Follow Up to GHF Report Discussion
June 1st, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Last week I was very critical of a report issued by the Global Humanitarian Forum, run by Kofi Annan former Secretary General of the United Nations. Over the weekend I see that Annan described the report as not being a scientific study:
The research was carried out by Dalberg Global Advisers, a consultancy firm, who collated all existing statistics on the human impacts of climate change. The report acknowledges a “significant margin of error” in its estimates.
Mr Annan said the report could never be as rigorous as a scientific study, but said: “We feel it is the most plausible account of the current impact of climate change today.”
Why can’t the work produced by the GHF be “as rigorous as a scientific study”? Well, one answer is that scientific studies on this topic simply don’t give the desired answers. But if it is not a “scientific study” then what is it?
Keith Kloor who is a Scripps Journalism Fellow here at CU at the Center for Environmental Journalism comments on the excellent reporting by Andy Revkin on the report, as compared to the rest of the overly credulous media which essentially reprinted the GHF press release without obtaining any other perspectives. Keith also noted the absolute silence in the blogosphere on the report:
so far, the questionable assertions and exaggerated nature of the Global Humanitarian Forum report have gone unremarked on by environmental bloggers and pundits. Nobody from this side of the spectrum has accused the press of being stenographers, that’s for sure.
Of course, if it was George Will making a few dodgy claims the blogosphere would erupt in a collective fit of indignation. But dodgy numbers about the impacts of climate change? Yawn.
Perhaps one reason for this can be found in the comments of Andrew Freedman, who blogs at the Washington Post, who seems to suggest that the accuracy and truth aren’t really what matter so much here, it is getting lined up behind the proper politics [Update 6/2: Andrew Freedman adds some clarifications in the comments.]:
. . . as policymakers increasingly consider taking major steps to address climate change, it is becoming more important for experts to detail how climate change is already affecting human populations, and whether it poses a truly mortal threat now or sometime in the future. Whether or not any death can be said to have been ’caused by’ climate change is debatable, but the message that climate change may already be adding stress to society, particularly in the developing world, is well-established.
The methodology of the Global Humanitarian Forum’s report may not be something to replicate, but the general aim of bringing the human toll from climate change into a clearer focus should be.
So it appears that Freedman is saying — Well at least the folks at GHF tried, and if they made a few mistakes, it is OK because it shows both their commitment to the issue and helps to bring the threat of climate change into clearer focus.
To the extent that this view is shared, it explains both the credulity of the media and lack of critique in the blogosphere on the GHF report. More broadly, this attitude explains a lot of the collective behavior seen on the climate issue displayed by the intelligentsia.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
This is another example of why I became a global warming sceptic. It’s the dog in the night syndrome – not what was said, but what wasn’t. Anyone with a basic science education should be gagging on claims like the one put forward in this “study.” I studied genetics and evolutionary biology, and the principles are the same.
The question is, where are these climate scientists, whose consensus I’m supposed to trust? How can they let grotesque claims like these make them look so bad? When I saw a similar silence back in the 1990s in the face of kooky claims, I began to get very suspicious of the foundation science, and what I’ve learned since hasn’t made me any more comfortable about the acclaimed consensus.
It’s not the silly claims of politicians and activists that bother me – kooks always tend to get hold of the bullhorn. It’s the silence of working scientists in the face of these nutty claims that makes me doubt their faith in their own work. Or perhaps just their willingness to stand up and speak truth to the current power structure.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:09 am
Kofi Annan is an intelligent man who reached the top of his field with expertise in the exercise of power. He made more money for his family with just the Oil for Food program than I made for mine in my working life. He knows very well what he is doing.
That said Kofi and other AGW proponents who went along with the GHF report must believe that such scary reports are their best chance of winning the policy debate about Global warming. Maybe they’re right.
The AGW debate focuses on science and policy; one outta two ain’t bad. Well unless you care about science.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Comparing this with the George Will saga is not a proper comparison in my mind. Will is one of the most prominent conservative columnists in the US who publishes in one of the most prominent newspapers.
Further, look at the response. Annan in just a day or two is already starting the process of distancing himself from this report, while Will actually published a follow-up column defending every detail, even where the people whose research he used are saying that he misrepresented their data.
Furthermore, it is not the job of working scientists to counter non-reviewed reports from think tanks. They wouldn’t have time to do actual science if they did that. That’s also why Realclimate declines to debate their published work on their blog. The proper place for that is where the initial work got published.
All of those folks who can’t get published claim that there is a bias against them in peer-reviewed journals, so they want to use the blogos. But last I looked, the IPCC reports had numerous cites for the Pielkes. But then, they accept a significant human component in climate change, so maybe they aren’t considered to be true-blue skeptics by the WUWT crowd?
June 1st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Dean-
“it is not the job of working scientists to counter non-reviewed reports from think tanks”
Real Climate would seem to disagree, as they typically engage plenty of material from non-peer reviewed sources. And your claim that they are not willing to debate their own work is news to me … if true, how odd. With the publication process in many journals stretching to months and even years in some cases, blogs are an excellent medium for engaging in scientific debates. Blogs don’t replace peer review but they can supplement it.
However, I don’t seen in any of this discussion a good reason why the GHF report should be treated any differently than an op-ed by George Will.
