Not A Peep from Scientists
February 15th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Last week Vicky Pope of the UK Met Service caused a bit of a stir by calling for some restraint in the misrepresentation of climate science in political debates. She wrote:
Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening. Both undermine the basic facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly over the coming decades.
But to get a sense of how difficult reining in such claims will actually be, consider the reaction of the scientific community to Al Gore’s invited speech at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) last week (a video can be found here).
In his speech Gore attributed a wide range of recent weather events to human-caused climate change including floods in Iowa, Hurricane Ike, and the Australian bush fires. Gore sought to sum up all of these weather anecdotes by citing data from the CRED in Belgium showing that the total number of disasters has increased in recent decades (at about minute 38:00 of the video), showing a version of this graph for effect (Update: I later learned that Gore used a version of this graph produced by Charles Blow for the NYT).
What does CRED say about its own dataset (emphasis added)? (here in PDF)
. . . the linking of past trends in the EM-DAT figures and to climate change needs to remain guarded.
Indeed, justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading. Climate change is probably an actor in this increase but not the major one- even if it impact on the figures will likely become more evident in the future. The task of identifying the possible impact of the climate change on the EM-DAT figures is complicated by the existence of several concomitant factors. For instance, one major contributor to the increase in disasters occurrence over the last decades is the constantly improving diffusion and accuracy of disaster related information.
Furthermore, disaster occurrence and impacts do not only depend on exposure to extreme natural phenomena but also depend on anthropogenic factors such as government policy, population growth, urbanisation, community-level resilience to natural disaster, etc. All of these contribute to the degree of vulnerability people experience.
How did AAAS and the many scientists in attendance respond to being blatantly misled with scientific untruths in a speech calling for political action?
Why, by issuing a press release repeating the misrepresentation:
With charts and images, Gore described the immediate nature of the threat . . . A 500-year flood that has wrecked Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Wildfires in Greece that nearly toppled a government, and wildfires this month in Australia that have left scores of people dead and sparked a new national debate about climate change.
And of all of those scientists in attendance, here is a list of those who sought to set the record straight on blogs and in the media:
OK, I couldn’t find any, but if you know of any such reactions, please share in the comments. Pope’s leadership on this topic is as admirable as it is unique. But as the non-response to Al Gore’s in-your-face untruths shows, the misrepresentation of climate science for political gain has many willing silent collaborators.
February 15th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Roger, A couple of hypotheses here:
1) It could be that some felt discomfort but didn’t know where they could share their discomfort on blogs.. and/or
2) The hassle with their colleagues if they shared it with the media might not have been perceived to be worth it. We scientists are social animals and we can’t step too far out of our disciplinary norms of when and where we criticize each other within the tribe, before we find ourselves excluded. No one wants to be voted off the disciplinary island, especially when one’s paycheck may indirectly depend on it.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Professor Chris Field, at the AAAS reported on the BBC and elsewhere:
said future temperatures “will be beyond anything” predicted.
Prof Field said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had underestimated the rate of change.
He said warming is likely to cause more environmental damage than forecast.
Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected.
“We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we’ve considered seriously in climate policy,” he said.
Prof Field said the 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.1C and 6.4C over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem.
He said the increases in carbon dioxide have been caused, principally, by the burning of coal for electric power in India and China.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
docpine-
I’ve talked to some colleagues who were at AAAS and at Gore’s speech, and I get a strong sense of your #2.
Though it’d be interesting to hear the views of others.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Paul-
Sounds like Field has read Pielke, Wigley and Green
February 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I think the most missing quality today is courage: courage to stick out of the crowd, courage to not hide one’s own opinion and to tell it loud and clear, courage to redress blatant lies or untruths even if they come from important luminaries… Maybe only retired scientists can afford this courage today without risking to be put on the dole. A sad state of affairs…
February 15th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Let me see if I’ve got this right. The theory is that CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming. Chris Field says that CO2 emissions in the last decade have been much greater than the IPCC expected, and thus the warming will be even greater than predicted. But the warming over the last decade has been less than predicted. In fact, there really hasn’t been any warming at all over the last decade. There seems to be some kind of disconnect here.
