| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Difficult to Decide on the Evidence for Climate Change

Page history last edited by Malcolm 15 years, 1 month ago

NOT A PEEP FROM SCIENTISTS at the AAAS

 

Prometheus, 15 February 2009

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/not-a-peep-from-scientists-4962

 

Roger Pielke, Jr.

 

Last week Vicky Pope of the UK Met Service caused a bit of a stir by

calling for some restraint in the misrepresentation of climate science

in political debates. She wrote:

 

"Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just

as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that

climate change has stopped or is not happening. Both undermine the basic

facts that the implications of climate change are profound and will be

severe if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut drastically and swiftly

over the coming decades."

 

But to get a sense of how difficult reining in such claims will actually

be, consider the reaction of the scientific community to Al Gore's

invited speech at the American Association for the Advancement of

Science (AAAS) last week (a video can be found here).

 

In his speech Gore attributed a wide range of recent weather events to

human-caused climate change including floods in Iowa, Hurricane Ike, and

the Australian bush fires. Gore sought to sum up all of these weather

anecdotes by citing data from the CRED in Belgium showing that the total

number of disasters has increased in recent decades (at about minute

38:00 of the video), showing this graph for effect.

 

What does CRED say about its own dataset (emphasis added)? (here in PDF)

 

"... the linking of past trends in the EM-DAT figures and to climate

change needs to remain guarded."

 

Indeed, justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster

occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be

misleading. Climate change is probably an actor in this increase but not

the major one- even if it impact on the figures will likely become more

evident in the future. The task of identifying the possible impact of

the climate change on the EM-DAT figures is complicated by the existence

of several concomitant factors. For instance, one major contributor to

the increase in disasters occurrence over the last decades is the

constantly improving diffusion and accuracy of disaster related

information.

 

Furthermore, disaster occurrence and impacts do not only depend on

exposure to extreme natural phenomena but also depend on anthropogenic

factors such as government policy, population growth, urbanisation,

community-level resilience to natural disaster, etc. All of these

contribute to the degree of vulnerability people experience.

 

How did AAAS and the many scientists in attendance respond to being

blatantly misled with scientific untruths in a speech calling for

political action?

 

Why, by issuing a press release repeating the misrepresentation:

 

With charts and images, Gore described the immediate nature of the

threat . . . A 500-year flood that has wrecked Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Wildfires in Greece that nearly toppled a government, and wildfires this

month in Australia that have left scores of people dead and sparked a

new national debate about climate change.

 

And of all of those scientists in attendance, here is a list of those

who sought to set the record straight on blogs and in the media:

 

OK, I couldn't find any, but if you know of any such reactions, please

share in the comments. Pope's leadership on this topic is as admirable

as it is unique. But as the non-response to Al Gore's in-your-face

untruths shows, the misrepresentation of climate science for political

gain has many willing silent collaborators.

 

 

 

 

On 14/02/2009, redmeatliberal wrote:

 

Dear Malcolm,

 

Dr. Pope's article is another instance of the framing issue I've been talking about. In Pope's case, she's reporting on the extent of our knowledge of climate science, what we know, what we don't know, and she is correct. No one should state that the melting Arctic ice is definitely a result of global warming. Just as no one should state that recent bushfires in Australia are definitely related to global warming.

 

Dr. Pope points out how both sides exaggerate. She begins by discussing the Arctic ice melting. As you point out, she doesn't say that it is not due to global warming, only that available evidence doesn't support it. She also points out deep in the article how the global temperature peak of 1998 and ensuing several cooler years have been seized upon by skeptics, even though the events of those years are understood and do not undercut the probability of global warming.

 

It is not until the very end of her article that Dr. Pope finally states what climate scientists have been saying for years, i.e. that the scientific data for global warming are overwhelming and that the implications of not acting are profound and severe. This is where the framing problem kicks in.

 

Pope's article is technically correct, but non-technical readers will see first that a respected climate scientist states that (some) claims about global warming are overblown. Her succinct warning at the end of the article that we had better act soon is likely to fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes) by the time she has set up her readers with one more reason to hope that it isn't real, if those readers have read that far.

 

I would bet a lot of money that, if Dr. Pope started her article with something on the order of "global warming is a real and serious threat, and we must act soon, but that doesn't mean we should exaggerate or present information without evidence; that only hurts our cause," presenting her points in roughly that order, then her article would not now be under discussion in this group.

 

Dr. Pope's points are accurate. Few scientists would question them. But she is writing for a nontechnical audience. In such cases, how the information is presented may be more important than the information itself.

 

Best regards,

 

RML

 

 

--- In ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com, MalcolmCro@... wrote:

>

>

>

> This is a very important thread to follow as it concerns the interface

> between science and the public.

>

> Dr Vicky Pope wishes to restore a sense of scientific perspective to our

> understanding of climate change. This must be very welcome. I note she does not

> say a rapid collapse of the arctic icecap is impossible, just that there is

> little evidence for this.

>

> However the public is not only concerned with the most likely outcome but

> also with less likely outcomes which may be life threatening. The worst case is

> worthy of consideration.

>

> For example, I may feel a house with its own swimming pool is the height of

> luxury and most desirable. If I have toddlers I may balance that against the

> unlikely event of a toddler falling in and drowning. Unlikely risks have to

> be taken seriously.

>

> This is where the public has to say to the scientists

>

> "We hope for the best but help us to prepare for the worst"

>

> The particular "worst" I regard as almost inevitable, without the most

> drastic action, is the steadily reducing ph of the oceans causing uncharted

> destruction of many species and endangering 50% of the world's photosynthesis. Will

> Dr Pope say there is little evidence for that?

>

> Regards

>

>

> Malcolm

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated 13/02/2009 06:18:40 GMT Standard Time, jtr_iv@...

> writes:

>

> Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has

> decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping

> point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is

> little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in

> the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations

> in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few

> years. This diverts attention from the real, longer-term issues. For

> example, recent results from the Met Office do show that there is a

> detectable human impact in the long-term decline in sea ice over the

> past 30 years, and all the evidence points to a complete loss of

> summer sea ice much later this century.

>

>

>

>

>

> Malcolm Crocker

> 01865 351984

> Oxfordshire Climate X Change Volunteer www.climateX.org

> Join in and study climate change _http://u3aclimatestudy.pbwiki.com_

> (http://u3aclimatestudy.pbwiki.com/)

> Now contains over 850 articles on all aspects of Climate Change

>

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.