30 September 2005 at 12:32 PM
This whole thing is depressing. In 1990, I thought all I had to do was tell people about GW, and everyone would start solving this problem (esp after I found out the $$$ that could be saved). Nada. Then in 1995, I thought, we now have 95% certainty on this (which seemed a scandal, since we should’ve started acting well before 95% certainty), now people will act. Nada. Then in 2001, with the U.S. Bishops’ statement that the prudent thing to do was reduce our GHGs, even if we weren’t sure of the science (see: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalclimate.htm ), I thought at least Catholics would start doing something. (I thought the statement a scandal for not coming out 10 years earlier - as the Pope’s statements on GW had.) Nada.
And last year we get STATE OF FEAR, but since then all sorts of actual GW evidence (I’m not referring to models here) has been pouring in (e.g., warming oceans). I think Crichton mentions in his book about some glaciers (I think in Greenland) that are increasing. If I’m not mistaken, I think those self-same glaciers are now found to be decreasing (or at least glaciers in general are decreasing), etc., etc. So I thought by now Crichton would have realized his errors, and wouldn’t have the audacity to persist with them.
I now realize there is no amount of evidence that will ever convince contrarians that GW is happening & is (net) harmful. It’s like banging our heads against the wall. Anyway, I just keep banging.
30 September 2005 at 12:41 PM
#27 - “One of the major levers that people look at in fighting GW is to raise costs of using fossil fuels by taxing them.”
Fuel taxes are already quite high. Higher even than sales taxes and both the federal government and state governments take their share. More info is here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/petbro.html
Quite unnoticed in the GW hysteria is the amount of our taxpayer dollars that go to the fossil fuel industry in the form of direct and indirect subsidies. Yes, Exxon, and Mobil are corporate welfare queens thanks to your local sleazeball politician. More info: http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/fuelsubfact.htm . But that link doesn’t touch on the indirect subsidies known as the Gulf War I and II, the securing of the seas for oil transport, and the state department which spends a lot of its time placating foreign governments to insure a reliable supply of oil flows in our direction. These subsidies act to artificially lower the price of gas.
If we paid the true price for gas at the pump, then alternative fuel vehicles, riding a bike and even walking would look a lot more attractive and CO2 emissions from autos would plummet.
30 September 2005 at 3:01 PM
Your castigation of Crichton would seem to lend credence to one of his primary arguements. That those who are skeptical of the scientific basis of popularly held theories such as human caused global warming are immedietly attacked on a personal basis, not on the merits of their arguments.
As to Hansen’s model prediction accuracy. He accuses Crichton, in “State of Fear” for deliberately and falsely pointing out a 300% error in his Temperature Prediction results. Showing that one of his models correctly predicted the current tempature base on one forcast of CO2 output. He fails to mention that the model based on more extreme CO2 output, the one closer to actual output over the last two decades, was in fact 300% incorrect. Crichton stated all this in his book. So you just have to wonder who is being false here, and why.
Overall, I like this website, I find it much more informative than many of the purely ‘political’ propaganda sites that discuss GW.
(and I wouldn’t have found it except for Crichton and George Will)
[Response: I have been quite careful to only ‘castigate’ Crichton’s arguments, not him personally. I think he is demonstrably wrong, and he has used misleading arguments to make his points. With respect to the Hansen testimony, it is quite clear from the linked commentary by Hansen that all of the results discussed in his testimony came from scenario B which was described as ‘most probable’. The uncertainty in future economic growth (then and now) means that we have to use end member scenarios (both worst (A) and best (C) cases) to bracket the possiblities. These should not be assumed to be equally probable - which is way Hansen’s testimony focussed on the most probable scenario (B). That this scenario has actually proved to be the most realistic, and the projected temperature changes the closest to observed is a triumph of climate modelling. To turn this triumph into a condemnation of the approach as Crichton does is misleading and wrong. - gavin]
30 September 2005 at 3:32 PM
38 seems to conflate two issues which go in the opposite way: (1) taxes (which author agrees are very high) and (2) indirect subsidies of oil prices by fighting wars. One drives price down, one raises it. The author does not note the difference in directionality or distinguish which effect is larger than the other. Finally, to give her credit, her comments DO HAVE relevance to a comparison of renewables/gasoline (my throwaway gibe), but don’t affect the logic of the main point that if “peak oil is the disaster people are screaming about and the Saudis are misstating their reserves and we will have a huge crash that the futures markets are not capturing** because of running out of oil faster than expected and this causing $200/barrel and creating a recession”, than this factor is one that ameliorates GW.*** At least let’s be insightful and realize that the contemplated disasters pull you in different ways.
*Would be more reasonable to say that GW1 reduced gas prices by stopping Saddam from taking over the SA peninsula. GW2 probably raised them by mucking about the whole area and reducing Iraqi production (unless you’re a neocon and think we need to be there long term).
**Econbrowser site is a good one to read up on peak oil. Led by a UCSD econ professor
***It’s of course an interesting issue as to which is worse (if you could pick). Perhaps a (lower end of the climate models) GW would not be so bad and would be preferable in terms of impact on people all over the globe, especially the poor people, rather than $200/bbl oil.
30 September 2005 at 3:36 PM
WRT 39, the person’s comment was saying that CO2 went up the amount in scenario A, but we got the warming in scenario B. I would think this is relevant (if so…I have not checked out the Hassen stuff yet…so please spoonfeed me the facts!) So what if he predicted a set amount of warming and we got that amount if it is a result of his errors cancelling (underestimated CO2 rise, but overestimated impact of CO2). At a minimum, this shows that the impact of CO2 was not well understood.
