28 Responses to “A Defense of Alarmism”

1
1. SteveF Says:
   February 22nd, 2007 at 7:49 am

   If this is the line being adopted by major newspapers, maybe we need to make a distinction between “reasonable” alarmism (lets include the Guardian here) and methane fireball journalism as practiced by Mark Lynas in the independent.

   http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2211566.ece

   “+6.4 degrees. Most of life is exterminated

   Warming seas lead to the possible release of methane hydrates trapped in sub-oceanic sediments: methane fireballs tear across the sky, causing further warming. The oceans lose their oxygen and turn stagnant, releasing poisonous hydrogen sulphide gas and destroying the ozone layer. Deserts extend almost to the Arctic. “Hypercanes” (hurricanes of unimaginable ferocity) circumnavigate the globe, causing flash floods which strip the land of soil. Humanity reduced to a few survivors eking out a living in polar refuges. Most of life on Earth has been snuffed out, as temperatures rise higher than for hundreds of millions of years.”

2
2. bubba Says:
   February 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 am

   Oh, let’s do consult the dictionary; from wordnet.princeton.edu:

   alarmist: a person who alarms others needlessly.

   …from allwords.com:

   alarmist
   noun

   1. Someone who spreads unnecessary alarm.

   adj

   1. Causing unnecessary alarm.

   Derivative: alarmism

   Whew! And you, or the Guardian, are proud of that? Well at least you’re open about your urge to sell newspapers with tabloid quality headlines.

3
3. Richard Tol Says:
   February 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 am

   David,

   I’m glad you speak out. I read the Guardian most every day, and I think what you’re doing there is very dangerous.

   First, you tend to describe climate change as catastrophic, although it is in fact a process of slow change over centuries. The better impact studies tend to find that climate change is important, but not as important as all the other changes that are going on. The impact of climate change on yields, say, will be small compared to the impacts of technological change; and all the negative effects of climate change on tropical agriculture can be offset by doing away with the Common Agricultural Policy.

   Second, you call for drastic emission reduction. In fact, it is quite sufficient to replace the existing capital stock at the end of its economic life-time. A completely different life-style in a century is no big deal. People change their lifes much more often than that.

   Now why do I think it is dangerous what you’re doing? Sounding the alarm will get people’s attention, but they will rapidly grow tired of the noise, particularly if the disaster does not happen (and it will not). In fact, what we need is gradual policy for the next 100 years or so. Furthermore, calling for drastic action will frighten people, and push them towards denial that there is a problem. Finally, panic leads to bad decisions, and we have seen a whole series of bad climate policies that look good on television but in fact cost lots of money without cutting emissions by one bit.

   It is therefore a good thing that the Guardian is read by so few people.

4
4. Scott Says:
   February 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 am

   David:

   This kind of (“alarmist”) media coverage, other than generating more revenue for the publishers, serves no one’s interest. There simply will not be any ’shocking’ or ‘terrifying’ consequences to climate variability. Even as warming is accelerating, these processes are still quite gradual and slow. By conjuring up “The Day After Tomorrow”-like fears in readers’ minds, you are only making ‘idiots’ (to use your term) out of yourselves. It’s no wonder the greater public could care less about climate change, since both scientists and the media have been crying ‘wolf’ for decades. And nothing ’shocking’ has happened (and if you want to mention “Katrina,” then your own ‘idiotic’ term comes to mind again). So the media are doing a disservice to themselves and their readership, and are contributing to the fact that very few perceive climate change to be a ‘terrifying’ threat.

   Scott

5
5. Jonathan Gilligan Says:
   February 22nd, 2007 at 10:10 am

   A couple of years ago, Pacala and some colleagues had a piece in Science called “False alarm over environmental false alarms” [301, 1187-88 (2003)] in which they argued that some degree of environmental alarmism/precaution was economically efficient.

   Their argument was roughly that sometimes our predictions overestimate environmental dangers, but sometimes they underestimate. If we obsess too much with avoiding false alarms, we will fail to act on some number of real alarms and thus take less preventive action than would have been optimal.

