Centerfield

"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

That can be applied to all manner of political discourse. The run-up to the war in Iraq and the current Social Security debate are two that come to mind.

I don't mean to accuse posters on this board of being dishonest; I reserve the accusation for those in or close to government that have big megaphones.

Right. Like I said, Schneider's not wrong. The devil lies in that balance. Here's the thing: this attempted balancing act approach has a big potential drawback:

If a majority ends up distrustful and thinking you are full of crap, you probably spent too much time trying to be effective and not enough time doing honest explaining.

I'm a big supporter of the idea that a good "balance" favors an awful lot of honest explaining as a balance to a a few small compromisis for the sake of being effective at the expense of honesty and detail.

Bush's support of private accounts for SS leaves out the honest explaining that this alone won't solve the problem or bridge the impending gaps without also making other more painful changes. The greens support for enviro policies leaves out the honest explaining that their models are troublesome, the available data is scarce for comparision against a huge historical past, and that many of the scary things they threaten MIGHT happen might just as well NOT happen, and that even if things are changing, there's no guarantee all these changes will be only bad changes.

See the pattern...

But there is a difference between a politician or some other obvious partisan stretching the truth to make a point and a scientist doing that. We discount political statements in evaluating policy because we know there is an agenda. However, we assume that scientists are devoted to truth so we assume that what they are saying is valid; moreover, since science is so far beyond the kin of most lay people, we cannot (or at least I cannot) honestly evaluate the validity of such statements.

Interestingly, I read an article in The New York Review of Books a few months ago about science and the author (a scientist himself) acknowledged that scientists bring their own political biases to science. That statement has bothered me since I read it (and it was in the context of global warming and the author clearly believed it was a problem but was honest enough to concede that the issue is political).

On the other hand, Brian is right that Schneider's not wrong. If you actually believe that the science supports global warming but that the scientific method requires caveats and conditions that are likely to weaken the message for lay people (in the same way that calling evolution a "theory" discredits it in some minds), is it really dishonest to phrase things in a way that is more advocatory?

I think it's a tough question. During the Cold War, Dean Acheson told Harry Truman essentially that he had to be "truer than true" to get people to accept the Soviet threat. Was he right to do that?

Unfortunately, we often end up having to rely on the intellectual honesty of experts. People like Tully and others on this blog have some ability to critique this stuff, but the fact that a scientist may exaggerate (as Truman arguably did about the Soviets) doesn't mean the threat doesn't exist.

I agree with Brian that I would rather know the warts in an argument, but that often makes it too easy to dismiss it.

Like BK said, the right way to convince people of the seriousness of a problem is to go ahead with the simplified bullet points, BUT to assume responsibility for it. You must make the complicated version available to those interested in educating themselves, and you must also acknowledge weaknesses and unknowns and improbabilities. That, I think, is what Truman and Acheson did on the Soviet Union.

This is a serious PR problem for environmentalist groups today. Most people are environmentalists, but all too much that environmental groups say treat the public as uneducable, but the worst problem is that and we very rarely hear about the dubious points. That gives them serious trust problems with many of us young enough to have grown up in an only somewhat polluted world.

Environmentalists, that's why interest in global warming is low. HINT. I hope some of you take heed. If you want to be trusted enough for people to trust you with things like Kyoto, you have to acknowledge what you don't know, and what could be wrong.

I think high schools should teach a standard course that include basic practical statistics, risk, and how to evaluate advertising and media and interest-group claims skeptically using those ideas.

I think high schools should teach a standard course that include basic practical statistics, risk, and how to evaluate advertising and media and interest-group claims skeptically using those ideas.

Amen to that, Jon. I could not agree more. As a math textbook editor, I keep hoping that schools become aware of the need for developing critical literacy. It's an interdisciplinary idea that sits at the border of math, science, philosophy, and language. When I studied critical thinking in graduate school, I was always amazed at how positively students responded to the idea of studying from the point of view in which thinking was the specific domain as it applied to the content domains, instead of thinking in a mode where the content domain was central.

I also 2nd your notion that when your message needs to be simplified for a lay audience, there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. Simplifying is essential, but distorting can be VERY counterproductive. Provide the bullet points, and also provide access to additional information for those that can handle it, and make sure that additional layer of information is not incongruous with the first layer.

That's where I quarrel with the greens. I am a layman, but I'm not uneducated, so maybe I'm in some layer that's outside the realm of being a scientist, but also not in the layer of people not too uneducated to understand the data and the science pretty well. Maybe call this the layer of critically literate or scientifically literate. My personal experience is that many, many of the people in this layer have found that the greens' PR bullet points are too often out of alignment with the supporting data. My opinion is that the greens have a serious credibility gap among many of those in this layer. Not all, mind you, but many.

Speaking for myself, I don't think most of the people in this literate layer are prone to being dismissive. I think what they want is for the greens to place the information they have in the type of context that an honest scientist would put it, not in the type of context that an advocate is tempted to place it.

I also think environmentalists tend to dismiss any other consideration than "Mother Earth." Economics is an issue that you have to factor in. Most people want a cleaner environment, but not at the expense of their jobs. Their has to be some acknowledgement that there is a balancing involved. In a lot of cases, environmentalists either ignore the potential economic losses or gloss them over by saying we can make all these changes without hurting the economy.