Thanks, as always.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Roger,
Yes, RC does on occasion address non-reviewed articles and reports. I said it wasn’t their job to do so. And I think that most of the few that they do engage tend to be about RC contributor material, as with the current case where Steig is responding to criticisms of his paper. It’s very different for Michael Mann to address issues regarding the Hockey Stick than to expect them to criticize the GHF report.
Blogs can supplement journals, but I wouldn’t consider them an “excellent” medium for it. The signal-to-noise ratio is just too low. The very slow process of journal correspondence is also admittedly problematic. I’m not sure what the best way to deal with that, but my survey of blogs – whether it be attacks on science by denialsts or claims by some AGW believers that humanity is on the edge of extinction – is that they are more entertainment than substance.
Here is one key difference between Will’s column and the GHF report. Will used as his central thesis a misrepresentation of data in a published paper. When the authors objected to the misrepresentation, he did acknowledge their concern, but did not correct or admit his errors. The error in the GHF methodology did not misrepresent actual work – as far as I know (I only read their metholodogy document).
June 1st, 2009 at 9:01 pm
-5-Dean
I wouldn’t expect RC to address the GHF report as it is not really anyone’s expertise there. But I would expect some discussion in the blogosphere, given the egregious nature of the “analysis.”
Maybe you are reading the wrong blogs
I agree there is a lot of chaff out there, but there is some wheat as well.
The GHF document is plenty full of misrepresentations, and as a representation of “facts” from a leading organization endorsed by many esteemed people, I find its faults to be far in excess than that found in an opinion column by an overtly ideological commentator. I don’t see these as remotely close in comparison.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:40 am
[...] of Colorado professor Roger Pielke comments: Why can’t the work produced by the GHF be “as rigorous as a scientific study”? Well, one [...]
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 am
From Andrew Freedman by email:
Roger,
I think you are mischaracterizing my blog post as being blindly in favor of the GHF report because I agree with GHF’s politics. I said some favorable things about the report because I think such studies in general are a worthy endeavor. However, as I noted, whether undertaking such human impacts research is a good idea does not excuse the production of a poor end product, which seems to be the case with the GHF report. I included your criticism of the report, as well as the perspectives of public health researchers whose views were expressed in Andy Revkin’s articles, so it’s tough to make the case that I wrote a pro-GHF post.
In the section that you quoted, I was stating that it is important to try to identify whether or not there is a clear signal of the human impacts of climate change, and how such impacts may change in the future. GHF should be commended for trying to do that. They should be criticized for failing to do that in a methodologically sound manner, however, which you and other experts have taken them to task for.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
-8-Andrew
Thanks for the clarification. I actually did not suggest that you were in favor (or against) the report, only my impression that you were saying that its accuracy was not paramount. Your clarification clears that up, and I’ll update the post to reflect your additional comments. Thanks!
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am
Re the blogospheric “silence” – actually, both James Annan and William Connolley have commented that they thought your critique was fair. I disagree and think it was grossly exaggerated.
You could start by revealing to your readers what percent of the 300k death estimates came from non-drought disasters, as that is the basis for your categorical statement that the study is about how to lie with statistics.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
-10-Brian
I just found James Annan’s comments, thanks for the hint — with friends like that . . .
Couldn’t locate a post by Connolley.
There is no need to “reveal” anything as the report is publicly available. Perhaps you are referring to how the GHF report relied on the WHO “Global Burden of Disease” report to arrive at estimates of losses from malnutrition, diarrheoa and malaria?
If so here is what WHO has to say about its own methodology that was then subsequently relied on by GHF:
“Empirical observation of the health consequences of long-term climate change, followed by formulation, testing and then modification of hypotheses would therefore require long time-series (probably several decades) of careful monitoring.While this process may accord with the canons of empirical science, it would not provide the timely information needed to inform current policy decisions on GHG emission abatement, so as to offset possible health consequences in the future.”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000674indur_goklanys_reje.html
So, do I feel comfortable saying that the balance of death estimates are based on pretty dodgy work? Yes. If you don’t believe me, take it from the WHO. And this fact about the WHO numbers is well known, which is why most scholars stay away from the 150,000/year number. What is new and different in the GHF report was the disasters/earthquakes comparison, hence my critique.
No part of the GHF analysis stands up to scrutiny, or at least, the sort of scrutiny associated with the “canons of empirical science”. Please feel free to share these comments with your readers on your blog.
Thanks.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Hi,
Brian Schmidt tells Roger, “You could start by revealing to your readers what percent of the 300k death estimates came from non-drought disasters,…”
Roger, I think Brian Schmidt’s point is that, of the 315,000 annual deaths that the GHF report attributes to climate change, only 14,500 are due to “weather-related disasters.” The other 302,000 calculated annual deaths attributed to climate change (in 2010) are due to malnutrition (154,000 deaths per year), diarrhoea (94,000 deaths per year), and malaria (54,000 deaths per year).
But Brian, why don’t *you* “reveal” to us how those deaths were calculated? How were the numbers in the table on page 90 calculated:
Malnutrition: 154,000 deaths/year
Diarrhoea: 94,000 deaths/year
Malaria: 54,000 deaths/year
Total: 302,000 deaths/year
???
If you’re having trouble figuring out where those numbers came from, I suggest you look at the numbers in this report:
http://www.who.int/publications/cra/chapters/volume2/1543-1650.pdf
Do you notice any correlation?
And do you think that the Global Humanitarian Forum calculation methodology that came up with those 302,000 deaths per year is legitimate?
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
-12-Mark
Thanks. The chapter that you link to is the source of the quote in -11-