   It’s like a statistician worrying too much about Type-I errors and not accounting for a growing number of Type-II errors as she increases the specificity of her tests.

   If we accept Pacala’s account, the question is not whether alarmism is intrinsically bad, but how much is appropriate. Richard Tol’s comments are very useful in outlining the hazards of excessive alarmism but it would be interesting to try to establish a solid foundation for determining what constitutes an optimal degree of alarmism.

6
6. David Adam Says:
   February 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 am

   Bubba — touche, i didn’t look up alarmist
   but i stand by my intended meaning that i am proud to raise the alarm. and i don’t write the headlines.

   Richard

   You say:

   “you tend to describe climate change as catastrophic”

   not true. i just searched the archive and over the last two years i have used the phrases “climate change” and “catastrophic” in the same story three times. One one occasion I was quoting Tony Blair, and on another a climate scientist who was criticising other scientists for talking up the likelihood of catastrophic change. I have used the word in the way you assert once — to describe the severe floods that would be caused by rapid sea level rises. again, would you care to argue that would not be a “sudden misfortune”?

   you say: “it is in fact a process of slow change over centuries”

   a 4C rise by 2100 is a slow change? i disagree

   You say:

   “all the negative effects of climate change on tropical agriculture can be offset by doing away with the Common Agricultural Policy.”

   well that’s OK then, i mean what could be easier to change than the CAP? i’m surprised no one has ever tried

   you say:

   “you call for drastic emission reduction. In fact, it is quite sufficient to replace the existing capital stock at the end of its economic life-time.”

   not according to the Tyndall Centre, run by, er Mike Hulme

   David

7
7. Richard Tol Says:
   February 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 am

   Jonathan: Point well taken. I agree with you and Pacala on this.

   Back to the Guardian. A few days before the SPM of AR4 of IPCC WG1 was released, this newspaper wrote that the IPCC would predict migration on a massive scale. I’d say that that’s a bit too much. Not only could the journalist have known that the IPCC would not say that (for the simple reason that migration is WG2, not WG1), but any reader with a memory longer than 7 days would realise that the piece was off base.

8
8. Scott Says:
   February 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 am

   “a 4C rise by 2100 is a slow change? i disagree”

   David, do you think anyone will notice a 0.04C change per year? 0.4C per decade? That’s a very small and gradual change, not to mention that you happened to pick the most extreme scenario (A1F1)…

9
9. Benny Peiser Says:
   February 22nd, 2007 at 11:31 am

   “… it would be interesting to try to establish a solid foundation for determining what constitutes an optimal degree of alarmism.”

   I very much doubt that there is such a thing as an “optimal degree of alarmism.” The real question is what is the optimal degree of risk assessment and risk communication.

   This is an important question that falls into the domain of professional risk analysis and risk management. It is also something many scientists tend to ignore or find extremely difficult to handle. Perhaps it is because it goes against their almost intuitive interest in hyping up their own research and ego.

   Those interested to read up on the current state of scientific risk research can find a lot of useful information by looking at the work of John Adams (UCL)

   http://john-adams.co.uk/

   http://john-adams.co.uk/papers-reports/

10
10. John Lish Says:
    February 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 am

    David Adam,

    when you demonstrate a failure to understand concepts such as the frequency of El Ninos and the relative rarity of El Nino events such as 1998 then why should anyone take your writings seriously. I have been a Guardian reader for the last twenty years and it saddens me to see the agenda the Guardian is pushing as regards climate change. I now just ignore your articles as I cannot rely on them being accurate and thoughtful.

11
11. Richard Tol Says:
    February 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    David:

    You must have misread the Tyndall Centre papers. Most model & scenario combinations say that we can reach 550 ppm without premature scrapping of capital. The Tyndall Centre is in fact more optimistic about the costs of emission reduction than most.

    Reforming the CAP is not easy, but climate policy is not easy either. The former will require agreement between 27 countries, and will bring certain and immediate benefits. The latter will require agreement between many more, and more diverse countries, and will bring uncertain and postponed benefits.

12
12. Vasco Says:
    February 22nd, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    Alarmists are like junkies, every time a prediction dose has finished its work, a higher dose of alarming news is necessary in order to achieve the attention of the people.

