Letter in Science
May 13th, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
I’ve got a letter in Science this week on Oreskes/consensus. Naomi has a response. I’ve reproduced both in full below:
Consensus About Climate Change?
In her essay “The scientific consensus on climate change” (3 Dec. 2004, p. 1686), N. Oreskes asserts that the consensus reflected in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) appears to reflect, well, a consensus. Although Oreskes found unanimity in the 928 articles with key words “global climate change,” we should not be surprised if a broader review were to find conclusions at odds with the IPCC consensus, as “consensus” does not mean uniformity of perspective. In the discussion motivated by Oreskes’ Essay, I have seen one claim made that there are more than 11,000 articles on “climate change” in the ISI database and suggestions that about 10% somehow contradict the IPCC consensus position.
But so what? If that number is 1% or 40%, it does not make any difference whatsoever from the standpoint of policy action. Of course, one has to be careful, because people tend to read into the phrase “policy action” a particular course of action that they themselves advocate. But in the IPCC, one can find statements to use in arguing for or against support of the Kyoto Protocol. The same is true for any other specific course of policy action on climate change. The IPCC maintains that its assessments do not advocate any single course of action.
So in addition to arguing about the science of climate change as a proxy for political debate on climate policy, we now can add arguments about the notion of consensus itself. These proxy debates are both a distraction from progress on climate change and a reflection of the tendency of all involved to politicize climate science. The actions that we take on climate change should be robust to (i) the diversity of scientific perspectives, and thus also to (ii) the diversity of perspectives of the nature of the consensus. A consensus is a measure of a central tendency and, as such, it necessarily has a distribution of perspectives around that central measure (1). On climate change, almost all of this distribution is well within the bounds of legitimate scientific debate and reflected within the full text of the IPCC reports. Our policies should not be optimized to reflect a single measure of the central tendency or, worse yet, caricatures of that measure, but instead they should be robust enough to accommodate the distribution of perspectives around that central measure, thus providing a buffer against the possibility that we might learn more in the future (2).
Roger A. Pielke Jr.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
University of Colorado
UCB 488
Boulder, CO 80309-0488, USA
References
1. D. Bray, H. von Storch, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 80, 439 (1999).
2. R. Lempert, M. Schlesinger, Clim. Change 45, 387 (2000).
Response
Pielke suggests that I claimed that there are no papers in the climate literature that disagree with the consensus. Not so. I simply presented the research result that a sample based on the keywords “global climate change” did not reveal any, suggesting that the existing scientific dissent has been greatly exaggerated and confirming that the statements and reports of leading scientific organizations–including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences–accurately reflect the evidence presented in the scientific literature.
Pielke is quite right that understanding the results of scientific research does not implicate us in any particular course of action, and the purpose of my Essay was not to advocate either for or against the Kyoto accords or any other particular policy response. A full debate on the moral, social, political, ethical, and economic ramifications of possible responses to climate change–as well as the ramifications of inaction–would be a very good thing. But such a debate is impeded by climate-change deniers. In this respect, I am in complete agreement with Pielke’s conclusion, which was precisely the point of my Essay: Proxy debates about scientific uncertainty are a distraction from the real issue, which is how best to respond to the range of likely outcomes of global warming and how to maximize our ability to learn about the world we live in so as to be able to respond efficaciously. Denying science advances neither of those goals.
Naomi Oreskes
Department of History and Science Studies Program
University of California at San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
May 13th, 2005 at 7:18 am
I find your comment: “In the discussion motivated by Oreskes’ Essay, I have seen one claim made that there are more than 11,000 articles on “climate change” in the ISI database and suggestions that about 10% somehow contradict the IPCC consensus position.” very odd. You mention this, presumably, because you think it has some credibility. Yet its sourceless. I have seen no one suggesting that of the 11,000 10% contradict the IPCC consensus.
I *have* seen a rather poor attempt to re-do Oreskes work on 928 abstracts by Peiser. You too can see it, at Deltoid (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/peiser.html), where the “contradictory” abstracts are on full display, and it becomes obvious that they are hopelessly mischaracterised by Peiser (err, and that he got his search terms wrong too).