[Response: Not so. The actual rate of growth of CO2 was closest to scenario B, not A. -gavin]
30 September 2005 at 3:49 PM
36: wrt inelasticity, yes, gas is relatively inelastic (one reason the government loves to tax it!!). I agree with you.* My major point (in analogy to peak oil/global warming) is that the issues argue against each other. If you beleive in inelasticity, means carbon taxes are not as effective a GW reduction means (or must be very draconian). Of coures if you are a real peak oiler and think we will have a hard, hard bust (and I’m not…I think those types are a little nutty), then the inelasticity is a bit irrelevant. Those guys go around saying the oil just isn’t there (and if you blather about biodisel or shale, they will tell you that it takes more energy to get that stuff than you get out of it.) Note I’ve also (once or twice) kvetched Steve M and the auditors on similar issue of multiple lines of attack. (some of the criticisms might be individuall corrrect, concieveably, but were self-contradictory…they couldn’t all be valid gripes as they fought each other.)
Will address rest of your points later.
*and the whole pick where you live by driving out on the highway and get off at an exit where you can afford it is cute–I heard that one before. And a reason that I sympathize with the red-state exurbanites…although I’m a yupppy urbanite…but not a John Kerry townhouse in Georgetown rich type…rather an apartment dweller…that is until I wing me a wifo.
30 September 2005 at 3:56 PM
Gavin, thanks for the spoonfeeding. I guess to make it mathematical could take the ratio of temp rise/CO2 rise? Then compare that?
30 September 2005 at 4:07 PM
wrt 42. Are you aware that carbon is emitted from sources other than gasoline combustion?
30 September 2005 at 4:21 PM
WRT43: Yes.
[Response: Note: discussions of economics and elasticity of supply are outside the remit of this site - William]
30 September 2005 at 4:30 PM
RE 39
Gavin,
Thanks for the reply. If what you say is true and the input for Model B was closest to the actual then Crichton was wrong to use it as an example and probably owes Hansen an apology. It would have been useful to have had his forcasted CO2 plotted w/ the actual.
I am used to seeing plots for Atmospheric CO2 for the entire 20th century and they certainly show expotential growth (Model A) over that period. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm
Which makes me curious as to why during the period 1910-1940 when surface tempatures increased even more dramatically than the last two decades, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-5.htm
the increase in CO2 was fairly flat?
I hope these links work.
[Response: Part of the answer is in http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm - William]
30 September 2005 at 4:39 PM
The best science available said that we needed to spend a few billion to protect New Orleans. This was ignored. Now we’re spending hundreds of billions. I guess we never learn.
30 September 2005 at 5:14 PM
RE #24, I’ve also brought up the need to consider social science “forcings,” but the CC models do sort of account for them by including a range of emission scenarios:
1. Worse-case, we all totally pig out perversely emitting all the GHGs we can as fast as we can (even though it makes no economic sense at all to do so), and
2. Best-case, we all suddenly become decent, circumspect, compassionate saints (or at least smart money-grubbers), and reduce our GHGs as much as we possibly can, as fast as we can.
They perhaps naively think the most likely scenario is somwhere in the middle. They don’t know about that really awful Freudian (or some such)perversity lurking in our collective subconscious — which, of course, is unprovable & nonempirical, but we know it’s there. It’s the only thing that really explains GW very well.
30 September 2005 at 7:05 PM
MC’s main points in State of Fear are completely valid.
1) The major reason climate research gets funding is because of fears of Global Warming. If climatologists prove global warming is a myth, they’ll lose all their funding. This doesn’t make for unbiased science. Even when someone makes a point that might cast doubt on global warming, they still follow it up with “and of course global warming exists.” A local magazine had both an article like this (describing a new sink for CO found, large enough to cancel out the effects of industrialization in England) which said “But of course global warming is a certainty” and a review criticizing State of Fear — the review stated that SOF claimed that global warming was a fraud perpetrated by homicidal environmentalists. :p
2) Michael Cricton uses real numbers and statistics to argue his points, which is a lot better than what you can say for most global warming sites. Google “Global Warming” and look for the evidence. One site had 200 “proofs” of global warming. Example: “In 1988, France had a heat wave in which 14 people died.”
If you don’t understand why this is bad statistics, you don’t deserve to be arguing about global warming in the first place.
MC also doesn’t say GW is a myth. He is claiming that the process studying it is horribly biased, and flawed. Leave the crappy story about the eco-terrorists out of it, and you have a valid critique of the scientific community.
[Response: Just using google to find something like GW isn’t such a good idea. There are too many links. Dismissing the concenpt because you found one site saying something silly is an obvious logical fallacy. But if you want real information, you can follow the links here, or read this for some basic sources. Your point (1) isn’t science. Your point (2) doesn’t actually address any scientific concerns. Which, exactly, of C’s points about the actual science do you find so convincing? Why is it that all the people that adore what C says never actually quote any of it? - William]
30 September 2005 at 8:42 PM
RE #49
1) This is the same argument I have heard regarding medical research (”If somebody cured cancer, all the funding for cancer researchers would dry up.”). The science is driven by the data, which are available for anyone to examine. There have been many opportunities for researchers to challenge that consensus of the climatology community, but the case supporting anthropogenic climate change has only become stronger.
2) Shaka, please examine the articles posted on this site. You will find many numbers and statistics that come from the peer-review literature. There are other sites (Union of Concerned Scientists, Pew Center on Global Climate Change) that are sources of useful information.
30 September 2005 at 9:44 PM
Re 49:
What you describe is not a “critque” of the science at all. It is an ad hominem attack on scientists (”they’ll lose all their funding”), followed by an assault on a straw man (someone on the internet said something stupid). What thoughtful person could ever be impressed by a that kind of critique?
30 September 2005 at 10:43 PM
I have read all the articles on here. I’m a reasonably well informed person. I’m impressed by statistics and not impressed by wow-ism. I think Americans these days are intellectually lazy. When they debate, they merely quote experts at each other, that back up what they already believe. I am actually open minded about issues, which is more than you can say for than most posters on here. And, laugh, a group with the name of “The Union of Concerned Scientists”. (I recall during the Cold War similarly-titled groups of scientists recommending self-destructive actions (in re: to the Soviet Union), with similar arguments from their supporters (”100 scientists can’t be wrong!”). Do you think if conclusive evidence came out that global warming was false that they’d change their stance, with a name like that? If you say no, then what they’re doing is not science.)
