I’m still working on revising “down the river with Edward Abbey, part three,” but that’ll have to wait for the moment while I talk about something timely.
I’ve got a friend and colleague who loves to needle me with the latest broadsides from the climate denier camp, and as expected I got an gloating email from him about the current “ClimateGate” controversy, an email that begins with “I knew you would be proved wrong.” Indeed, whole segments of the blogosphere are abuzz with breathless pronouncements of ClimateGate as “the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming.'”
I don’t intend here to sort through the details of what the stolen emails contain and what significance the skeptics attach to these various “smoking guns,” but there is, of course, an unambiguous response from the climate science community, which can be seen here, here, and here. It’s quite clear to me that the anti-AGW political noise machine (and echo chamber) is conveniently ignoring a whole universe of context when it cherry-picks and presents tidbits from these emails, and I both recognize and deplore this practice as intellectually dishonest in the extreme (leaving aside the ethics of illegally hacking into and publicizing emails intended for private consumption.) At the same time, I also don’t want to ignore or minimize any potentially unethical behavior on the part of the scientists involved or the climate science community in general; bad behavior on the part of the accusers does not grant blanket absolution on the part of the accused. There are, perhaps, important lessons to be learned. In particular, I agree with the thoughtful and measured critiques of this affair offered by Peter Kelemen at Columbia (a must-read) and, closer to home, Judith Curry at Georgia Tech.
I’m more interested in thinking about the divergent reactions we have to this kind of story. My colleague received this news as “proof” of his oft-stated contention that global warming is some sort of hoax; it fit his preconceived narrative of an eggheaded leftist conspiracy, and that was that. He would no doubt describe the climate science responses that I linked to above as little more than self-serving cover-up. I seriously doubt he will look at them objectively but will instead gravitate toward further commentary that merely reinforces his preconceived beliefs. To be fair, however, I don’t often read the links he sends me any more, either, at least not carefully. Perhaps I am the one trying to protect a preconceived narrative?
The fact is that neither of us are climate scientists, and neither of us are really qualified to sort through the various claims and counter claims and make sense of where the objective truth might lie. We can bury each other with convincing cut-and-paste links until the cows come home, but it would be awfully hard for us to sort out which ones are credible and which ones are rhetorically impressive but basically bogus. Nor do we really have the time. So what is the average lay-person to do? Confronted by the bewildering and contradictory flood of information and misinformation about the issue, is it acceptable to throw your hands in the air and just ignore the issue? Many do. Cling to a preconceived narrative because it suits your ideological leanings? Many do that, too. But are either of these positions responsible, given the stakes? After all, we stand to lose (depending on how the issue is framed) a healthy planet and/or our cherished freedoms and capitalistic system.
My colleague and I cannot both be right. AGW cannot simultaneously be both a serious threat and complete hooey. So if we are to honestly debate the subject, we have to first admit two salient facts: 1) we don’t really know enough personally about the science to know the truth for sure and 2) one (or both) of us will turn out to be wrong. Assuming both of us have the intellectual integrity to modify or abandon our positions based upon credible conflicting data, I think it a fair (and productive) question to ask:
“What would make you change your mind?“
I mean that in all earnest seriousness. If the answer to that question is “nothing,” then you are a mere ideologue. But if you have intellectual integrity, then you should be able to answer the question honestly, no matter how strong your opinions on the matter might be. So I throw this question out to believers and skeptics and bystanders alike: what would it take? What is your personal barometer in this matter?
So I’ll give you my answer: revised position statements on the part of reputable, venerable scientific organizations. If, for instance, the American Association for the Advancement of Science were to retract or amend this statement, I’d take immediate notice. I’ve never put too much stock in the opinions of politicians or syndicated talk radio hosts or Sierra Club leaders, and I also don’t know enough to evaluate the claims of individual scientists (and if the ClimateGate emails reveal anything it is that scientists are human, too). Nonetheless, if I cannot have complete faith in individual scientists, I have much more faith in how science works as a whole. The institutions that evaluate and maintain the standards of science are about as good as it gets, then.
