Point made: it’s the icon not the issue
March 13th, 2007Posted by: admin
William Broad has an article out today in the NYT on Al Gore as climate change icon that quotes Roger and myself. I think Roger’s quote basically sums up the problem:
Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.
I am quoted thusly:
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”
The backlash thing, a.k.a. the ominous tension, comes from this post. The rest is a better way to sum up what I was trying to get across in that AGU post. In talking about overselling the science I was talking about overselling the future, not the past or present. I have no problem with the state of consensus on past and present climate and our imprint on it. I do have a problem with giving the non-technician public the impression that climate models give us some crystal ball into the future that warns with some degree of certainty about coming catastrophes. Risk, yes. Certainty, no. My message remains the same as it has been since my days in DC: deal with the risk but realize that it means acting on incomplete and imperfect information.
For the rest of the article Mr. Broad bounces back and forth between the avowed skeptic crowd and what I’d call the headlights of the climsci field, finding either praise for Gore or disdain based on how the questioned views the science.
Tits for tats and tête-à-têtes aside, my biggest problem lies here:
Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”
Clearly this is not science, this is agenda. But it is agenda sold on science, and if/when it doesn’t come true, you have diminished the credibility of those producing the science. It’s a big gamble to take. I think perhaps what is neatly illustrated by Mr. Broad in this article is that many big-name climate scientists are willing to take this risk by hitching their wagons to a non-scientist who is doing the selling for them.
It’s a choice for individual scientists to make and I’m not faulting them or Al Gore for running down this path. In fact, I’d bolster my quote in the article praising Gore for getting the message out. I think Gore plays a very important and valuable role in public knowledge on climate change risk. (And FWIW, I’m betting with Roger that Gore will jump into the race, very late, will get all the money that the Clintons and Obama are raising now without having to stress himself to burn-out stage too early, and will stomp Rudy to get the WH. And yea Steve B, by saying this I’m angling for a position in the Gore White House.) But for the scientists they need to realize that Mr. Gore has a great cover if/when the dire predictions don’t materialize: “Hey, I’m not a scientist, I’m just a concerned citizen politician.” The scientists hitching their wagons to the dire messages have no such cover (except for tenure?).
[UPDATE: Read Matt Nisbet's very good analysis of the most important lessons of Broad's article. Matt's analysis is an interesting contrast to the other -- let's say more predictable -- reactions on Grist and RC.]
March 13th, 2007 at 4:30 am
It’s a bit more complicated than that, surely? The message is that ‘really bad things will happen *if we do nothing*’. The ‘will’ is contentious and can rightly be criticized for conveying a false sense of certainty, but the only way that those predictions can strictly be falsified is if we do nothing meaningful to address those perceived risks; and if nothing really bad then happens, all that does is damage the credibility of people we’d already dismissed anyway (if they’re still alive and research active, which even given the most alarmist timescales being touted around is not certain).
However, if the government/public/civilisation do decide to do something meaningful, then we’re acting to reduce the risk of bad things happening (even if it’s from very small to very, very small). If nothing happens then, the people who advocated the action in the first place can then just say that (thanks to their foresight and leadership, obviously) we’ve done enough to save ourselves from catastrophe.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:13 am
It’s sad to see this happen, given that the film is largely accurate…but why include the 1 to 5 percent of stuff that really is open to attack? Once you do so, it seems to me that this kind of critical media coverage is an inevitability. http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/03/new_york_times_slams_gore.php
March 13th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Should Gore be faulted for being an advocate? By definition, that’s what politicians do. He is making a strong case for action, so of course he is going to emphasize some of the worst-case scenarios while downplaying less dire possibilities.
Emphasizing the uncertainties and the range of possibilities is the legitimate role of climate experts, whether in science, policy or another field, and of journalists covering these issues.
Despite the doom and gloom, Gore’s presentation of the nasty scenarios resonates much more in the public sphere than does the approach of scientists. That should tell us something is wrong with the way scientists communicate with the public. Dumping off basic scientific results for use in any way that society sees fit has not proved terribly effective at galvanizing people to take appropriate action on an issue that I hope most of us agree deserves action. I am not saying that scientists should take a page out of Gore’s Powerpoint, only that what they have been doing has not been very effective.