February 15th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Hey, Stan, I think your tying this to good and evil may be too black and white. Each of us has only so many points to spend (or you could think of arrows in our relational quiver). I think we all do an implicit analysis of a) how important it is and b) the likelihood of our speaking out having any effect.
We would then compare a*b to the other uses and expected gains of our time buying Valentine’s gifts for family members; helping the homeless, etc., and the likelihood of those other activities having a positive net impact on the world.
If I had been a scientist at Gore’s presentation I would have calculated a=100, b=0 therefore a * b =0. No good or evil involved; simply pragmatism.
February 16th, 2009 at 6:46 am
The good people always have good reasons for letting someone else do the heavy lifting. Everyone thinks someone will because anyone could, but no one does.
Our society has determined that it is immoral to punish a person unless every element of a crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. We don’t rely on the best guesses of the police or the opinions of criminal justice experts as to the likelihood of guilt. The prosecution has to meet an evidentiary burden of proof which is very high.
Climate alarmists are advocating political action which will “punish” billions of people. The harm suffered by the poorest will be severe. And these poor haven’t even committed a crime. Aren’t they entitled to at least as much due process as a criminal? As a matter of morality, what standard of evidence should be required before such punishment is imposed? What burden should the alarmist advocates satisfy?
I don’t think honesty is asking too much. Is it asking too much that climate scientists check each other’s work before they make grand pronouncements of their theories to the rest of us? I believe that a scientist with a moral conscience, a bit of self-awareness and some knowledge of the dangers of hubris would realize his moral duty to be as sure as he could possibly be before demanding that billions of poor people suffer from his advocacy. At a minimum, that would mean checking and replicating every study. It would mean openness and transparency. It would mean quality control of the highest order. It would mean cessation of the dishonest presentations to the public and character assassination of anyone with a different viewpoint. And it would mean an insistence that other climate scientists conform to those minimum moral standards.
Instead, they play hide the ball. We get studies filled with lazy, wild-ass guesses which boggle the mind; “the dog ate my homework” excuses to reasonable requests for data; acceptance of pathetically bad studies without question; and failures of quality control for data that are jaw-dropping in their implications. And at every turn, the behavior of prominent climate alarmists sets off warning bells that tell us their moral compasses are seriously askew.
The alarmist scientists keep saying that they have the science on their side. But they never replicate studies. They never check each other’s work. They say they don’t have time to bother with quality control. And when others start checking, the mistakes keep piling higher and higher. The obstinance about transparency is a scandal. The refusal to replicate is inexplicable. The quality control is so bad it borders on criminal.
It’s time for good people to do something. Nothing won’t cut it anymore.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:41 am
[...] LINK (No Ratings Yet) Loading … [...]
February 16th, 2009 at 9:45 am
docpine,
Point b is certainly not zero. In fact, the main difference between Gore/Hansen and some unknown scientist is that Gore/Hansen have an overly inflated concept of the importance of their pronouncements. The impact of their statements on society is not a product of their validity, but of their audacity.
‘Speaking out’ only has a value of zero when one does not speak at all!
February 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Stan (#9),
Brilliant! In 450 words you have captured the fallacy of global warming science, and, more importantly, the unspoken immorality and real danger of climate policy enactment!
Your words should be saved for future generations so that they may know that not everyone in this era was insane!
February 16th, 2009 at 11:00 am
stan (February 16th, 2009 at 6:46 am),
I’d like to excerpt your comment above in a paper I’m writing for an internal publication on the difficulties facing modern science. Please email me directly at ccoe lehigh edu so that I can identify you as something other than a random blog poster…
Thanks.
February 16th, 2009 at 11:02 am
email should read cc06 (at) lehigh (dot) edu I tried to use characters that apparently don’t parse.
February 16th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I can’t exactly put my finger on it, but I think it is even more complicated than docpine’s number 2 above.
The people even further up the ladder in the scientific “administration” have a finger less on the pulse of the true science and more on funds, politics, and overall reputation of the University than the scientists themselves. The wrath (be it political, financial, or other) of these people is what most scientists are trying to avoid by not speaking their minds.