My personal wake-up-call to the issue of climate change came when I read “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” in the journal Science. To see that astonishing degree of consensus in the peer reviewed literature knocked me off the fence like an aluminum baseball bat. Now I know that some will claim that some sort of politically motivated “climate oligarchy” controls the peer review process and stifles dissent with an iron fist and that these emails are proof of this grand conspiracy. Maybe so. But the timeworn principle of Occam’s Razor would say it is far more likely that a) this degree of consensus has developed in light of unambiguous data and observation than b) a professional climate science community comprised of thousands of individuals representing institutions all over the world is conspiratorially mounting some unprecedented hoax.
Nonetheless, if these emails do expose some sort of grand conspiracy, the skeptics are absolutely right that the whole global warming “house of cards” will collapse now that the secret is out. Such a collapse won’t be evidenced by increased screaming in the blogosphere or lots of I-told-you-so “expert” commentary on Fox news. Collapse will look like organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science being forced to take new positions or lose their credibility. And I’ll adjust my opinions accordingly if they do. But if the American Association for the Advancement of Science (and these other organizations) stands firmly behind the consensus view even given this increased scrutiny, then this whole ClimateGate affair will not change my opinion but do just the opposite.
Frankly, I’d love to be able to honestly change my mind. What a relief that would be. Unlike the friend and colleague I mentioned at the top of this post, I really don’t care to be right on this one.
So. What would change your mind?
Still in denial but with a faint hope of eventual acceptance. Sadly acceptance will be delayed just long enough for the next environmental “crisis” to take its place, like a baton relay of impending doom for the Earth.
Salvador, glad to have you back, though I’m confused as to whom you refer to in your comment–you, or me? I admit to leaving the door open for reason and spelled out a logical set of conditions which would compel me to modify my position. Can you do the same? You haven’t answered my basic question.
Anyway, I’m amused by your implication that AGW is just the latest in a series of boy-who-cried-wolf false crises. In response, I offer part of a comment I left on another blog:
“Many people reflexively dismiss AGW because of what they perceive as just more BWCW “alarmism.” When I was in high school, it was the ozone hole that was going to eat up the planet. Didn’t happen. Exactly one decade ago, hysteria about Y2K was at a fever pitch. Nothing happened. So now Chicken Little tells us the sky is warming, and we feel absolutely justified in ignoring her.
“The irony is this . . . Were it not for the farsighted reaction of the Reagan administration and our part in supporting the Montreal Protocol, the dire ozone depletion predictions might well be reality now. And had it not been for our obsessing about and proactively fixing the Y2K software glitch, perhaps our infrastructure WOULD have collapsed. In looking at past “wolf” shouts that didn’t seem to pan out and deciding to dismiss them in the future, we have learned the exact opposite message than we should have if the boy actually has been seeing a wolf. All those villagers streaming out when the alarm has been raised have scared the wolves away from the village every time. Complacency and denial will allow them in.”
You ask: “What would make you change your mind?“
It would simply have to involve real OPEN science, Clark.
Real science puts forth a theory and then allows others to attempt to poke holes in it. Real science does not hide its data and conveniently “lose” the raw data on which the massaged data is based, and it does not mix different types of data in order to come up with good emotional graphs like the DISCREDITED hockey stick graph. Real science does not respond to criticism by equating skeptics to holocaust deniers, nor does it respond to negative peer reviews by working to get critics kicked off of publications. Real scientists do not conspire to illegally hide data from FOIA requests. Real science DARES people to poke holes in the theory. Perhaps most importantly, real science can make predictions that can subsequently be proven or disproven. The climate models did not predict the current lengthy cooling period, though now the spinning is that it was expected. Sure.
