May 03, 2005

Fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believe that climate change is principally caused by human activity
posted by Gyan 19 years ago
  • So, now we should pay attention to scientists? Seriously, either you believe science is a valid means of understanding the world around and predicting future events or you don't choose one side or the other. In any event, whether or not climate change is pricipally caused by human activity or simply aggravated by human activity is mostly irrelevant. Climate change is happeneing. Either we do something about it or we don't and suffer the consequences. I mean realy, what position can you take here? The data clearly shows the climate is changing now faster than it ever has in the history of the planet, we know the climate is a sensitively dependant equilibrium that tends to have relatively long periods of stable conditions punctuated by radical, catastrophic periods of disequilibrium, usually caused by a gradual change in the basic variables of the climate( i.e. temperature, gaseous makeup etc.) that eventually lead to the stable equilibrium becoming unstable. So, whether or not humans are primarily responsible, ideally there would be something we can do to help midigate the possible negative effects of radical climate change. Reducing the production of greenhouse gasses really is the first thing that comes to mind as it is precisely those variables that are changing at an unprecedented rate. I doubt the Oil administration or their crony apologists are going to advocate that. Facts are facts. The interpretation varies. Even if we aren't completely responsible, there is something very specific that we can do prevent the negative side effects. It's like people in california arguing against regulations to force contractors to build earthquake proof buildings because human beings aren't responsible for causing earthquakes. [/drunken rant]
  • Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet". D'oh!
  • It's a Pascal's wager. Either we are affecting the climate adversely or not. If we act to change our ways, and we are not affecting the climate - well, we make most smog filled cities a little nicer in the summer and lose nothing If we ARE responsible, and we don't change our ways, we fry the entire planet and end life as we know it. I'm not normally a betting person, but I know where I'm putting my money here.
  • furthermore, the history of science is a history of people who openly and effectively challenged the status quo. The idea that science is some "popularity contest" is ridiculous. Try telling that to einstein, or roentgoen, or Marie Curie, or Newton, or Copernicus. If you've got a good idea, and you've got good evidence, and you've got repeatable tests, people will pay attention. God damn, read some fscking Popper. Beleive me, if someone had the evidence to show that global warming wasn't happening, and it was incontrovertable and repeatable, they'd be a fucking superstar. [/i swear, I'll go to bed now.] on preview: hell even if it isn't our fault, we are suppossed to be rational beings, capable of altering our enviroment, and making descisions that are mutually beneficial despite outside circumstances. I mean hell, if we can send someone to the moon we can figure out what we have to do to try to stop naturally occuring global warming so that manhattan doesn't turn into venice. Really, whether it is human caused or naturally caused makes no difference in the approach to the problem and potential solutions.
  • So, whether or not humans are primarily responsible, ideally there would be something we can do to help midigate the possible negative effects of radical climate change. Ideally, sure. But we don't live in an ideal world. It's like people in california arguing against regulations to force contractors to build earthquake proof buildings because human beings aren't responsible for causing earthquakes. No, it isn't. If I understand the article, the variables that humans can affect might not matter much. In that case, "doing something about it" in the same sense that you're advocating will do little, except maybe make a few of us feel better. I'm not saying this is case, but if it is -- and science should be free to determine its truth -- then your "solution" will do next to nothing. If we act to change our ways, and we are not affecting the climate - well, we make most smog filled cities a little nicer in the summer and lose nothing Except for tons of money. Again, I'm not saying I disagree, but this isn't a black and white issue.
  • Tons of money, spent on either curing people for smog related diseases or clean burning energy sources. You choose.
  • Even if we aren't completely responsible, there is something very specific that we can do prevent the negative side effects. I doubt any group contends that the climate isn't changing. The divide is on origins. If global warming is not anthropogenic, then it's debatable whether we can sufficiently influence the parameters that are driving the change. In any case, the key point of this article is that the process of science is allegedly corrupt, and not the actual content matter. Of course, any realist, not bred in a cave, knows that. But this issue is global, controversial, and most importantly, a decisive input into the direction that govts and societies will adopt over the next century. Nature and Science are flagship journals, and for editorial control to exercise politics does not bode well. All this depends on the veracity of the allegations.