February 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Could it simply be a case of “the ends justify the means?” Could it be that these academics feel that the message that they support will only be heard by the masses if it is elevated to the type of hyperbole that Al Gore espouses.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Tamara,
Some have made the mistake of actually admitting that they believe that the ends justify the means. This statement reveals their own irrationality, for the ‘ends’ are not guaranteed by the duplicity, but almost always have the opposite effect.
If the world were linear and predictable, one could argue that a minor moral transgression, like a lie, exaggeration or the abandonment of scientific principles, may be justified to promote a noble or desirable outcome, if one could draw a direct line between the immoral act and the desired result. In a non-linear world, however, these ‘perturbations’ always ripple and grow, eventually damaging the noble outcome they were supposedly intended to promote. If you build a house of cards, it doesn’t take much to knock it down, even if the house was designed with the best intentions.
As Sir Walter Scott penned over 200 years ago:
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
The sentiment is as true today as it was then. Gore’s and Hansen’s unsupportable comments are doing more to damage their cause than the words from any AGW crisis skeptic could ever hope to achieve. I would never trust anyone who really believes that the ends justify the means. Would you?
February 17th, 2009 at 4:47 am
Roger, I recently saw theh in another context and was frustrated by the inane conclusions drawn. This may become a classic case of visual disinformation. The word “reported” in the title seems invisible.
The primary correlation is to the increase in digital communication, beginning in the 1970’s. A cursory examination of the underlying database easily demonstrates this. One must also be aware of the criteria for inclusion:
These criteria are far more easily met in reportable fashion now than 100 years ago. How many fatal rural storm incidents went unreported in 1900…in the USA…or in India?
It would be interesting to see a similar plot from the database of a single reporting entity that has dutifully maintained a relatively consistent reporting standard for a century or so. Perhaps NOAA?
February 17th, 2009 at 5:04 am
It may be even simpler. I’ve done some research on the history of “connecting” technologies worldwide. I went back to my data and asked: what tools became ubiquitous worldwide starting in the mid-1960’s?
Primary factors: air travel and telephone
Secondary: cars and postal service
Surprised? Don’t be. We too easily imagine a static world.
Perhaps the key to AGW has been AGC (Anthropogenic Global Communication)?
February 17th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Jim Clarke,
I agree, I would not trust such people. Unfortunately, consequentialism pervades our politics and our lives. Was the stimulus package not excused merely because “we have to do something?” It seems that those old precautionary adages have lost their teeth in our modern world. Perhaps the language is too complex, or just not suitable to the sound-bite era. Our political leaders and our scientists are distilled from the same moral pool. Like you, I long for a return to rational thinking.
February 17th, 2009 at 10:19 am
You have to look at this in a risk/reward context:
Risk for alarmism: Zero. Schneider gets to claim dangerous cooling and dangerous warming from the self-same fossil fuels, and becomes famous both times. The media holds its tongue. Holdren with an academic record of failed predictions and alarmist dogma becomes science advisor to the president and is generally lauded.
Reward for alarmism: May win nice prizes (Gore, Hansen, Emanuel). Early and undeserved promotion. More demand for speaking engagements. Security of funding. Lavished with praise in the media for being a planet saver.
Risk for speaking out against alarmism: Insults, shunning, zero promotion prospects, lack of funding, possible loss of job.
Reward for speaking out against alarmism: Perhaps a new job at a conservative think tank: Fine unless you aren’t conservative. Book sales?
I suspect Vicky Pope’s new stance, when previously she was one of the alarmists she now apparently criticizes, may be a reflection of the UK governments new position. Now that they have their climate act pushing the nuclear agenda they can relax, having noticed that the general public don’t care at all about CO2 or global warming, the government just need to sideline the opinions of the climate zealots so they don’t become too critical of inaction.
February 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
CRED is fully aware of the potential for misleading interpretations of EM-DAT figures by various users. This is a risk all public datsets run.
Before interpreting the upward trend in the occurrence of weather-related disasters as “completely unprecedented” and “due to global warming”, one has to take into account the complexities of disaster occurrence, human vulnerabilities and statistical reporting and registering.