For examples of real science, and how real scientists respond to skepticism and dissent, see the debate between evolutionary biologists and the Intelligent Design people. The prediction and subsequent discovery of transitional fossils like archaeopteryx are a perfect example contrasting real science to the “science” of anthropogenic climate change.
Being the honest skeptic that I am, I have to accept that anthropogenic climate change is a possibility but its proponents have not produced anything that supports their claim. Furthermore, the idea that just in case they might be right we should make massive changes to industrial society is simply ridiculous. This is about money for scientists and the politics of controlling society.
Good point RW, GW is about politics not science.
Clark, i cannot answer your questions because the science is settled. The debate is over. Why would i waste my time arguing with the modern day version of the Flat Earth Society. It would be like asking me what would it take for me to stop believing in gravity, it’s a pointless academic exercise (unless we all fly off into space of course). Sure, you can find a bunch of crackpot GW denier denying websites but nobody takes those anti-anti GWarmers seriously. We have to move forward and take positive steps now to end this pseudo-crisis, after all we may only have 10 years….before the next sky-is-falling impending catastrophe is upon us, and people like you need a good night’s sleep once in a while.
Salvador, if you hadn’t come along to post on my blog, I’d have to invent you. You make a most wonderful straw man. Anyway, I’m touched that you tuned back in so quickly after my return. You’ve missed me, too, haven’t you?
Rob, I’ve enjoyed our back-and-forth on your blog, and I’ll respond to your post here soon enough. Probly have to wait until after the weekend, though.
Okay, Rob, you and I agree completely in terms of your basic thesis, that being able to trust “real science” is paramount and that transparency and scrutiny is key. You maintain that climate science today falls largely short in this regard, and I maintain the opposite.
And so I send the basic question back to you: what will change your mind in this regard? What will open science “look like”? How will you know that your standard has been met? What SPECIFICALLY are you looking for?
The thing is, for many of your charges we’ve heard answers. The National Academy of Sciences has soundly reviewed the “discredited” findings of the Mann “hockey stick” study and found its methodology, results, and conclusions to be sound:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
Your insistence that we are in some sort of “current lengthy cooling trend” is absolutely bogus (predicated by cherry-picking 1998 and 2008 as defining the trend), as is your dismissal of the “spin” explaining yearly variations in temperature (El Nino/La Nina cycles and solar irradiance cycles should be well known to the “natural variation” anti-AGW crowd).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
In fact, look at the sentence at the end of the 2008 summary:
“Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.”
What will you think if this climate model prediction is proven true in time?
As for the charge of conspiracy to avoid FOIA requests, we don’t know yet whether email grousing was serious or “joking gossip” as claimed (comb through my emails and you’ll find me joking with my assistant coaches that we should “take out” particular opposing players if we want a chance to win). Internal investigations are underway to determine whether FOIA was thwarted, but I agree with you that these charges are serious. Nonetheless, they involve only a few scientists in a robust field. And anyway, what will your position be if the internal investigations clear them of wrongdoing?
And finally, as for the charges that peer review is compromised and criticism is being squashed, I assume you are referring to the flap around the Soon and Baliunas paper in the journal Climate Research? The CRU scientists turn out to have been absolutely right in complaining about publication standards, as Climate Research later admitted:
Click to access CREditorial.pdf
Does “open” science mean that the major publications will carry a “balance” of views? Science is a meritocracy, not a democracy. Could it be that skeptical studies don’t make the scientific journals because they don’t pass scientific muster? Isn’t that more plausible than the idea of some grand conspiracy? I’ll grant you that confirmation bias might be problematic, but could it be strong enough to unnaturally create the degree of consensus in peer reviewed publications reported in the journal Science?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
I was specific when I said what would motivate me to reconsider my position. Your response looks more like a version of “begging the question.” So I ask again. What, specifically, would it take for you?
Oh, and Rob, I might also point out that “massive changes to industrial society” aren’t always a bad thing. This here internet thing being a good example.