The fact is, the articles on here on State of Fear don’t answer the points he raises in the books, sidestepping some of the issues entirely. He raised valid criticisms from the data (NOAA, etc.). Answers should be given from the same, instead of via hand-waving. If a place as well respected as RealClimate can’t answer his critiques directly, then a reasonable person has to wonder why.
DaveC — “There have been many opportunities for researchers to challenge that consensus”. As I said, any article which casts doubt on global warming always includes the byline “but remember global warming is still real”, which makes Cricton’s point obvious. (I’ve read these papers myself.) The correct thing to do scientifically is to draw a conclusion from data, not to slavishly toe a party line. As Crichton says, the environmental movement is an entrenched organization in modern America.
Leekelso — It’s obvious you haven’t read, or understood the book. It’s not an ad hominem attack. The scientific method breaks down when there is bias in the experimentors. Pointing out that bias exists is part of the PROCESS OF CORRECT SCIENCE. What he didn’t propose in the book (and read the appendix, not the horrendously bad fiction), was eliminating funding for climate scientists. He proposed instead a system what would try to minimize or eliminate bias. This is correct scientific practice.
What thoughtful person could not agree with that goal?
[Response: This is funny. You complain that people are “intellectually lazy. When they debate, they merely quote experts at each other” and yet you do nothing but quote Crichton! If you’re interested in the science of, say, the Urban Heat Island, then read this. If *you* aren’t intellectually lazy then please talk specifically about a piece of science and the problems raised with it - William]
30 September 2005 at 10:51 PM
“1) This is the same argument I have heard regarding medical research (”If somebody cured cancer, all the funding for cancer researchers would dry up.”).”
Yes, but the cancer researcher who discovered the cure for cancer would be very rich and very famous.
What does the researcher who shows that that IPCC TAR projections are nonsense get?
[Response: You have your arguments the wrong way round. What would the researcher who proved that there was no possible cure for cancer get? Does that demonstrate that all cancer researchers are only in it for the money? Of course not. - William]
1 October 2005 at 10:50 AM
Re: #53. Q: “What does the researcher who shows that that IPCC TAR projections are nonsense get?”
A: Extensive grants from ExxonMobile (filtered through various non-profits). A fellowship at AEI. Intense promotion of his/her book on the topic and lots of mysterious “bulk purchases” of same to push the book to #1 on the NY Times list. Extensive speakership fees. Frequent repeat invitations to appear on cable news shows and plug his/her book.
1 October 2005 at 11:23 AM
To me, the simple fact that somebody like Michael Crichton would even be considered to address the Senate on ANY science topic really illuminates a more fundamentally alarming issue here. The subtext to this entire exercise is the Republican party’s disdain for science in general. I do not believe that this kind of thing stems completely from ignorance alone. I DO believe that these politicians will resort to any means whatsoever to repudiate ideas that are inconvenient to their misguided and short-sighted economic policies. I mean come on, Michael Crichton?? You can’t tell me that the Senator does not know in his heart how absurd this is. I have a checking account and a mortgage but that does not qualify me to testify before the Senate finance committee! To me this is a glaring example of politicians who are NOT acting in good faith. They are not actually interested in the truth and that is what frightens me the most about the existing political climate and its implications for our future.
Sorry if this rant went a little bit off the subject of the actual science!
1 October 2005 at 1:26 PM
Re question in 46 why “period 1910-1940 when surface tempatures increased even more dramatically than the last two decades, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-5.htm, the increase in CO2 was fairly flat?”
The surface temperature trend from 1910 to 1940 is exactly the rebound effect one would expect from the well studied cooling effect of the 1883 Krakatoa volcanic eruption.
1 October 2005 at 2:03 PM
Not really science but this thread seems to allow for a bit of lee-way.
Why is everyone taking such a confrontational approach?
Right or wrong, Crichton’s concerns about the integrity of climate science are very much in vogue, have powerful voices behind them, and I am sure are quite capable of slowing down science and policy and dragging down the reputation of climate science. Why not try a positive and inclusive approach and get some of the animosity out this?
E.g. ask Steve McIntyre (for example) what standards or processes *would* restore the credibility of the process in his eyes and then either discuss why they are not appropriate or fulfil them? Ask those who are not content what they propose instead. That way climate science is not always on the defensive. It is a standard approach for anyone owning a process which is being criticised.
Or maybe this has all been tried?
1 October 2005 at 5:51 PM
Re: #38, “Fuel taxes are already quite high. Higher even than sales taxes and both the federal government and state governments take their share.”
Fuel prices in the US are nothing compared to what they are in Europe.
http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm
Where I am (Winnipeg, Manitoba), the average price is about $1.05 (Canadian) per litre (or about 51.8 pence/litre on the table they have on the above site).
Even Norway (a major oil producer) has fuel prices of 94.8 pence/litre. about 2.5 times what the price is in the US.
Quit complaining. Americans have it easy.
1 October 2005 at 6:01 PM
Re 56
This is how I became a skeptic. Used to be a beleiver and walked around with a concerned worried frown. Saw the hockey stick. Noticed that there was a natural temperature surge 1910 to 1940. This natural surge preceeded the CO2 surge (1970 to 2000) and as luck would have it all surges where nicely bracketed by modern measurements. Further for 900 years before the natural and the CO2 surge there was virtually no variation at all. No measurements to back-up the 900 year dorment period. What rotten luck!
This does not pass a rudimentry blink test. The convential view before the mid 90s was that there was a MWP and LIA. (TAR 2) It is just not beleivable that the one and only natural temperature surge just came along when direct measurements started and also just before the nasty CO2 surge. Perhaps there was more temperature change before 1910 and also perhaps that CO2 surge might have been reinforced by the same driver that caused the 1910 one????
