Another Misattribution, Climate Scientists Silent
October 3rd, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
On 28 September 2005 the New York Times ran an editorial titled “Time to Connect the Dots” that argued from attention to greenhouse gas reductions in order to address the threats of global warming on hurricane damages. Here is an excerpt:
“The scientists who have studied the issue have not detected any increase in the number of hurricanes. Yet these same scientists – in research reports appearing in reputable journals like Science, Nature and The Journal of Climate – have detected increases of up to 70 percent in hurricane intensity, a measure that combines the power of a hurricane and its duration. There has been a commensurate increase in damage, mainly because more and more people have stubbornly put themselves at risk by moving to low-lying coastal areas. But the hurricanes’ added strength has clearly contributed to the ever-higher toll in lives and property damage.”
This last statement is scientifically unsupportable (stay tuned, new peer-reviewed publication on this coming very soon!). The observed changes in the characteristics of storms have not been detected in statistics on loss of lives or property damages. This Times is correct to point to the role of demographics, but goes too far when alleging a relationship of changes in storm characteristics and societal impacts with no science to back up such an allegation.
We could spend all of our time here correcting inaccurate statements from those linking the observed increase in economic damages related to extreme events with changes in climate. Current science (PDF) simply does not support such a linkage. What is more surprising to me is not that such claims are being made (it is an easy error to make, I’ll admit, because it seems logical), but that the broad climate science community, which so vigorously argues in public about issues like the temperature of the 15th century and satellite versus temperature records, adopts a stoney silence when it comes to the frequent and highly visible scientific misstatements on the attribution of increasing economic losses. And in fact the climate science community often is guilty of such misstatements empowering others who rely on the statements of scientists to compound the mistaken attribution. Climate scientists should know better. I have frequently wondered why this is so, given that the attribution of factors underlying increasing societal impacts has far more policy relevance (PDF) that the arguments over temperature records, which are really just political symbols in an ideological battle. But perhaps I have just answered my own question.
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:49 am
The Washington Post does quite a bit better (Thanks SD!):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/30/AR2005093001583.html
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:19 am
But I thought scientists like James Hansen were supposed to remain silent so as not to give novelists such as Michael Crichton a platform
You are being selective in your angst again Roger. You might also not take William Gray as your touchstone. He is claiming that global temperatures will start to decrease in ten years or so, which when you think about it is the same thing that drives his comments about hurricanes. Fundamentally his extrapolation is based on a complete distain for climate modeling. To the extent that you credit the models with any skill, he is wrong. Gray at this point looks like an affirmation of the concept that new theories do not convince their opponents, but that the opponents eventually pass on.
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:31 am
Eli- I welcome your passionate posts here on our site. But I do hope that you will strive for a bit greater accuracy in characterizing my work. Should scientists stay silent? Here is what I have said here:
“I have received some comments asking whether or not I think that IPCC scientists should simply remain mute on issues of climate science or politics. The answer is “no””
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000344climate_science_and_.html
And more recently in response to a commenter: “You characterize me as stating “Scientists, to maintain their `honest broker’ status, should avoid commenting directly on policy issues.” No. This is completely opposite of what I have written. Please have another look.”
I’m not sure where you get the Bill gray reference, but you can find some comments of mine here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000536reader_request_comm.html
Thanks again, and thanks for keeping your comments constructive.
October 5th, 2005 at 7:08 am
The NYT seems to have made a balanced statement, that most of the increased damage was due to increased development, and some of it due to increased strength of storms. The fact that this statement might not be scientifically true is of no relevance; the NYT is not a scientist.
And who would want to be, if being a “scientist” involved a paralyzing inability to accept any statement as “true”, regardless of the context.
Normally, when presented with this demand for absolute certainty, in a context where it probably cannot be attained, I assume the author has some other, unspoken, thought on their mind. If the article referenced had been the NYT reporting on Amazonian butterflies, I would remain in a greater uncertainty about what that unexpressed thought might be.
October 5th, 2005 at 7:55 am
serial catowner-
Thanks for posting. Your comment that “The fact that this statement might not be scientifically true is of no relevance; the NYT is not a scientist” underscores one of Dan Sarewitz’s main points about the politicization of science – and that we see in the comments here – scientific truth matters a lot, when it is politically convenient, and when it is politically inconvenient, it doesn’t seem to matter nearly as much.
Officials in the Bush Administration should indeed be held to high intellectual standards, even if they are not scientists – but so too should everyone else, including me, you and the NYT.
October 6th, 2005 at 11:57 pm
Actually Roger, I was quite calmly and rationally pointing out that you enjoy being on one side of an issue when you are supporting yourself and the other side when you are bashing others.
Hanson was replying to an attack on his work, you are calling for others reply to attacks on your work. Your reply to the serial catowner is quite revealing. Pot, kettle, black.