May 13th, 2005 at 7:57 am
Thanks William for your comment. But please read my entire letter to Science. I won’t get drawn into a debate about the number of articles reinforcing or opposing the “consensus.” as I don’t think it matters at all from the standpoint of policy. I have no idea if 1%, 10% or 40% of the literature somehow opposes the consensus (or even what “opposition” in fact means in this context). Like Oreskes, I am happy to take the IPCC as the best assessment of state of climate science, and its conclusions as an accurate measure of the central tendency of views among the climate science community. The work of the IPCC, including its certainties and uncertainties, is plenty good enough for the development and promulgation of a steady stream of policy options on climate. Ironically enough, those who engage in an angels-on-the-head-of-pin style argument about numbers of articles are diverting our finite attention away from the challenges of actually dealing with climate change.
May 13th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Here is the original source for the statement that there are hundreds of ’sceptical’ papers, indicating a 10% disagreement with the IPCC consensus: “So far I have listed about 4,000 studies from 1972-2004, and about 10 percent disagree with the consensus position,” said Timo Hämeranta, the Finland-based moderator of a climate skeptics’ Internet group.
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041217-044511-3578r.htm
Interestingly, this relatively small percentage of doubt about seems to be matched by an equally low percentage of those who strongly agree with it: “These results seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only 9.4 percent of the respondents “strongly agree” that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes”
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf
No matter how one wishes to interpret these data,
there can be litte doubt about the existence of a substantial body of doubt and uncertainty within the scientific community. What this manifest scepticism means for climate change policies is an entirely different question. But to deny its very existence, as Science and Oreskes have tried to do, is grossly misleading.
May 13th, 2005 at 10:18 am
It appears to me that P. and O. are talking about the same thing, but P. is being P. (no offense). Scientists are not trained very well in relaying their results to the public and the dialogue here points this out well, IMHO. Whatever it takes to foster cogent communication, I’m all for. But talking past each other like this is not restricted to the sciences – it is part of the human condition.
BTW, the survey reported immediately above has some methodological shortcomings – well known by now – and use of it gives this reader pause. Unsubstantiated descriptions like ’substantial’ and ‘manifest’ are not supported by the findings discussed in this thread; were this skepticism warranted, it would have a direct effect on policies.
D
May 13th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
I see: The existence of scientific scepticism would have “a direct effect on policies.” Perhaps it is this political fear that lies behind the current attempts to deny that scepticism within the scientific community exists to any significant degree. Don’t forget, we are not just talking about the problem of attribution; there is even less agreement about whether or not anthropogenic global warming poses a significant long-term threat.
As long as these scientific controversies are largely overshadowed by their possible implications for climate change policies, there is little hope for a balanced, matter-of-fact evaluation of conflicting data and evidence.
That’s one of the key problems the scientific community faces.
May 13th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
I see: The existence of scientific scepticism would have “a direct effect on policies.” Perhaps it is this political fear that lies behind the current attempts to deny that scepticism within the scientific community exists to any significant degree.
I was specific in my assertion: substantiated skepticism has an effect on policy-making. Your particular assertion is not substantiated. The abstracts you found were about uncertainty, not lack of consensus, and uncertainty is a factor in decision-making.
Substantiated skepticism contributes to the decision-making process and participates in the ways of knowing that decision-makers use (wisdom, experience, instinct, information) to make policy. Roger regularly asserts (viz. (i) above) that decision-makers have politics-free results rolled up to them.
Scientific results are only one way of knowing, but are controlled, careful results, hence their importance in many societies. The recurring theme on Prometheus is that scientists remain above the fray in order to have their results remain valid. Whether Platonic and Cartesian methods are ‘best’ is another topic, but a main point of gathering knowledge is for human use. If knowledge can’t be used for policy decisions – as you seem to imply – then what good is it?
D
May 13th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Hmmm…no HTML tags. That first para. should be italicized.
May 13th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
Being skeptical of the so-called Skeptics
Over at Prometheus, Naomi Oreskes and Roger Pielke are being far too polite when they refer to arguments (of the so-called Climate Skeptics) about uncertainty and whether there is consensus about the science of climate change, as a proxy for…
May 16th, 2005 at 5:05 am
Finding the phrase “Global Climate Change” in, what, the abstract?, is important?
Stating that climate changes is fact, indeed overstating the obvious. If climate did not change, implying that it is static, then one could logically draw the conclusion that neither was life present.
If climate did not change and we were confronted with a, say, constant temperature, then the peception of hot and cold would be absent.
No, absence of hot and cold means no transference of energy and hence an absence of life.