[Response: Two points. CO2 has been rising since ~1800, not just from 1970, and we have discussed previously the factors that lead to the 1910-1940 temperature rise - a mix of GHG forcing, reduced volcanoes, some solar etc. with no one forcing being dominant. Since 1970 with volcanism going the wrong way, solar close to stable, and GHGs continuing to climb, the attribution is much stronger. Globally, temperatures to 1940 aren’t particularly exceptional in the millennial context - it is only once you get to the late 20th Century that things start popping up above the levels of natural variability. -gavin]
[Response: Also: by “TAR 2″ do you mean the IPCC SAR, ie the 1995 report? If so, you need to brush up your history: try [[MWP_and_LIA_in_IPCC_reports]] - William]
1 October 2005 at 6:20 PM
Now that we’re on money, I just want to thank all you honest climate scientists for your dedication. As a university person, I understand where that big grant money goes. A portion (often the largest) goes to the institution never to be seen again (I guess they need it for administrative costs, etc.). Then (usually) a smaller portion goes to the actual science projects and their costs–equipment, field research expenses, travel to present papers, research assistants (usually grad students), staff, supplies. Not one red penny goes to the scientists’ salaries (that’s how it works at my U).
I also know that some climate scientists had actually started out in other related fields and probably expected a rather quiet, happy career in the lab, field, and classroom. The best & brightest scientists gravitated to this important topic of climate change science. (Who knew 30 years ago it would be THIS important!) In other words, if GW were ever to be conclusively disproved, these bright scientists would have those old jobs to go back to at more or less the same salaries, and without all the headaches. As far as I know the scientists here at RealClimate are volunteering their time & expertise for this website, without any remuneration. Also, scientists don’t get one red penny for the articles they have published (though publications might help toward merit raises, and we’re not talking big bucks for those raises either). So, while there are a lot of headaches in having to defend each & every facet of their research & (modest) scientific claims, there is no great monetary incentive for going into climate science. There are other fields that for the same level of education & effort & even less brains, they could have made double or triple what they’re making now.
Unless, of course, the scientists go over to the dark side and become “skeptics” (claim the most modest GW scenario, and spends all their time trying to find flaws in the data, methods, and conclusions of other climate science - they do occasionally get published in peer-reviewed science journals) or “contrarians” (who make unacceptable claims, unsubstantiated by evidence or appropriate methods & theories - they don’t get their works published in peer-reviewed science journals). Now these skeptics & contrarians get enormous “consultancy fees” from the fossil fuel industry. Universities do allow faculty to moonlight & get such fees.
I just hope & pray none of the honest scientists get tempted and goes over to this dark side. Otherwise who would there be to give us honest analyses of honestly gathered evidence and honestly constructed models & methods. And I thank all who stay on this honest, though not-as-financially-enriching side.
As for the NRDC (on which Crichton seems to base his sinister organization, NERF), I don’t think Robert Kennedy, Jr., needs extra money. And such environmental organizations wouldn’t have to be collecting so many pennies from us little people, if the government would start helping, rather than hurting the environment & us people, who are dependent on a healthy environment. If the government & big business tries to do us in for power & profit, at least we have some NGOs & honest scientists working on our side.
Furthermore, most environmentalists I know are motivated by concern for others, not fear for self. A book truer to reality might be titled STATE OF LOVE; its plot would be a total inversion of SOF.
As for the tons of statistics Crichton lays on us, I was reminded of how villages in India used to avoid paying higher taxes to their various kings and rulers. They would lay on at many stats as they could find - each chicken & egg was included. The upshot, the tax-collector, dizzy with so many numbers to calculate, simply said, “I believe your assessment.”
1 October 2005 at 7:14 PM
#57 - “Quit complaining. Americans have it easy. ”
If I quit complaining, then my local politicians will think that taking 20-30% of the price of my gasoline bill is OK with me, and they will think why not take another 10 or 15% as a GHG tax. They will think that MY hard-earned money is actually THEIRS and they can take it anytime they want. They will think that political manipulation of free-society supply and demand is OK, and just leads to a “better world” (which it does - for politicians).
Someone has to try to stop the onward march of Big-Government and Big-Taxation. It might as well be a complainer like me.
1 October 2005 at 7:28 PM
Re: #61, “If I quit complaining, then my local politicians will think that taking 20-30% of the price of my gasoline bill is OK with me, and they will think why not take another 10 or 15% as a GHG tax. They will think that MY hard-earned money is actually THEIRS and they can take it anytime they want.”
You DO have an option here. If you reside in a major (or even minor) city, you do not need to drive a car or gas-guzzling SUV everywhere. You can take public transit, which includes little-to-no fuel tax (and is actually much cheaper than using a vehicle).
1 October 2005 at 9:25 PM
They’re intellectually lazy because they don’t take the time to read both sides of an issue in depth. I have. I found RealClimate’s responses to MC to either not answer them directly, or misinterpreted his points. It’s been a while since I’ve read the articles, so I’m not qualified to make a comprehensive list without reading them all again, which isn’t something that fills me with excitement.
And lay off the ad hominem. You’re just reinforcing the criticism of GW researchers that belief in GW has become dogmatic, and a person subject to persecution if they disagree with the majority. Debate should be in the scientific arena. If someone makes a point on either side, it should be held accountable solely on its scientific merit.
I made a valid point, that eliminating bias from science is part of the scientific process, you either answer it, or look like just another dishonest person trying to dodge an issue.