A personal note: As a parent, I’m very concerned about the future my children MIGHT inherit. I don’t need certainty to decide that action is prudent. I just need to know which scenarios are credible. And I need to pay attention to the worst-case scenarios, even though they may be low probability events, because they would have many significant unmanagable consequences. Putting it a different way, If they come true, my children will inherit a world of hurt. I’d like to help them avoid that if I can.
And as we all know, the steps we have to take to avoid those consequences are essential anyway. Fossil fuels are going to run short much more quickly than many people realize, and we need to be doing much more than we are right now to develop alternatives.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
“Despite the doom and gloom, Gore’s presentation of the nasty scenarios resonates much more in the public sphere than does the approach of scientists. That should tell us something is wrong with the way scientists communicate with the public.”
It suggests to me that scientists are more interested in the truth and Gore is more interested in advocacy and making popular films. If the scientists were more engaging than Gore then there would certainly be something wrong with at least one of them!
“Putting it a different way, If they come true, my children will inherit a world of hurt. I’d like to help them avoid that if I can.”
I do wonder when reading these sort of comments if the writer (and indeed the general public) is aware of the basic fact that under all plausible scenarios of climate change their children will be substantially richer than they are, and their grandchildren even more so.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
The following is from the NYT article and is quoting Dr. Gore:
He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at it.”
Thirty years ago is1976. Was the Global Warming idea around then? Wasn’t that about the time certain climatologists were worrying about a new ice age? I am sure, as the film attests, that Dr. Al checks his facts so I guess he was way ahead of the pack on Global Warming.
March 13th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
James Annan: …the basic fact that under all plausible scenarios of climate change their children will be substantially richer than they are, and their grandchildren even more so.
One scenario (that is hopefully not too plausible) that could prevent our grandchildren from being richer is letting AGW be an excuse for politicians to gain control of the world economy, and proceed to run it like the Soviet Union.
March 14th, 2007 at 8:11 am
CJR — that’s why I think the public/policy discourse should emphasize the risk, not the scientific certainty. What Gore is being criticized for – I think – is implicitly and explicitly playing up the scientific certainty in areas. Which segues well to…
Chris — I agree and I don’t think he needs to fudge like that to get his point across or give audiences a solid understanding of the risk. (And I do agree that the film is largely accurate.)
Tom — you’re right that Gore’s role is an advocate (can’t fault him for that), but in a sense he’s an advocate for science, isn’t he? If so, he may have some obligation to behave as a scientist in terms of projecting uncertainties in his own work. It has been odd for me to see some climate scientists giving him a free pass when they were born in the same extremely adversarial training system I was, where any little flaw in your research was picked apart with the finest-toothed comb possible.
Far as the “dumping” of science I think you’re exactly right — did you go to Lisa’s talks or read my earthquake mitigation white paper?
That’s exactly the point I made on quake mitigation in the US — that it is using the “loading dock approach” and it isn’t working. Lisa said the same thing in her talks about climate science (I got the term from her, via Cash). My quakes paper is here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/announcement_files/1322-uploaded/announcement-1322-3991.pdf
Paul D — that the global cooling thing was some big worry is one of those urban legend red herrings: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222
March 14th, 2007 at 11:09 am
I just added an update at the end of the post, linking to a Matt Nisbet post on this: http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/03/upstreamdownstream_why_the_ny.php
I’d link to the other blog reactions but for the most part they are all either obvious, banal, diatribe boilerplate, or some combination of the above. Kudos to Matt for finding nuance in those hard to reach spots.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
CJR,
With regards to governments getting together and “doing something about it”, you are making a big assumption when you imply that the net benefit of reducing the risk outweighs to cost necessary to “do something about it”. If the cost to “do something about it” involves things that decrease economic output and increase poverty, even over a shorter time period, then you may kill more people from the ills associated with poverty than would have been at risk of dying from the effects of global warming. Your assumption also fails to take into account the potential benefits of global warming when determining that the benefit of risk reduction would justify the cost. If “doing something about it” involves actions to aid developing countries in adapting to existing problems such as coastal flooding, drought planning, improved agricultural practices, etc. then you will have spent money that will benefit those countries regardless of the eventual outcome of global warming. However, if you spend your money and efforts on carbon trading schemes, and global warming turns out to be less severe than predicted, those nations are still at risk from floods, droughts, and crop failures, and you will have wasted your money.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:06 am
This article from Mike Hume founding director of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research indicates which way he thinks science (not just scientists) should go.
