Pinning down the climate scientists

This morning Dr John Holdren, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science gave an interview to the Today programme. And succeeded in worrying me a great deal.

I believe passionately in science and the scientific method. I am prepared to accept scientific advice when there is a consensus of experts, even though I realise that this consensus may change as a result of new research.

For this reason I now accept the idea that humans are causing the climate to change. But I have one major concern. I don't have enough knowledge of climate science to be able to pin down exactly what the consensus really is - just how much action is needed, just how bad the problem is, just how solid the evidence is.

I am reliant on the scientific community to be honest about such things. Yet I sometimes fear that groupthink has taken over and that, mixed in with scientific judgments is a huge dollop of politics.

Now I come to this morning's interview. Dr Holdren (who is an environmental scientist) had this to say about the Bush presidency:

This has been an administration that from time to time has seemed to be fact averse, in the sense of whether it's been stem cell research or climate change or nuclear weapons policy for that matter.

Why does this worry me? Because he has mixed together climate science with the moral attitude of the Bush administration towards embryos and their political judgment about nuclear weapons.

In other words, he appears to regard political questions as scientific and scientific ones as political. If scientists can't make the correct distinction, how can we trust them?

Comments

[Tim Worstall]

"just how much action is needed, just how bad the problem is,"

The climate scientists can't tell you that. Economists can. It's a matter of trade offs: adaptation, reducing emissions and possibly geo-engineering. Cost benefit analysis and all that: that isn't climate science, that's economics.

[snuh]

over 600 scientists from 40 countries were behind the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report. they have "very high confidence" (i.e., 90%) in the conclusions they arrived at (by consensus).

but feel free to disregard all of this in favour of your misgivings about one climate scientist (chosen at random, seemingly), who said something you consider somewhat inappropriate.

also, what exactly is wrong with a scientist expressing a political view?

[adam]

The scientific community looking at a big issue like this are pretty diverse and coming at it from a variety of directions. Consensus, and the intersection of the quantitative predictions, can be hard to judge.

In the US, where much research funding not only comes from the government (as in the UK) but is also the subject of much partisan political debate and pork-barelling (neither of which are such a big deal in the UK with science funding), science gets mixed with politics more easily than might be desired. On top of that, of course, the Bush administration is perceived by many scientists to have an even more political view than is normal, when it comes to science and its products. This is particularly true on at least three issues: climate change, stemcell research and the creationist/Intelligent Design/evolution debate.

This particular scientist let that get the better of him, it sounds like. There is a palpable air of frustration here amongst many scientists; Reagan wasn't great in this regard (with his hilarious nonsense about Mt St Helens vs car pollution, a nonsense which you bizarrely still hear today but mysteriously morphed to greenhouse gases) but Bush Jr, in a political environment in which evangelical Christians have established more power, is less of a friend of science than just about any President in living memory.

I think him saying it was a mistake, however; eventuallly, accumulation of scientific study will win the day and the people that opposed it, by cherrypicking the evidence and opinion ,for example, end up looking like morons. The understandable need to lash out at a President who appears to have been conducting a low-level war with science when that science doesn't suit his constituency shouldn't lead to errors of rhetorical judgement that firm up the battle lines still more.

[lloyd jenkinson]

Only a short tome ago, relative to cyclic climate timescales, scientists were telling us that the world was flat and a little time before that, that the wolrd was the centre of the universe.
Never believe scientists when they are commenting on scientific issues which are also required to justify their political paymasters.

[derek bevan]

Does not exhuding too much breath come into the equation ,with the increase in population,Sports activities,journeys (both for teams and supporters)commentators,and Politicians.
I plant trees wherever I can to absorb my CO2.
Righteous.

[Spartacus]

"Only a short [time] ago ... scientists were telling us that the world was flat"

Larry, if you're referring to the middle ages, then you might be interested to read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

"The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828."

[Dan]

Adam, 'scientists' didn't tell us any of those things. I think you'll find those were faith-based beliefs.

Also, 'political paymasters' tend to be rather less generous than well-funded commercial industries. The biggest legal commercial industry is, of course, the oil industry.

[James Kennett]

I didn't hear the interview, but I am not concerned by this scientist's reported remarks. My guess is that he was thinking about stem cells and nuclear weapons from a narrow scientific point of view. If you want a moral viewpoint on these issues, consult a priest. If you want a political one, talk to a politician. But listen to the scientist for the scientific dimension of each problem.

The "groupthink" and "paymaster" problems are exaggerated. There is no better way for a young scientist to make a career than to overturn a cherished piece of the conventional wisdom. Applications for follow-on grants from public funds are subject to peer review, and while there may be some settling of personal scores, reviewers will be much more interested in the applicant's methodology and scholarship than whether they got the "right" answer.