[Response: But of course we all agree that eliminating bias is a good idea, and the evaluation and robustness of results is important. How could it be otherwise? The point of contention is not whether those goals are appropriate, it is whether the consensus of climate scientists is robust or not. We say it is based on decades of work and after the processes most appropriate to the field have been followed. Crichton disagrees. Yet the model that he would have us follow (the double-blind drug test) just isn’t appropriate in most circumstances (and that is as true in medical science as climatology). For instance, you can’t have one group of climatologists digging up a sediment core, another group analyse it, and someone else make an interpretation - no-one would want the first two jobs, and by cutting the link between interpretation and analysis you lose the feedback between the two that the experts implicity use when proposing new studies or new techniques. Instead, robustness is shown by completly independent methods - looking at snowlines, or coral or tree rings. And of course once the data is published, others are free to reinterpret it and/or use it in another way. Pure ‘epidemiology’ doesn’t work here precisely because climate observations are not ‘clean’ - there are all sorts of problems in calibration, measurement, noise, data gaps etc - all the data must be processed by experienced workers before analysis (look at the estimatation of the variations in the Total Solar Irradiance for instance, or the MSU data). Where independent analysis will be particularly useful, the field embraces it - for instance, with the 300+ independent teams analysing the output of the ~19 models participating in the IPCC AR4 . All this to say that each field has developed techniques that work well for the particular cases that they need to deal with. Thus criticsims of those procedures have to be considered in the context of the problem at hand. So, give examples, and tell us what you think should be happening. Nothing is ever perfect though (in climatology, or in drug tests), and so there may be things that can be done to improve the situation - but making vague complaints about process when really you just don’t like the result is indeed lazy. Step up to the plate! - gavin]
2 October 2005 at 12:55 AM
Re: #63, “I made a valid point, that eliminating bias from science is part of the scientific process, you either answer it, or look like just another dishonest person trying to dodge an issue.”
Eliminating bias is what the IPCC scientists are trying to do.
Most skeptical scientists, however, are not trying to do this, since much of their climate change-related work cannot pass the peer-review process (which is undertaken to weed out fatally-flawed studies and does a sufficient-enough job).
These skeptics publish such reports in journals like “World Climate Report,” “Energy and Environment,” etc. whose primary readership are people in the fossil fuel industry. The aforementioned WCR is actually funded by the oil industry (ExxonMobil, for one), which does not weed out flawed reports but encourages them, since it confuses or obfuscates the general public and policymakers into believing this hogwash.
2 October 2005 at 4:33 AM
Re: response to #63:
“And of course once the data is published, others are free to reinterpret it and/or use it in another way.”
It seems that one good step would be for journals to require public archiving of all primary data & methods as a condition of publication. Would you support this?
[Response: Yes. In paleoclimate research, I think that once a time series is published, it should be made available at one of the standard archives. This almost always happens with new papers now, though there are a few exceptions, mostly from older papers that were published prior to universal web access. The methods description just needs to be enough so that some else can work out what was done. Model results are made available through the IPCC archive or at the institution itself. Many of the climate model source codes are also freely available for home or office use (NCAR, climateprediction.net etc.). - gavin]
2 October 2005 at 12:05 PM
Re debate about “biased methods”:
I’m not a scientist myself, but one thing I have picked up in the debate is that those who have studied current climate change have looked at it from completely different angles. Some look at computer models, some at ground temperature measurements, some at glaciers and ice caps, some at ocean temperatures, etc. They all use very different starting points and methods and somehow they all reach similar results. That’s what I cannot understand about climate change deniers -there are an awful lot separate findings which must be “wrong”.
One of the most striking reports I have ever read (for a lay person like me) is one produced by the Catholic aid agency Tearfund, called “Dried up, drowned out” (sorry, not on line, but contact Rachel Roach if you want to order it for free). They have asked their workers in 13 countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa to ask project partners (ie people working with the poorest communities on the ground) as to whether they have noticed any changes in average weather and everything associated with it. Then they wrote all those reports down (they are very shocking and alarming ones, about sea level rises, animal extinctions, droughts, floods, etc), and they then looked at the IPPC TAR and compared those findings and predictions with what ordinary people on the grounds said. And both are strikingly the same, for every single region. It is pretty powerful to read for a non-scientist like me! Seems like the IPCC got things right so far, according to poor farming communities who have never read the report.
2 October 2005 at 6:34 PM
“The best policy is no policy” is a conclusion some obtain from perceived uncertainty, real or imagined.
It seems to me that the sensible response to uncertainty is to take the threat seriously until it can be disproven. A literally conservative course would be to maximally refrain from changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere, wouldn’t it?
This idea that what conservatives conserve is an economy, rather than a real world that the economy merely abstracts, is anything but traditional conservatism, which after all shares not only etymological roots but philosophical outlook with conservationism.
Treating the economy as a gift from God and the atmosphere as a sort of conceptual artifact seems to me astonishingly and idiotically radical and out of touch with reality as much as it is out of touch with traditional moral values.
In the absence of useful information, obviously the best, and indeed the most conservative policy is to minimize change in the environment, not to minimize change in the law.
The other point about uncertainty is that it cuts both ways. Matters may be much less threatening than consensus science indicates, but again they may be much more threatening as well. By placing the “skeptics” position in opposition to the consensus position, they achieve the trick, increasingly common in US politics, of casting sober middle-of-the-road thinking as a pole of two-sided debate.
In climate policy as elsewhere, the actual pole opposite to the self-proclaimed conservative position, in this case the pole of worst-case outcomes, gets dramatically less attention.
Here, rational risk weighting weighs the high risk cases heavily, but they are rarely even mentioned eitehr in the popular press or in policy journals. So not only is the middle cast as extreme, the opposite extreme, which in this case deserves a serious hearing in a cost-benefit analysis, is utterly ignored.
The arguments we are seeing are increasingly divorced from reason and increasingly amount to manipulative garbage. That Crichton was given a platform in opposition to the scientific community in the senate (rather than in oppostion to other science fiction writers at a fan convention) is a travesty and a tragedy. This hearing hasn’t gotten much attention in the press, what with all the action purely political spheres last week, but it’s likely that future generations will neither forgive nor forget this grotesque circus.
2 October 2005 at 8:16 PM
Re: #63 to 67
This is getting to the heart of the political, as opposed to scientific, debate, although we all hope the site will soon return to the “regularly scheduled program.” So it might help to make explicit the two separate issues in the Response to #63, because otherwise some readers might miss the distinction:
(1) To talk about “eliminating bias,” you have to talk about the nuts and bolts of a single, real study. The methodology for every different study is carefully thought-out. If you find that bias might have happened in a study, then you figure out how to fix it. That’s the science.
(2) There are lots of different studies of very different things, and together the weight of their evidence proves partially-anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, possible bias could not account for it all, at this late date, and so it is simply not an issue. That’s also the science.