I find it frightening.
“The Appliance of Science”
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html
“Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity”
Don’t agree?
Let me change just a few words
“Self-evidently effective alternative medical therapies will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity”
Too many climate (and related) scientists have opened this Pandora’s box already.
March 16th, 2007 at 4:52 am
James Annan: “under all plausible scenarios of climate change their children will be substantially richer than they are, and their grandchildren even more so.”
1. So let’s overheat the planet, substantially reduce biodiversity, and console ourselves with the thought our “wealthier” children won’t know what they’re missing? You’re not a biologist, so perhaps you’re not really attuned to the real wealth that we are losing. As Aldo Leopold wrote more than 30 years ago: “One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. … Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well – and does not want to be told otherwise.” A Sand County Almanac, p. 197 http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/editors_pick/1993_01_pick.html
2. There’s also one small thing you’re missing here – the nature of the problem as a tragedy of the commons relating to a global open-access resource. We’re not productively addressing the problem because of the difficulties of coordinating – Kyoto is ineffective because the US didn’t join, because Gore/Clinton/EU didn’t insist on China/India joining, which won’t join because they want to catch up economically while not paying costs for CO2 emitted by developed nations. So it’s a pass the buck kinda game – “I’m not gonna incur costs if you’re not”.
Commons problems like this don’t solve themselves; they require effort. When will the pain caused by delay merit the effort to avoid pain that will be felt by even later generations? This buck-passing, since intergenerational, can just continue indefinitely.
3. The same is true with the problem of failed development in much of the third-world, due to the mismanagement of “public” resources and states by kleptocratic elites. So shifting away from effort to mitigate (and to focus instead on “adaptation”) because of likely greater material wealth in the West+ is a cruel joke – these peoples will suffer the most from climate change, will lose natural resource wealth and have little material benefit as well. (Just look at how China is ripping up the forests of Burma, and the Amazon is being ripped up for soybeans.) This is another failure of the commons that the West has little stomach for facing up to. Where are all the climate change “skeptics” who now trumpet adaptation lining up to start helping the third world improve its governance?
In sum, growing material wealth in the developed nation will still come at a great cost to biodiversity and important shared ecosystems, doesn’t create incentives for addressing the commons failure, and of course ignores the problems in the developing world.
You’re also not American, but consider the willingness of supposedly responsible governments to spend trillions on wars that elites skim but must be paid for by children who are now facing collapsing entitlement systems as populations age. What favors are we really doing our children?
March 16th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Kevin:
“I think Roger’s quote basically sums up the problem:
Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”
Absolutely right. And you don’t see any ironies in how you and Roger are being used to feed the problem?
March 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Tom — thanks and I do see the ironies and I grapple with it. Honestly, what has happened here for me (I can’t speak for Roger or his motivations) is that a very muse-ish blog post turned into one phone call from a reporter (Eric Berger at the Houston Chron), which led to one story. That led to an email from a reporter from the Toronto Globe & Mail and despite being very explicit that
“I don’t love the ‘monster’ quote and wouldn’t be comfortable following up on it and giving it more fuel”
and then going on to give her a bunch of material to use such as
“Looking beyond the ‘monster’ quote, we need to see climate change as a risk problem. Risk implies danger and uncertainty. Governments need to help their constituencies and businesses see the climate change risk and give them some realistic targets.”
well hey, guess what she printed? the monster quote and nothing else. then the Broad piece where he asked me some questions about the Gore movie. So what do you do? You either hang up on every reporter who makes an unsolicited call to you (Fleck wouldn’t like that), or you have stock talking points that you never deviate from like the most wooden politician, or you try to say what you believe, which is that there are a shitload of subtleties in climate science that don’t get communicated well, and in saying that you let the chips fall and hope they fall ok. That’s what I’ve done so far and you’re right, it has turned more into an icon game than an issue game.