    Science only knows a fraction of how climate works and the more we discover the more questions are raised. 5 Billion of years cannot be changed in a decade.

    Where tabloids use celebrities to enhence their sales it seems that more serious newspapers are using climate to increase the circulation.

13
13. David Adam Says:
    February 22nd, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    Richard: Your claim that the Guardian printed a story in late January that said the IPCC WG1 SPM would warn of mass migration is simply not supported by the evidence, as anyone can check for themselves by going to http://www.guardian.co.uk and searching for the word migration.

    Scott. I’m guessing from your use of the phrase “climate variability” that you don’t even agree with the idea of man-made climate change. Well, good luck with that one.

    John: I didn’t mention El Ninos. Presumably you’re referring to a previous story I wrote that mentioned the last such event was in 1998? And you would prefer it if i had written the last “major” event? Fine. And that means I have an agenda and you now ignore everything i write? Fine.

    Thanks for the feedback guys, it’s been instructive.
    David

14
14. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:
    February 22nd, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    David- Thanks for participating. I did follow up as you suggested and found this in your 27 Jan 2007 article:

    “On current trends, temperatures are predicted to rise 2C-3C by mid-century, which would result in 150-200 million climate refugees.”
    http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1999973,00.html

    Perhaps this is what Richard was referring to …

    Thanks again.

15
15. David Adam Says:
    February 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    Roger- Thanks, that didn’t come up on my search. That’s not a prediction of what the IPCC was going to say though, it looks like a summary of Stern. (I didn’t write that bit, which was a separate box in the paper.

    Richard — apologies

    David

16
16. Ian Castles Says:
    February 22nd, 2007 at 6:52 pm

    I’m surprised that The Guardian’s environment correspondent thinks that the IPCC report says that “human society will ‘most likely’ raise temperatures by 4C by 2100 unless it takes drastic action.”

    It is important to be clear that the projected ranges for globally averaged surface warming in Table SPM-3 of the Summary for Policymakers are entirely hypothetical: they are estimates of the warming that would occur, according to different models, IF the profiles of future emissions that were developed in the IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios in the late 1990s were to be realised.

    As the IPCC has not attached probabilities to these scenarios, the quoted ranges cannot be interpreted as estimates of actual future temperatures. It is my understanding that the correct interpretation of the “best estimate” of 4C warming quoted for the A1FI scenario is that, IF the (very high) level of emissions projected in that scenario were to be realised, the IPCC’s climate modellers find it to be equally likely that the warming would exceed or fall short of 4C.

    The “best estimate” of warming under the A1B scenario is 2.8C. As I noted recently on another thread, this scenario assumes that the per capita use of electricity in the world as a whole in 2100 will be about 35,000 kWh, which compares with California’s present level of about 7,000 kWh per head. This scenario thus ASSUMES that there will be unimaginable changes in the lifestyles of billions of people in the opposite direction to the changes that David Adam supposes to be necessary if his “very likely” level of 4C is to be avoided.

    The IPCC’s “best estimate” for the B1 scenario is 1.8C, with a LIKELY range of 1.1-2.9C estimated from the models. In a paper in “Climate Change” (“The use of PPP or MER in the construction of emission scenarios is more than a question of ‘metrics’”, 4 (2004) 205-216), the Norwegian scholars Bjart Holtsmark and Knut Alfsen considered whether the B1 scenario represented a lower limit for a “no climate policies” scenario. They conclude that:

    “We find it somewhat surprising that fossil fuels, almost 100 years from now, still play a crucial role in global energy supply in a scenario that should represent a lower limit with respect to CO2 emissions. Obviously, nuclear energy could play a much more prominent role if it were found to be socially acceptable. There are other similar model studies where fossil fuels have a considerably smaller share of total energy supply by the end of the century.”

    Dr. Alfsen is a Lead Author of Chapter 3 of the Contribution of WGIII to the forthcoming IPCC Report.