2 October 2005 at 9:04 PM
#68 - “There are lots of different studies of very different things, and together the weight of their evidence proves partially-anthropogenic global warming. ”
I’m curious about this list of “different studies of very different things” that together prove AGW.
Can you provide some categories of what these “different things” are, and perhaps a link to a primary/representative study for each?
[Response: I recommend this. But then, I wrote it… - William]
2 October 2005 at 10:12 PM
Rhetorical question: Why not? In my mind, the answer is that only the third group gets the fame and fortune (well, as much as you can call research grants “fortune”). It seems like everyone is just accepting that this is the way it has to be. In my mind, it’s not that “no-one wants the first two jobs”, it’s that “no-one benefits from the first two jobs”.
[Response: Exactly. So no one good does them, and the jobs would devolve to contracters working for the lead scientists… which leads us back to where we are. -gavin]
I don’t see why this feedback has to be lost. First of all, the groups can read eachothers publications. Second, there is no reason the first two groups can’t also carry on with the analysis/interpretation. That would mean you get one group collecting samples, two analyzing, and three independent intepretations. You get rid of any of the bias that Crichton has a problem with, and you get your final result triple-checked to boot. Yes, it is perhaps less “efficient” than the way it is currently done. But might it not be better? I would find it much more compelling. I guess the easy way out is to say that this is not currently possible (limited funding, etc), but if GW is really that important, I would think that there would be some interest…
[Response:Triple our funding then! In practice such things do occur though. For instance the GRIP and GISP2 ice cores were drilled indpendently by US and European teams only 30 miles apart.]
That doesn’t actually work. Once person A says that data X shows conclusion Y, person B examining X has been influenced. If it’s not done independently and simultaneously, it’s biased.
[Response: But scientists are professional sceptics (in the original sense of the word) and so we tend not to simply take peoples word for things. And many records have been radically re-evaluated often many years after the original interpretation was published - Greenland ice core isotopes for instance. This kind of post-publication re-interpretation happens all the time and is part and parcel of the field. ]
2 October 2005 at 10:16 PM
I wasn’t satisfied with the within-the-post reply to Jim Sperry about the philosophy issues that Crichton raised and which another poster dismissed as everyone in science knows how to handle those. I got my union card and won a national award. But I never learned those answers. Could we keep that topic alive? Or could the dismissive poster, please share the actual answer? these seem like meaty concepts in science method/ethics. I warrant that DicK Feynman or Wilson would engage on these topics…
2 October 2005 at 11:24 PM
I found this on pandas thumb. It pretty well nails Crichton and his crew:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/thoughts_on_the.html
******************************************
- A favorite passage from an article by an author I don’t usually admire: “[O]ne cause of the tendency of scientific law to become mechanical is to be found in the average man’s admiration for the ingenious in any direction, his love of technicality as a manifestation of cleverness, his feeling that law, as a developed institution, ought to have a certain ballast of mysterious technicality. Every practitioner has encountered the lay obsession as to the invalidity of a signing with a lead pencil. Every law-teacher has had to combat the student obsession that notice, however cogent, may by disregarded unless it is official. Lay hair-slitting over rules and regulations goes far beyond anything of which lawyers are capable. Experienced advocates have insisted that in argument to a jury, along with a just, common-sense theory of the merits, one ought to have a specious technicality for good measure.” Roscoe Pound, Mechanical Jurisprudence (1908) reprinted in Morris R. Cohen and Felix S. Cohen, Readings in Jurisprudence And Legal Philosophy 537 (1951).
*************************
3 October 2005 at 12:02 AM
#68:
Can you provide some categories of what these “different things” are, and perhaps a link to a primary/representative study for each?
Sure. Click here. Hope that helps.
3 October 2005 at 12:37 AM
Isn’t it up to the scientists working in the field to decide whether or not anyone should benefit from the first two jobs? I can’t speak on Climate Science, but in my field (computer science), whether or not one receives funding is largely decided by peer review (in Canada, anyway). So then it would seem that peer review is saying “those first two jobs aren’t important”, obviously leading to the situation where nobody wants to do them.
So, is it the case that nobody in Climate Science actually thinks those jobs are important enough on their own?
I suppose the other possibility is that everyone finds them more of a necessary evil, too mind-numbing to focus on. But my experience says otherwise. It seems like there are always people who absolutely adore doing the sorts of things others find menial, and would focus on them completely if the community valued it.
3 October 2005 at 3:21 AM
Re #63 “For instance, you can’t have one group of climatologists digging up a sediment core, another group analyse it, and someone else make an interpretation ” Strictly speaking this still would not be a double-blind test. You would need two cores one of which had been exposed to the earth’s climate and another of which had not. Then you would need to allocate each core to separate group of analysts and the analysts would not know whether they the “real cores” or not. There seem to be some practical problems here
3 October 2005 at 6:15 AM
Has anyone read Mr. Crichton’s portrayal of mathematics (not to mention mathematicians)! Wow! he might as well be holding a sign in front of his face saying “Any relationship of what I’m saying to reality is strickly accidental.”
3 October 2005 at 6:46 AM
Re: David Hiser [#46]: “I am used to seeing plots for Atmospheric CO2 for the entire 20th century and they certainly show expotential growth (Model A) over that period. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm”
I can’t remember where I heard this, but I did hear that CO2 emissions had only just gone back over their 1990 levels recently, with the dip primarily caused by the large reductions in CO2 emissions when the economies of the USSR and Eastern Europe collapsed. This might help to explain the apparent contradiction betwen what you would expect from looking at the graph you link to [which is based on a 100-yr running mean so wouldn’t have much of a response at the end to any deviation from the exponential growth pattern.
Hope that helps
3 October 2005 at 10:09 AM
[Moderator: apologies if my previous post on 7/30 was too lengthy or contentious. Here is a lightened version, though I prefer the original.]