  • Look, there is a very simple chain of causation here. A) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. b) Humans produce massive amounts of C02, so much that the levels of C02 in the atmosphere have changed at a rate the planet has never previously experienced. Either something radically unprecendented in happeneing in our environment, or it is a result of human activity. c) The temperature of the earth, largly determined by greenhouse gases, has been changing, at a rate the planet has never before expereinced. so you are presented with a choice, either continue to produce greenhouse gasses that aggravate the situation, or, attempt to limit the production of greenhouse gasses, and then try to build carbon sinks that can remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. Like forests. Apply some of that "get to the moon" human ingenuity to the problem. Or throw our hands in the air, and say, well, we aren't responsible! Whatever happens happens! It's not our fautls therefore we can't try to stop it. Why damn the nile? On preview: Look you have a point, If nature and science are burying contrary perspectives then that is seriously problematic. Beyond that though, the idea that human beings can't really do anything about a potential global catastrophy stikes me as fatalism. The climate is changing, and rapidly. We are poking a giant with a stick, and who knows what is going to happen if we keep poking. Either we try to stabilize it ourselves, or we face the consequences. But as I said before, the history of science is a history of contrarians who have been vindicated by the truth and testability of their claims. That is the beauty of science. I wait for the contrarians to provide repeatable, verifiable, and incontrovertable data. When that happens, i'm suren the scientific comunity will have no choice but to accept it, much as the scientific community has so many times in the past.
  • Humans produce massive amounts of C02, so much that the levels of C02 in the atmosphere have changed at a rate the planet has never previously experienced. Either something radically unprecendented in happeneing in our environment, or it is a result of human activity. Cite? Paleoclimatology is as conducive to Popperian tests as Evolutionary Psychology. so you are presented with a choice, either continue to produce greenhouse gasses that aggravate the situation Again, you need to show that greenhouse gases are a significant driver of current climate change. If you stick, without rigorous evidence, to the notion that such and such changes are the ticket, then you'll have blocked, or atleast delayed, progress towards implementing real effective changes. the history of science is a history of contrarians who have been vindicated by the truth and testability of their claims. That is the beauty of science. [A --> B] does not imply [B --> A]. History of science may be riddled with Kuhn's paradigm shifts, but that doesn't prove all valid contrarians initiated paradigm shifts.
  • the idea that human beings can't really do anything about a potential global catastrophy stikes me as fatalism. Not if we can't really do much about it. Then it's just realism. Freen, it sounds like you've already decided that humans are to blame for climate change. From what I've read elsewhere, this view is relatively uncontroversial within the scientific community. But the linked article is casting doubt on the integrity of that community. Either way, of course we have a problem, but let's figure out why we have that problem and how to solve it. None of this can happen if the cause of the problem has been misrepresented.
  • I don't see where anyone is saying that global warming isn't happening or that human activities aren't a contributing factor. What I do see is a number of different scientists positing that perhaps human activity isn't the primary or driving force behind global warming. It has been suggested that cycles of global warming and cooling have taken place on this planet for millenia. Science is not infallible. There's a huge difference between cause and coincidence that can require more than a cursory postulation. Occam's Razor may be a useful tool, but it's difficult to determine what the razor's edge may or may not be when we don't have enough of the essential data/resources to review, process or use for control groups and comparisons. Or, even more dangerously, when we become so wedded to an idea or theory that the desired result takes precendent over the integrity of the process. Additionally, even when the soundest of science is presented, it doesn't always receive the warmest welcome. A quick run through of astronomy by way of Aristotelian divisions of heaven and earth, celestial spheres, (yes) Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe, the Roman Catholic church and socio-political implications demonstrates that. It's a big, fat complicated mess and mystery, because that's what humans do best. Complicate things. However, with or without the presence of human activity on the planet, its lifespan is still finite and while that doesn't justify our actions, in my mind at least, it does add a different spin to the topic in a larger sense.
  • Science has also refused to publish my paper on how the moon landing was faked. Sorry. I mean, the premise here is that after several peer-reviewed papers went through backing one thesis, with the data sets openly availible, a couple of contrarians are crying bias because peer review rejected them like Iverson driving on Wallace? Maybe, instead of pervasive bias, maybe their methodologies were suspect. Or maybe their ranting and raving made Science uninterested in giving their claims credence. I mean, just to apply that Occam's razor and all... Shit gets bounced from Science and Nature all the fucking time. That's why they're prestigious. I'm not saying that they're right in blocking these schmoes, but I'd like to see more than some prof from University of Alabama backing them up by whining about the pro-global warming bias.
  • Maybe, instead of pervasive bias, maybe their methodologies were suspect. That isn't what the article says. He was asked to edit the article. Then he was told his conclusions were readily available on the Internet. Which he claims is false. Nothing to do with methodology. Hence the raised eyebrows.