17
17. John Lish Says:
    February 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm

    “John: I didn’t mention El Ninos. Presumably you’re referring to a previous story I wrote that mentioned the last such event was in 1998? And you would prefer it if i had written the last “major” event? Fine. And that means I have an agenda and you now ignore everything i write? Fine”

    Thank you David for demonstrating my point here.

    Let me remind you that you wrote that the last El Nino was in 1998 and this assertion was coupled with an inaccurate press release as to the rate of increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. You then conflated a major El Nino event with this apparent jump in CO2 concentration to speculate the consequences in an alarmist manner.

    Some simple facts:
    The last El Nino was in 2002-03.
    The last major El Nino event was in 1998.
    El Ninos occur regularly (every 3-7 years on average).
    There were only three major El Nino events in the 20th Century (1982-83 & 1925-26 being the other two).

    This was the example that came to mind for me when reading your defence of alarmism. The fact that you failed to demonstrate an understanding of El Ninos at a basic level doesn’t give me confidence that you comprehend what you are reporting on. Why then should I take you seriously?

    One point of accuracy as well David. I stated that the Guardian has an agenda on climate change. This I find disappointing as it clearly shows a departure from the values of CP Scott:

    “Fact are sacred”
    “Honesty, cleanness [integrity], courage, fairness, a sense of duty to the reader and the community”.

    Until the Guardian reports climate science fairly and rigorously, I will continue to pass on articles written on the subject. A good starting point would be the separation of science from policy. Roger has written very intelligently on this subject and it would be good for Alan Rusbridger & the editorial board to read his essays. For the Guardian to have an agenda on environmental policy would, for me, have integrity and in keeping with the values of CP Scott. The current situation sees science being used to push an agenda and leads to misrepresentation. There is a real distinction between those two positions I have outlined. I hope this clarifies my viewpoint.

18
18. Tim Clear Says:
    February 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    This is incredibly ingnorant of the real world:
    “On current trends, temperatures are predicted to rise 2C-3C by mid-century, which would result in 150-200 million climate refugees”

    Even if climate stagnates, there will be 10 times that many anyway, the way things are going.

19
19. Richard Tol Says:
    February 22nd, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    David: Apologies accepted.

    The Stern Review is another example of bias in the Guardian. You gave it extensive and uncritical coverage when it came out, you declined to publish op-eds that took issue with the Stern Review, you did not cover the critical reviews (e.g., the recent thrashing of Stern at Yale), you continue to treat it as an authoritative source, and you even missed the silly backpeddling by the Stern team in their feeble attempt to save their academic reputation.

20
20. bubba Says:
    February 23rd, 2007 at 5:19 am

    Mr. Adam, my objection to your view of editorial and reportorial integrity lies with what I perceive to be your patronizing attitude towards your readership.

    From your comments here it sounds as if you feel the drooling, simian-like masses are too debased and ignorant to fully grasp the issues the IPCC are addressing. And it is your duty, as part of a small, elite eco-vanguard, to mount the barricades and inspire those unthinking troglodytes. Even if that effort involves colorful, gross exaggerations and outright misrepresentation.

    Yet, as has been demonstrated here on a regular basis, the U.S. public, when polled, list climate change as a major concern. Even if that concern is heightened by a regular series of sensationalist headlines it calls into question the basis of what seems to be your reason for manning those barricades. The penetration of the issue into the general discussion in the U.S. is pretty deep.

    And I know that the alarmist tone of broadsheets like the Guardian and Independent have ensured that awareness is even higher in the U.K.

    I quit reading the Guardian years ago because of the apparent lack of a firewall between the op/ed page and the rest of the newspaper. Objectivity seems to have been caste aside, a victim of the ascendancy of naked advocacy. Your comments here just reinforces my opinion.

21
21. Scott Says:
    February 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 am

    David:

    variability: subject to [variation or] *changes*

22
22. winston Says:
    February 23rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Richard: the climate change that people are talking about is not “slow” it’s extremely rapid in the experience of Earth and it’s happening right now. This is a straightforward point. Another point is that the “better” impact studies are not focused narrowly on crop yields under certain modelled conditions, but discuss the impacts of historically rapid climate change on ecosystems more generally. The findings of many of the better ones are very alarming.