Re #25, although a government may have myriad policies affecting climate indirectly, that’s very different from a policy whose goal is to change global temperature (or even more ambitious, stabilizing world climate). My personal plea would be for governments to focus their attentions on reducing toxic emissions, rather than the GW problem per se. Human nature suggests the Kyoto Protocol will only encourage policy makers to turn away from these more immediate problems and solutions, which will likely in the end have more effect on lowering CO2 than the protocol itself would. Two examples of a more local policy would be NY attorney general Eliot Spitzer’s successful lawsuit against polluting coal plants, and the Dublin Air Pollution [Law and] Study which clearly demonstrated the local hazard of particulates in the air (~359 deaths per year).
Re #37, depressed Lynn should perhaps appreciate many people against governmental policies aimed at reducing GW are not necessarily skeptical of GW itself, although they may not always be able to articulate that uneasiness and find it easier simply to disregard the science. With Kyoto in place, the basic thrust of global policy appears to have already been decided and there is little room left to manueveur so the science becomes the de facto target. My feeling is if the theoretical climate change is within parameters seen over the last millon years or so, we should probably not attempt to change course and instead do our best to adapt.
Re #48, the human organism (compared to other species) is extremely sensitive to changes in its environment and reorganizes its habitat quickly and frequently. All the noise surrounding Katrina, for example, is also a feedback loop between human culture and habitat. Expect to see SUV sales plummet (even if the price of oil drops back down) and hybrids become the norm, for example.
3 October 2005 at 11:06 AM
I can’t remember where I heard this, but I did hear that CO2 emissions had only just gone back over their 1990 levels recently, with the dip primarily caused by the large reductions in CO2 emissions when the economies of the USSR and Eastern Europe collapsed. This might help to explain the apparent contradiction betwen what you would expect from looking at the graph you link to [which is based on a 100-yr running mean so wouldn’t have much of a response at the end to any deviation from the exponential growth pattern.
Surely it’s the levels of CO2 that are “well mixed” in the atmosphere which are important. These have risen each year without exception. David Hiser’s point is perfectly valid, therefore.
3 October 2005 at 11:27 AM
Re: #69 “Can you provide some categories of what these “different things” are, and perhaps a link to a primary/representative study for each?” Chemistry, radiation, oceanography, biology, history… A great place to start is at AIP. Plenty of links from there.
You could also read every article on this site, RealClimate, since the beginning; there are many links to the important studies. It’s a very active science, so there will always be new ones. Also have a look at other sites they list on the side under “Other Opinions” and “Science Links” and do the same.
You could go to the home pages of SCIENCE and NATURE magazines and do searches, although non-subscribers can only read the article abstracts.
3 October 2005 at 11:57 AM
Re: #71 “Or could the dismissive poster, please share the actual answer?” Wasn’t being dismissive, just trying to be brief. Michael Crichton painted with a broad brush, when he should know that the debates are much further along than he indicated. What is the question? On model unverifiablility, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=100, and follow the other links from there. On the Mann hockey-stick, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121, and follow the other links from there. But what is your specific question? I don’t have a national award, but I want to know the questions, too!
3 October 2005 at 2:13 PM
I haven’t seen the testimony so I can’t offer any comments on it. But I’d like to comment on the rebuttals that started this discussion. Is there a transcript, by any chance?
1. “the claim that global climate models can’t reproduce past climate change” is countered by the set of graphs http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm In my view, these plots prove little if anything. All I see is that the models capture first order response to CO2 forcing. The observed temperature curve frequently gets out of the band which strikes me as a bad sign. Anyhow, until you select a metric (e.g. correlation) to quantify the similarity between observed and predicted, the statement “yes they can” is borderline meaningless. Moreover, the plots are produced with all the benefits of hindsight that allowed the authors to tune the model to achieve the best results. Forecasting 21-st century could require a different set of parameters.
2. “the claim that climate can’t be predicted because weather is chaotic” is countered by by Stefan’s spoof. While the piece is funny it does nothing to contribute to the substance of the matter; I don’t see the point of linking it in this context. The presense of the annual cycle in the temperature signal in no way contradicts the chaotic nature of the climate system. I’m sure everyone here understands it. For example, we cannot predict when the next ice age could naturally start. Therefore the quoted statement is not exactly “wrong” as stated above. It’s not entirely valid either, of course, but it deserves a bit more than derision.
3 October 2005 at 3:55 PM
re #82,
It’s difficult for me to believe that you can look at graph c in the link and not perceive a correlation! It does not “frequently get out of the band”. Are we looking at the same thing? Perhaps you are focused on graph b, which plots the imaginary effects of CO2 changes alone, and shows, as the models predict and as is confirmed by the data, that CO2 changes *alone* cannot account for known, past climate change. Nobody ever claimed they could. But CO2 in conjunction with other known forcings can explain past climate remarkably well.
(2) Your statement that “the plots are produced with the benefit of hindsight” is interesting in two respects. First, Crichton has argued that the models cannot produce historical climate changes. It is a little dubious therefore, when shown that this is wrong, to turn around and say, oh well, doesn’t matter anyway, because they’re produced with the benefit of hindsight. Either its useful to verify climate models by looking backward or it isn’t. By challenging the results when one turns the models backward, Crichton suggests that it IS useful to do this. And on this single point I agree with him. It is useful. He is simply wrong on the facts - the models verify well when pointed backward to look at past climate change. Also, by stating, “the plots are produced with all the benefits of hindsight that allowed the authors to tune the model to achieve the best results” you are making incorrect assumptions about how the models are constructed. No climate scientist says, “let’s test out ten different levels of sunlight absorption that CO2 might have, and see which fits with the past climate changes best.” Rather, the known laws of physics demand a specific value for sunlight absorption for each frequency, and this is what must be input into a climate model.
2. The point that climate cannot be predicted because weather is chaotic is frankly ridiculous. Consider Niagara Falls. The behavior of each molecule of water cannot be predicted well. What eddy will it wind up in? Where will it land at the base of the falls? Who knows. But we can say, with a great deal of precision what volume of water, in aggregate, will fall in the next ten minutes. There are countless other examples, where the micro events cannot be predicted, but the macro effect can.
3 October 2005 at 3:55 PM
#73 - Do you have anything more specific? I’m looking for the categories, and the specific studies.