  • This is just a fluff piece. It's a bit difficult to argue over causation or remedy from a commentary and with members having differing reading experiences before today. I'm mostly with Gyan here. The significant issue is the editorial control mechanisms of a leading journal and the effects of (and on) politics (and so, money allocation/law changes) in those decisions. Yes, it's good to clean up smog, but it's fallacious to do so under the possible misapprehension that you're trying to curb global warming. Maybe the ends justify the means. But it's not quite intellectually fair if in fact there is valid opposition viewpoints on the aetiology of the problem. on preview...yes js I agree. But that Telegraph piece is not only skewed for sensationalizing purposes, it's lacking in both facts and definitive reasoning for the rejection. One side says 'editing' and the other says 'various reasons'. We don't have the correspondence (nor the orginal article of course) upon which to really argue.
  • Check out Tim Lambert's view on this survey and the reporting of it.
  • [thanks dj]
  • Yes, there is a lot of money at stake. That's why this is a controversial issue. Still, the consequences that the doubters are wrong are so insanely bad that we can't afford to listen to them right now. If we do nothing, and it's our fault, we will DIE DIE DIE. If we act, and we aren't the cause, then we should have no great effect. Right now, as far as I know, either could be the situation? But do we even dare take the chance? Do we play Russian Roulette with our planet, the only one we have right now? Spend lots of money for no reason, or DIE DIE DIE? As to the charges that the journals are censoring, I think I will wait for more information to come out.
  • That survey is crap. What a bizzare way to circulate it. You couldn't trust it to say with any certainty that day follows night. I'm not sure any amount of editing would have helped (I'm assuming that the survey was filled in anonymously).
    "Due to the fact that the mailing list is more extensive than the discipline of climate science, a true random sampling technique was not employed.Rather, subjects were selected first according to institutional and disciplinary affiliations, all of which were related to the climate sciences. Nonetheless, the mailing list was adequate to provide the predetermined sample size of 500 North American scientists."
    I'd be more worried if it wasn't rejected by Science. Thanks for the link dj.
  • Nice catch, dj.
  • Dang. I'm a bit liquered up ands it is rather late, but. Ahem. There is a very good book out there right now called 'Coal, a human history.' by Barbara Freese, a former Assistant Attorney General of Minnesota. She looked in depth into the effects of human industry on our little green planet and the future is not too bright. In short; coal came about from a couple of hundred million years of solar income. Uh, photosynthysis. Giant, bizarre, swampy forrests sucking up solar power, storing it, growing big, dying, turning into black sludge, compressing into fossel fuels and waiting for some hairless apes to figure out that it burns good. A couple of hundred million years of solar energy is being released over a VERY short time and nobody wants to turn off the television or the lights. The U.S.A. burns more coal for electricity than any other country in the world. The Kyoto Accord will never pass for that reason. Coal is still king and will change our world in ways that will kick all of our asses. Oh, by the way, China has the second largest coal deposits in the world after the U.S.A. Write them a very concerned letter.
  • Thanks, dj. This is one reason why I love MoFi. Alarm, confusion, commentary, rebuttal, understanding. Cheers to all.
  • Smo: If I understand the article, the variables that humans can affect might not matter much. In that case, "doing something about it" in the same sense that you're advocating will do little, except maybe make a few of us feel better. Well, there would be other benefits to commitment to emissions reduction and energy efficiency. Even if such things are too little / too late to mitigate global warming, we'll be in a better position to face the consequences of it if our technologies are efficient and clean.
  • Pascal's wager is also why I make a strong effort to obey nine of the ten commandments (you should see my neighbor's wife).
  • DJ: I'll count mine as an assist, and yours as a dunk. (Have I mentioned that the Pistons are in the playoffs?)
  • Ah, but global warming may be saving the planet... Hey, there's Benny Peiser again!
  • Read's Lambert's link. Transfers Telegraph to tabloids column. Point about science and politics still stands.
  • D'oh. Reads
  • Damn, never post drunk. it's just a bad scene alltogether. Or hung over for that matter.....
  • Just the wording of this invalidates it: Fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believe that climate change is principally caused by human activity. "Climate change" is a euphemism specifically designed by political spin doctor Frank Luntz, "founder of the Virginia-based Luntz Research Companies [and] the author of "Straight Talk," a confidential memo—leaked to the media in 2003—that coached Bush administration officials and GOP supporters on marketing a wide range of policies."