The graph shows the evolution in the registration of natural disaster events over time, as pointed out by Mr Pete. Over the last 30 years, the development of telecommunications, media and increased international cooperation has played a critical role in the number of disasters that are reported internationally. In addition, increases in humanitarian funds have encouraged reporting of more disasters, especially smaller events. Finally, disasters are the convergence of hazards with vulnerabilities. As such, an increase of physical, social, economic or environmental vulnerabilities can mean an increase in the occurrence of disasters.
We believe that the increase seen in the graph until about 1995 is explained partly by better reporting of disasters in general, partly due to active data collection efforts by CRED and partly due to real increases in certain types of disasters. We estimate that the data in the most recent decade present the least bias and reflect a real change in numbers. This is especially true for floods and cyclones. Whether this is due to climate change or not, we are unable to say.
Once again, we would like to point out that although climate change could affect the severity, frequency and spatial distribution of hydro-meteorological events, we need to be cautious when interpreting disaster data and take into account the inherent complexity of climate and weather related processes – and remain objective scientific observers.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Everything Al Gore claims smacks not of science, but instead his precautionary principle investments.
Most media types will never expose him, for they themselves are a part of the “Al fawning circle.”
Making news eliminates their risk of writing themselves out of a job.
Truths like the Pielke’s offer, and “on spot” words like from “stan” herein, are emerging more and more.
I predict before 2009 leaves, the truthes from great scientists like Dr. Willie Soon, will blanket Al’s lies and suffocate them.
We could excelerate that time frame (March sounds good.) by finding that one creative way which will force Al into a televised public debate now!
As the subtitle on http://www.UniversalWeather.Blogspot.com says, “Weather or not, it happens!’
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
[...] days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on [...]
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
[...] to Revkin, this slide has now been nixed: Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on [...]
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
[...] to Revkin, this slide has now been nixed: Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on [...]
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:44 pm
[...] with the exception of one significant error — partially corrected today, thanks in part to a post by Pielke, a subsequent complaint from the folks who put together a database Gore used in his speech, and [...]
February 24th, 2009 at 5:54 am
[...] days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on [...]
February 24th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
[...] days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on [...]
February 24th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
[...] As recently noted on Roger Pielke Jr’s Prometheus, the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters cautions that “justifying the [...]
February 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
[...] days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on [...]
February 24th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
[...] As recently noted on Roger Pielke Jr’s Prometheus, the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters cautions that “justifying the [...]
February 24th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Yedda: No CRED For Big Al !!!…
MarineReconDad asked: Former Vice President Al Gore is pulling a dramatic slide from his ever-evolving global warming presentation. When Mr. Gore addressed a packed, cheering hall at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement o…
February 25th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
[...] few days ago, I saw the same graph in an article by a climate scientist whose work I occasionally follow. The scientist, Roger Pielke Jr., was amazed at the lack of [...]
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
[...] has criticized Gore for drawing unsubstantiated connections between natural disasters and global warming. In his [...]
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
[...] for this piece, and, in a parallel effort, against Roger Pielke, Jr, who, in mid February had pointed out that climate data was misrepresented in a Gore slide show at the AAAS [...]
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
[...] February 15, two days after the talk, our old friend Roger Pielke, Jr, wrote a blog post titled, “Not A Peep from Scientists” in which he quoted the CRED report just as I did [...]
March 4th, 2009 at 10:55 am
[...] Al Gore has refused to go down the patently dishonest path CAP has chosen. When recently challenged by scientist Roger Pielke to remove a slide from his global warming presentation that asserted a [...]
March 8th, 2009 at 11:13 am
[...] because it allows them to act as rent-seekers rather than truth-seekers. Roger Pielke Jr. has blogged on this unfortunate particular [...]
March 8th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
[...] trail quickly led, thanks to Revkin’s own links in his articles, to this post from Roger Pielke Jr.. RPJ appears frequently in Revkin’s articles and blog posts, whether because Revkin is in the [...]
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
[...] 15, two days after the talk, our old friend Roger Pielke, Jr, wrote a blog post titled, “Not A Peep from Scientists” in which he quoted the CRED report just as I did and then not only sharply criticized Gore [...]