#80 - The link you provided is broken.
[Response: Fixed -gavin]
3 October 2005 at 5:55 PM
Re: 83.
No, I’m looking at (c). What you don’t seem to appreciate is that the band representation doesn’t allow you to compute the correlations because you don’t know how the individual model runs behave. The authors could have presented the mean trajectory but chose not to do so. The likely reason is that they wanted you to “perceive” better agreement than there actually is.
1. First of all, it is NOT shown that models can produce historical climate changes. Even under most favorable interpretation, the currently available results are only good 150 years which is a very short time apparently dominated by the strong CO2 forcing. Show me a model that reproduces ice ages (a Little Ice Age, at least) and then maybe you’ll have a case. Second, every climate model has dozens of “free” parameters that the modelers are free to choose to their liking. There is nothing wrong about tuning the models but there is no guarantee that the same set of parameters will be as useful looking forward.
2. With your Niagara example, you can predict the volume over the next 10 minutes. But you can’t predict the volume next year, much less in a 100 years. If you read my post carefully you’d notice that I didn’t state that climate cannot be predicted because weather is chaotic. Crichton did. What I said is that he’s not proven wrong because nobody even claims the ability to predict the climate on long (>= 1000 years) time scales.
3 October 2005 at 6:00 PM
Re: 38
“These subsidies act to artificially lower the price of gas.”
Think about it. Oil companies own major oil fields. Why would they benefit from low gas prices?
“If we paid the true price for gas at the pump, then alternative fuel vehicles, riding a bike and even walking would look a lot more attractive and CO2 emissions from autos would plummet.”
I wonder what you consider “true price”. Is it somehow related to the cost of production? Do you know what the cost of production is in Gulf countries? Check it out and you’ll find that we pay an order of magnitude more than we should.
3 October 2005 at 7:07 PM
re 85:
where to begin? your first criticism of the graph showing correlations is that it doesn’t show a mean line so perhaps there is no correlation. However, even if you were to draw a mean line in the most disadvantageous way possible, and still keep it within the grey area, “strong correlation” would practical scream out of the graph. Not sure what degree of correlation you expect. No doubt you would be unsatisfied until the lines were 100% co-positioned, at which point you would (rightly) challenge the authenticity of any data that came out so conveniently perfect. Next you challenge the time-scale - but of course you will note that the timescale includes ample peaks and valleys to demonstrate a correlation, and that, without the inclusion of CO2 forcing, you do not produce a correlated graph.
regarding the dozens of free parameters - i’m sure you picked this up on some skeptics’ site, but everything i have read tells me this is not true. the few flux parameters that were included in early gcms have become unnecessary in later versions.
but allow me to ask you a question: which part of the GW argument to you disagree with:
1. CO2 is increasing due to human activity (proven fact, even accepted by skeptics)
2. C02 has a known physical property, whereby it absorbs sunlight rather than allowing it to reflect back into space.
If you accept that both of these are correct, what force, specifically, do you expect will inhibit global warming?
3 October 2005 at 8:57 PM
anyone have a transcript (as opposed to a realplayer vidoe file) of the session/testimony?
3 October 2005 at 9:36 PM
In #49, Shaka wrote that Michael Crichton’s position was, “The major reason climate research gets funding is because of fears of Global Warming. If climatologists prove global warming is a myth, they’ll lose all their funding. This doesn’t make for unbiased science.”
In #50, David C. responded, “1) This is the same argument I have heard regarding medical research (”If somebody cured cancer, all the funding for cancer researchers would dry up.”).”
In #53, I responded to David C., “Yes, but the cancer researcher who discovered the cure for cancer would be very rich and very famous. What does the researcher who shows that (the) IPCC TAR projections are nonsense get?”
My point was that it’s wrong to claim that all cancer researchers are not interested in curing cancer, even if “all the funding for cancer researchers would dry up” if cancer was cured. Each cancer researcher knows that if he or she comes up with a cure for cancer, he or she will be rich and/or famous. In contrast, a researcher who points out that the projections in the IPCC TAR are pseudoscientific nonsense doesn’t get anything (beyond knowing he or she is right).
And let me emphasize that the IPCC TAR projections ARE pseudoscientific nonsense. For example, they have no probabilities attached to them, which alone renders them completely worthless, as a matter of science. For example, the frequently-quoted range of “1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius” means nothing, since there are no assessed probabilities of the likelihood of where the temperature rise will fall within that range - or even if the rise will fall within that range at all! (Not having any assessed probabilities DOES aid in the use of the projections for alarmist propaganda purposes, however!)
In response to my comment, William Connolley replied,”You have your arguments the wrong way round. What would the researcher who proved that there was no possible cure for cancer get?”
No, my argument is not “the wrong way around.” The IPCC TAR projections are pseudoscientific nonsense. The fact that they haven’t been universally denounced as pseudoscientific nonsense by the “climate change community,” demonstrates the point Shaka attributed to Michael Crichton perfectly: the “climate change community” does not denounce the pseudoscientific nonsense, because doing so would result in significantly decreased funding for climate change.
This whole situation is essentially a repeat of the “Limits to Growth” nonsense…but tremendously magnified, in terms of money. (And slightly less ridiculous, in terms of the “science.”) I don’t blame the small minority of the lay public who can see through the nonsense, for becoming cynical about anything labeled as “environmental science.”
Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)
3 October 2005 at 11:40 PM
Re: #85, “2. With your Niagara example, you can predict the volume over the next 10 minutes. But you can’t predict the volume next year, much less in a 100 years. If you read my post carefully you’d notice that I didn’t state that climate cannot be predicted because weather is chaotic. Crichton did. What I said is that he’s not proven wrong because nobody even claims the ability to predict the climate on long (>= 1000 years) time scales.”
Here’s the thing that bothers me most about climate skeptics’ arguments, the “climate cannot be predicted because weather is chaotic” part. You (Sashka) may not have said it, but many skeptics have.
Climate is an essentially smoothed out chronology of weather, which on larger-scale time scales IS generally predictable (at