[adam]

Dan, I think that you are confusing me with the person that posted after me. I wouldn't mind, except he appears to be a lunatic.

[pcj-the]

"over 600 scientists from 40 countries were behind the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report. they have "very high confidence" (i.e., 90%) in the conclusions they arrived at (by consensus)".
Well if they could organise a group that big,over any length of time, contain the egos and produce conclusive results, then getting down to explaining to the rest of us the process by which the result was obtained should be a cinch. If they can't get the message to the people, other than on a "trust us we're scientists, so believe because we told you so" basis, then the best they can hope for is a form of lemming-like behaviour in order to save the world. By the way, I hope no one will feel I'm being picky if I ask why, on something as important as saving the world, the best we can do is 90% confidence?
Oh, and if we are supposed to believe that they are all dead right and the detractors are all wrong, cos peer review plus the inherent honesty/integrity non-political/religious bias of scientists is so well known, then I'll skip mentioning "The Monkey trial", "creative design", "eugenics" and a whole lot of other little glitches on the road to accuracy and truth.
It isn't just freedom that requires constant vigilance.
Oh, and just one more reason why the truth, whichever it may be, needs to be explained clearly and without ambiguity to the greater masses is the current fad for creating conscience salving "eco-products" of dubious eco credentials. Keep planting the trees, Righteous, cos £40,000 hybrid drive cars aren't what we need if the planet really is in trouble. Never mind their claimed lower emissions: take a closer look at the electronics and battery technology involved and see what they do to the environment in their production, constant demand for expensive repair or maintenance, not even taking into consideration any "difficult" factors such as "how green was the economic process that generated the spare cash to buy that vehicle and will be needed to pay for its upkeep".

[adam]

PCJ, you might wish to consider:

Want don't get. We'd like 100% certainty on everything in life. In practice, life's not like that. Pass me a hanky.

If you wish to doubt a consensus of experts as is, of course, your right, then you should seek to become something of an expert yourself. Otherwise, you are going to have to rely on experts other than yourself. I don't have the time, personally, to attempt to gain enough expertise to analyse the research myself. Again, it's not ideal, but such is life. I'll need that hanky again.

The consequent environmental issues relating to production of 'clean' technology do, indeed, have to be considered and weighed against the problems that they are supposed to help solve. However, in the case of climate change, we are talking about climate change, not other environmental damage. It is probably best to be clear on that, I think.

[Ismael Klata]

I had an international environmental law book from the mid-80s which had as its opening sentence something like: 'Now that it is generally recognised that the earth is in the early stages of a new ice age...'

This doesn't mean that today's scientists are wrong - but it does mean that I'm a lot less willing to automatically accept that they are right.

[adam]

Imael, I think that, strictly speaking, we are in an ice age now (because there is permanent ice on the earth's surface). But it is, as you say, non-trivial to analyse a large body of research (which has grown much larger since the 1980s) and make a judgement as to whether the consensus is right or the dissenters are (or neither). This wouldn't be such a problem if the world wasn't turning under us as we debate it.

My personal preference is to assume that the consensus is right but keep an eye on it. I won't be unhappy to be proved wrong, but I don't think that the decision as to which hypothesis to adopt, subject to review, can be reasonably delayed any further.

[Peter Nolan]

I'd generally prefer the scientific consensus view of that warming is happening, is man-made and dangerous. However, you would be right to be suspicious of this particular scientist.

According to Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist, Holdren called in the seventies for a crash plan to "de-develop" the United States, based on the simplistic and naive forecasting of shortages made by Paul Ehrlich, the Club of Rome and others.

However, there's plenty of diversity in opinion on the economics. Have a look at the evidence, which is fairly diverse, given to the House of Lords report on the economics of climate change. Or watch while the very severe criticism of the Stern report leaks from the academic economics literature into the press, such as this sarky review by Harvard's Weitzman.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic135505.files/Weitzman_Paper.pdf

[Alan Ainsworth]

"over 600 scientists from 40 countries were behind the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report. they have "very high confidence" (i.e., 90%) in the conclusions they arrived at (by consensus)".

Including the expert reviewers there are supposed to be 2,500 "scientists" involved. However, the Summary for Policymakers was published on 2nd February and the full report is not due until May.

Of the expert reviewers, Professor Ross McKittrick of the University of Guelph went public on 12th February in Newsweek to repudiate the "findings" of the Summary. Concensus, eh?

For my part, when I write a report I write the Management Summary AFTER the whole report has been developed, not before. It summarises - of course - the content of the whole report. As I understandf it, the full IPCC report is now being edited to align it with the Summary for Policymakers.

Why don't we just accept that political activists have captured the zeitgeist and that proper science no longer has anything useful to say that will not be demonized if it offends - as it assuredly will.

Religious fervour rules, OK!