    I’d kind of agree with you about replacement of capital stock but I’d put it more strongly: “We should invest nothing more in capital stock that is not efficiently adaptable to operate without fossil fuel”.

23
23. Richard Tol Says:
    February 24th, 2007 at 2:29 am

    Winston: Climate change is slow relative to the other changes that humans are experiencing.

    For nature, the rate of change is fast for interglacials, but not for glacials. The projected change is small compared to, say, the Younger Dryas. While the Younger Dryas was upsetting for sure, it was not disastrous.

24
24. Jim Clarke Says:
    February 24th, 2007 at 7:58 am

    Winston,

    The science indicates that the average global temperature from 1910 to 1940 increased at roughly the same pace as from 1977 to 2007. The first is said to be mostly natural; the second mostly caused by humanity. Before that, the data is simply not sufficient for determining decadel rates of change for average global temperature! The statement that recent warming is “…extremely rapid in the experience of Earth” is not supportable, much less “straightforward”.

    It is quite possible that the recent warming is proceeding at a pace that is close to average, since the only two periods of warming for which we have actually measurments were very similar.

    Also, if pre-industrial climate was so stable, how are we generating these wonderful studies that “…discuss the impacts of historically rapid climate change on ecosystems more generally.”?

    I think you may be confusing speculation with observation; a common practice when it comes to climate change!

25
25. winston Says:
    February 24th, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    Jim I didn’t make your first statement, you did. Of your second, the reference to studies, I intended the meaning to be “modeling of historically rapid change”. If you’re interested in geological or climate events with possible lessons for us today as we try to model the future, the Paleocene/Eocene of 55mybp is popular.

    Richard your mention of the Younger Dryas is of interest because we don’t know what caused it but we do know that we should be willing to pay plenty to avoid the risk of another one. We’ve already seen atmospheric CO2 levels change by more than five times as much as they did at that time (today we’re 100ppm above a multi million year maximum). We should not take casually the risk of another Younger Dryas event, there really would be human misery of terrible proportions were NH temperatures to change again to that degree, on such a short time scale. It has to be worth paying for insurance against the real risk.

    Not only do we know of no precedent in the geologic record for the rate of change of greenhouse gases that we are inflicting on the planet, and I include events like the Eocene methane ‘burp’ of 55mya in this, but we also know of no time in which the rate of change of vegetation and forest patterns has been as great as it is has been in the modern era. So here are two things on which we are imposing historically rapid rates of change (greenhouse gas concentrations and vegetation distributions), both of which directly affect our climate, and which may interact with each other in ways we do not yet understand. I think we should be much more careful than we’ve been being.

26
26. Tim Clear Says:
    February 24th, 2007 at 9:23 pm

    Winston – back up.

    Your statement about CO2 changes and climate changes has no basis in reality. CO2 concentration changes have never caused temperature changes.

    You are correct in that we should be careful to not induce (or allow?) cooling – but we really have no clue about the causes of current temperature changes.

27
27. winston Says:
    February 24th, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    Tim I’ll defer to the IPCC on that: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm but do note that I didn’t claim that CO2 levels caused the Younger Dryas, and don’t believe it either. What’s remarkable is that atmospheric CO2 is believed to have only changed by around 12ppm through that event, while we already have it 100ppm above where it had been since long before the dawn of civilization.

28
28. Mark Bahner Says:
    February 25th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    “Obviously, nuclear energy could play a much more prominent role if it were found to be socially acceptable.”

    It is obvious that “nuclear energy” refers to nuclear fission. It’s virtually certain that nuclear fusion would be found to be “socially acceptable” if it can be developed.

    This is particularly true of hydrogen-boron fusion, whose only product is (nonradioactive) helium, and virtually no neutrons.

    There are several attempts around the world to develop hydrogen-boron fusion, but the funding for these attempts is virtually non-existent:

    http://www.progressiveengineer.com/PEWebBackissues2002/PEWeb%2028%20Jul%2002-2/28editor.htm

    http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/alternatives_to.html

    http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/07/how_id_solve_th.html