But one thing I’m not going to do is stop calling things like I see them just because Inhofe or Cato or somebody like that grabs what I’ve written and highlights it. I’ve written plenty that could be used by the other side, too, including a few slams on Inhofe in this blog. If you craft your message based on which partisans use some of your words in a political way then you’re a sellout.
March 17th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Kevin:
“If you craft your message based on which partisans use some of your words in a political way then you’re a sellout.”
If you`re at all concerned about the issue which you are addressing, then wouldn`t carefully considering how your words might be misused simply be part of the territory, rather than a sellout?
It`s also not as if you have no leverage over the reporters you speak with, and no ways of expressing displeasure or clearing up the record.
Good luck with the struggle!
March 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
TT,
“So let’s overheat the planet…”
Good work to get a value-laden perjorative word right up there at the start of your post
But don’t shoot the messenger, I’m only pointing out what Stern et al have said.
I honestly believe that the “man in the street” does not realise that according to Stern’s worst case, the global GDP will be 8 times higher rather than 10 times higher in 200 years (or whatever his precise figures are). I think this is one pertinent bit of information in the debate that has been completely buried under talk of recession and catastrophe.
I’d be interested to know if you disagree on either point (its relevance or how well understood it is).
March 20th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Kevin – your comment “I have no problem with the state of consensus on past and present climate and our imprint on it.” disregards the current explosion of papers citing climate change causes other than the simplistic CO2 argument. See Pielke SR’s site for details.
TT -
You are treating the commons as a static size. It’s not. What we do know is that increasing CO2 enhances flora, which enlarges said commons.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:46 am
James, “overheat” is used as shorthand for warming that causes extinctions and damages ecosystems. From that standpoint it`s appropriate and not a perjorative. If you prefer “warm” that works just as well.
You ask me not to shoot the messenger and refer to Stern. So your reference to “the basic fact” of future wealth assumed by Stern does not betray either an acceptance of such assumptions or a value judgment that increased measured per capita wealth justifies the destruction of unowned but still valuable resources that are not included in GDP calculations?
I imagine that the “man in the street” has little sense of the assumptions of increased wealth, but I think that the economic discussions of it is not well-informed – as it clearly leaves out a consideration of unowned natural resources that are destroyed. Further, I am not sure how well such assumptions take into account demographic changes that put an increasing burden of taxes, public debt and unfunded social welfare liabilities on the dwindling youth, and risks relating to instabilities in the economic system.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:57 am
Harry, there are any number of commons, and I treat none of them as static, but rather as resources who use is not fully-costed and which are unprotected unless institutins are formed that regulate usage.
Increasing CO2 “may” enhance flora (though plenty of studies run the other way), but I imagine you recognize that increasing temperatures have costs as well as benefits, and the costs and benefits are not uniformly distributed.
March 21st, 2007 at 10:17 am
Hi Tom,
You write, “I imagine that the ‘man in the street’ has little sense of the assumptions of increased wealth, but I think that the economic discussions of it is not well-informed – as it clearly leaves out a consideration of unowned natural resources that are destroyed. Further, I am not sure how well such assumptions take into account demographic changes that put an increasing burden of taxes, public debt and unfunded social welfare liabilities on the dwindling youth, and risks relating to instabilities in the economic system.”
The Stern Review “assumptions” are indeed very dubious (even ridiculous)…but they are dubiously low, not dubiously high.
The Stern Review increase in per capita GDP by a factor of 12 from 2000 to 2200 reflects an annual per-capita GDP growth of only 1.2% per year for the next ~200 years. That might have been a reasonable assumption had it been made in 1906, but it was made in 2006!
There have been two authoritative assessments of per capita GDP over the last several hundred years: one by Angus Maddison, and the other by Brad DeLong. I will use the assessment by Maddison for the 20th century, because Maddison’s economic growth estimate is lower. (I’ll do this even though I think Brad DeLong’s assessment is probably more accurate.)