    ...Luntz suggested new White House phrasing on subjects like global warming (though "the scientific debate is closing against us," he wrote, minds could be eased by making "the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue"). He also laid out specific language designed to soothe voters. Some of it, such as the phrase "Safer, cleaner, and healthier," soon showed up verbatim in speeches by GOP policymakers.
    So I guess you're part of the spin now too, Gyan.
  • This guy claims that human activity has been warming the Earth for almost 8,000 years, and that the world would be uncomfortably colder otherwise. Three cheers for (accidental) climate engineering!
  • The biggest problem with climatology is that results are often taken by different scientists in different ways, indicating a confirmation bias on all sides. It's clear that we humans are putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, but our output was dwarfed by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. And that wasn't even an especially large volcano, in the big picture of things. But climate and weather are also classic chaotic systems: a small change in initial conditions can bring about a large (and largely unpredictable) change in outcomes. Plausible scenarios exist for super-hot and ice-age outcomes, both based on current evidence. The problem here that nobody is entirely willing to admit is this: We don't have a control to compare with Earth. Because of this we can only guess what's going to happen, and even then only guess why and how much we're contributing to it. Now our guesses seem to indicate that the changes that are occurring are partly our fault. I think it's clear that even if we don't know exactly why and how, the Monte Carlo simulation seems to indicate that the cost of changing is lower than the cost of the negative outcome, presuming that we could change it at all.
  • Lagged2Death: I agree. Cleaner energy is a good idea. I'd like to see more nuclear power, for a start. So I guess you're part of the spin now too, Gyan. Does it really matter what we call it if we all know what we're talking about? I think "affirmative action" and "pro-life" are silly euphemisms, but I don't think that if I use those phrases I've suddenly bought into "spin." They're just widely accepted terms.
  • It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone's part of the spin, except the shill who designed the survey to get the results he was looking for. Once you have those results, the people who take them at face value (like gyan and the telegraph editors) aren't part of the machine- they're the victims. As Josh Marshall would say, they've been bamboozled.
  • I think shane has a very good point. "Climate change" on its own is a very misleading, deliberately ambiguous term: of course there are factors other than human in climate change, after all, the Earth's climate has been changing continuously since well before the humans and will continue changing it afterwards. And of course, some of the factors involved (Sun radiation, orbital mechanics) dwarf in the long term anything that man can do. In the long term mind you: we are speaking in terms of tens of thousands of years there. So, indeed, climate change, in its wider sense is not principally caused by human activity, but human activity, however, is changing climate in a much shorter time scale of decades, rather than tens of thousands of years, not leaving time for either ecosystems or human societies to adapt. BTW, chimaera would you care to share your sources with us? Because you make quite a few unsubstantiated assertions...(Mt. Pinatubo, the Monte Carlo simulation, etc.)
  • And smallish bear, I don't know about Gyan, but the Torygraph is certainly part of the spin if it doesn't do proper journalistic work and research its articles. Especially if the "information" it publishes just happens to coincide with their whole unapologetically conservative political slant.
  • I confess, especially now that Peiser's check has bounced.
  • "Climate change" on its own is a very misleading, deliberately ambiguous term... Yeah, it even has peaceful associations with "normal" climate change--the climate changes every season, after allt, from spring to summer to fall... I confess, especially now that Peiser's check has bounced. Great quip, Gyan! As far as being a part of the spin, I just mean that, whether you're duped or you're "in on it," if you give something press you you spread it and give it some credibility. Much has been said lately about the fact that journalists report what politicians say, politicians say anything they have a motive to say, then whatever the politician said is now a "statement," right or wrong, in the press, and must potentially be contradicted by someone else. And the whole cycle just makes people trust the news less and less, worsening a situation in which many people only believe what they want to believe in the first place. Every possible headline is out there, now just pick the one you like!
  • BTW, I've googled both Peiser and Bray and, guess what? Peiser is a social anthropologist. Bray is a sociologist. Is this the social scientists' revenge for the Sokal affair?
  • OK, Sokal would certainly have one or two things to say about Bray's paper (to read it, click on the "View as HTML" link): "a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue"? WTF?
  • And smallish bear, I don't know about Gyan, but the Torygraph is certainly part of the spin if it doesn't do proper journalistic work and research its articles. Especially if the "information" it publishes just happens to coincide with their whole unapologetically conservative political slant. I didn't know about their slant. I narrowed it down to a scheming editor with an agenda to ruin the environment, or a stupid journalist too lazy to check the facts, and then applied occam's razor. The paper's political slant changes that though. I don't know what's worse- stupid lazy journalists, or evil deceptive ones.