Does this imply that changing climates are expressions of life, and that unchanging climates, death? (read unlife which is a somewhat cumbersome term).
May 19th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Oreskes is a direct response to the numbers game set up by various propagandists, such as the 17,000 scientists can’t be wrong, there is no climate change, Singer, Seitz and Robinson farago. You can search long and hard in that list to find someone who works in climate science research, although there are a few, but the, shall we say, strange article which formed the basis for that petition, had many questionable assertions designed to fool the gullible.
I did not see this blog mentioning that farcical bit of misdirection, nor was there context provided in your letter to Science (the Oregon Research Institute petition not being the only such attempt). I conclude that you object only to Oreskes and do not see what she wrote as an attempt to address systematic propaganda. Given how easy it was to take Peiser’s list of dissenting abstracts (from a different search) apart, I think you would have to agree that he was wittingly attempting to reinforce the FUD squad. I take your letter in the same sense.
Your statement “So in addition to arguing about the science of climate change as a proxy for political debate on climate policy, we now can add arguments about the notion of consensus itself.” is mighty tongue in cheek, given that many of the usual characters are arguing exactly that and have been doing so since the early 1990s. Before that a lot of them were arguing that smoking did not cause cancer.
Oresekes’ essay did not arise in a vacuum, and cannot be addressed as standing alone. It was certainly more representative of agreement in the climate research community then the various “petitions” and “statements” organized by Singer and his ilk. Thank you for your contribution to this.
May 20th, 2005 at 6:03 am
Eli- Thanks much for your comments. If you want to give the “numbers game” legitimacy, then there is no better strategy to legitimize it than by engaging in that debate. The point of my letter was to observe that from the standpoint of action, the numbers game is pretty much irrelevant. We can talk about numbers of acticles, skeptics and so on — or we can talk about what sorts of new and innovative policies might make practical and political sense on climate in the post-Kyoto period (e.g., lets revisit Article 2 of the FCCC). If we (collectively) spent 10% of our time on the latter that we do on the former, then we’d be much better off. But the sport and spectacle of sceptics vs. hawks appears to be too much of a draw on _all_ sides.
May 23rd, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Dear Dr. Pielke, if you want to make an argument about a policy debate it is useful to briefly discuss the environment in which that debate takes place, not simply to recite the perceived sins of one side. In particular, the anti- side in the “global warming” debate IS attacking the idea of a scientific consensus, and IS doing so with might and main. Starting in the 1990s they put together several petitions and appeals with multiple signatures. You have, I am sure, read of the OISM petition, the Heidelberg Appeal and the Leipzig something or other.
If you have ANY doubt whatsoever that this is the case, you merely have to google . Someone with a pretty good public relations operation is getting this guy into the Financial Times, the Telegraph and a load of other media to trumpet a fairly shoddy piece of work. Why do you pretend that this is NOT happening while using one of the few direct responses on the other side (from Oreskes) as a negative example.
I would happily have read “Each side in this argument has attempted to gain legitamacy by presenting petitions and studies showing that their argument has support. The antis have obtained thousands of signatures on various petitions, the pros point to the IPCC reports as summaries of scientific consensus. Recently Oreskes has made a crude attempt to quantify consensus in the scientific literature, which immediately was met by Peiser’s loudly proclaimed but seriously flawed counter example. But so what….. “
May 23rd, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Hmm that first sentence in the second paragraph should read
If you have ANY doubt whatsoever that this is the case, you merely have to google – Peiser climate.
The electronic gods swallowed the last two words.
May 24th, 2005 at 5:56 am
Thanks Eli for your comments. I will readily accept that my short letter could have been written better, and your edits suggest one possible avenue. But on the other hand why would I possibly engage in or legitimize a debate over consensus that I have characterized as irrelevant from the standpoint of policy? I simply don’t believe that Oreskes review is equivalent to various petitions that you cite, and I am pretty certain that if I had done what you suggested I’d be criticized (rightly so) for making a claim of equivalency. (Note also that Peiser’s work was not available when I submitted my letter last year so I could not have referenced it.) If you’d like to see an explicit attempt to characterize the two-sided political debate, albeit from 2000, that I co-authored, have a look at these:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-69-2000.18.pdf
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/homepages/roger_pielke/hp_roger/debate.html
September 17th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
[...] Programme adviser is non other than science historian Naomi Oreskes [...]