In the last 57 years, Maddison estimates that world per-capita GDP has grown by 1.2% per year or less in only 12 years, and the average over the last 57 years has been greater than 2.2% per year.
http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics/horizontal-file_03-2007.xls
From that spreadsheet, Maddison estimates an average world per-capita GDP growth from 1900 to 2003 of 1.6% per year. Using that value for 2000 to 2200 would produce an increase by a factor of 22 in per-capita GDP by 2200, versus the Stern Review’s factor of 12.
Note that DeLong’s estimate for 1900 to 2000 is approximately 2.2% per year, in contrast to Maddison’s 1.6%. Using DeLong’s 2.2% value for the period from 2000 to 2200 would produce an increase by a factor *69* by 2200 (compared to the Stern Review’s factor of 12).
I will post more later on why it’s very likely that per capita economic growth will accelerate dramatically during this century (and possibly as soon as the next 20 years).
Mark
March 21st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Mark, many thanks for your comments on projections of future income growth.
But you have not addressed a few points that merit clarification. Are you aware of where I can read up on them? Namely:
- Do they leave out a consideration of unowned natural resources that are destroyed?
- How well do such assumptions take into account demographic changes that put an increasing burden of taxes, public debt and unfunded social welfare liabilities on the dwindling youth, and risks relating to instabilities in the economic system?
Regards,
Tom
March 21st, 2007 at 8:27 pm
TT -
There are certainly many anecdotal studies pointing to a lack of flora response, depending on existing other restrictions. However, when looked at globally (and logically) this is the only comprehensive study I have seen:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html
Mark – I appreciate your taking the time to bring along the slower ones here on the effect of the information revolution.
Back to TT – Do you think perhaps your examples of demographic changes may have something to do with other causes of climate change – e.g. destruction of arable land *despite* increasing robustness of flora with increasing CO2? I am reminded of the lemming…
March 26th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Hi Tom,
You write, “Mark, many thanks for your comments on projections of future income growth.”
Actually, all I got around to writing about was why the Stern Review’s assumption of 1.2% per year growth was too low, even WITHOUT the coming computer intelligence revolution. I never got around to explaining why his number is probably as much as a factor of 5-10 too low, such that per capita GDP growth in this century will probably be as much as a factor of 1000 (i.e., averaging 7% per year over the century, and resulting in every single person in the world in the year 2100 being a millionaire).
“- Do they leave out a consideration of unowned natural resources that are destroyed?”
I can’t think of any “unowned natural resources that are destroyed” that would result in my economic projections being much too high. My economic projections are much more dependent on the progress of computer intelligence (i.e., that computers costing $1000 will be comparable in capability to the human brain by ~2030), and the effect of that computer intelligence on economic growth.
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2004/10/3rd_thoughts_on.html
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/11/why_economic_gr.html
Can you name any specific “unowned natural resources that are destroyed” that you think would have an impact? (For example, in the U.S. and most developed countries, air and water are getting cleaner, not dirtier.)
“How well do such assumptions take into account demographic changes that put an increasing burden of taxes, public debt and unfunded social welfare liabilities on the dwindling youth, and risks relating to instabilities in the economic system?”
Again, my prediction of absolutely spectacular growth (averaging 7% per year or more) is averaged for the entire world. But I think the U.S. will be able to stay at or slightly below the world average growth rate.
Also, my prediction is mostly dependent on the development and economic effects of machine intelligence, but consider this: in the 20th century, the U.S. and the world experienced a severe Depression, two World Wars, and one-third to one-half of the population mired in communism for most of the century. And even with all those problems, the world averaged per-capita GDP growth over the 20th century of 1.6 percent per year (per Angus Maddison) or 2.2 percent per year (per Brad DeLong). And the post-1950 growth was even stronger than the pre-1950 growth.
So even if computers did not improve at all in capabilities, economic growth would probably be at least double the ridiculous Stern Review value of 1.2 percent per year. And even with 2.4 percent per year (double the Stern value), the per capita in 2100 would be approximately a factor of 10 higher than in 2000. And in 2200, it would be a factor of 100 higher than in 2000.
This is why, as a simple matter of economics (and morality), it doesn’t make sense to create hardship for the people of today to benefit the people of 2100 (who will be almost unimaginably better off).
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/07/why_every_singl.html
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2004/10/implications_of.html
Mark