There was a story several weeks ago in the NYT about a sort of nascent environmental movement that wanted to make environmentalism (as I read it) more of a political movement, ie, to make compromises and alliances. A lot of the old-line environmental groups oppose this because, I think, they see environmentalism as something that is above politics. That is a very self-defeating point of view IMO.

MWS,

I think you make some valid points, but from my perspective, many environmental groups have made drastic compromises to become more of a political movement. If you listen to the Sierra Club these days, they resemble organized labor in their support of the Democratic Party. It's likely that more Democratic politicians hold environmental views than GOP ones, but by picking sides, I think they squander much of their leverage.

One sizeable problem with the intersection of politics and science: when a scientist starts approaching an issue with a bias, it becomes extremely difficult - if not impossible - to formulate objective hypotheses and analyze data without allowing that bias to color the results.

Too many papers attribute various changes in local ecology to global warming without attempting to examine other possible sources of these variations. Furthermore, the existence of global warming itself has not yet been established conclusively - not even close. Several reputable groups of scientists have produced data indicating that the frequently touted claims of global warming are based on inaccurate data and poor analysis. However, although the papers published by these groups appear in reputable scientific journals, they do not get the publicity that the environmentalists enjoy.

Indeed, many have sought to discredit these researchers by pointing out that a "large consensus" of scientists disagrees with them. Science, however, cannot be run by consenus - this would be anathema to progress. The end product of such biased narrowmindedness is bad science and misinformation.

In order for a study to be valuable, it must retain its objectivity - would you want cigarette advocates controlling research on smoking and lung cancer? Or cocaine dealers in charge of a study examining the addictive effects of their drug? The idea would be ludicrous. So, too, is the concept of scientists making up "scary scenarios" to support their theories. Scientific theory should be based upon testable hypotheses and concrete data, not worst-case scenarios and supposition.

Interesting blog.

IME most environmentalists treat environmentalism as a religion without a god. Somewhat similar to Objectivists and socialists in that regard.

All of those groups tend to treat empiricism with the utmost disdain. When they do use data, they cherry pick it to suit their purposes.

As far as I am concerned, environmentalists (non-skeptical) have cried wolf for at least 20 years too long. To advance their agenda, everything is an imminent catastrophe. I'm certainly glad that someone like Lomborg has come along to prioritize things by seeking value for money.

I love to worry a problem. In the shower, driving to work or doing exercise, my mind is always working on the problem of the day. Since I make the climate change post about a week ago I have been worrying the problem of apparent lack of credibility the public (and the people on this blog) has assigned to climatology and the physical sciences. There seems to be a disconnect, and I simply cannot find the words to bridge the gap.

Bob, good for you. I think you wre on the right track iin your earlier comment about "circumstancial evidence." Circumstantial evidence can never show beyond doubt, but a preponderance of it can make alternative hypotheses seem pretty unlikely.

So, suppose I give you credit for honesty and more insight into the science than I can possibly have any time soon. (which seems likely!) I'd have a series of questions for you that I'd want answered honestly if I were to consider coming over to your way of thinking. I hope this helps. I'm not trying to be an interrogator, just trying to tell you what I'd want to hear from you if you wanted to try to bridge the communication gap:

Why do you lean towards the view that the climactic effects are more likely to be primarily negative rather than positive? Or is it a matter of insisting that the risk of negative outcomes is too great to adopt a wait-and-see attitude? If so, is this an evaluation based on data, data plus gut instinct, or a subjective one based on your philosophical views?

Why do you think that global warming is occuring as an undeniable and enduring trend, and dismiss as unlikely the notion that it could be transient? Or is it again just a matter of risk assessment?

Why do you find it very likely that this warming is occuring due to human agency, and find it very unlikely that it could be attributed to poorly understood natural and cyclical forces?

most important in terms of action, for you
What are the specific and verifiable effects of pollution upon both people and earth that concern you the most and seem like the most urgent? In other words, what do you say to someone who says humans are living longer and doing a decent job of keeping the air and water clean compared to the past, and that they don't see the sorts of terrible things that would make them feel we should do much more as soon as possible?

That's a lot of questions. This may take awhile. In fact it may take me all weekend to answer them.

Yeah, sorry about that. Most green skeptics I know are very unhappy with the green movement because it doesn't feel like genuine doubts are acknowledged, or they're at best acknowledged with a quick "yeah, but" that might as well be a dismissal...

Let's start with an easy one: "Why do you find it very likely that this warming is occuring due to human agency, and find it very unlikely that it could be attributed to poorly understood natural and cyclical forces? "

If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Then go down to "Section 4. Atmosphere" you will see some graphs and data on CO2.

One set is from the Mauna Loa observatory the other from Ice cores.

The Ice core data shows that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied between 180–210 µL/L during ice ages, increasing to 280–300 µL/L during warmer interglacial. This data spans 420,000 years and is very cyclical.

The Mauna Loa data ranges from 316 µL/L in 1959, to 376 µL/L in 2003. So we are already well outside the normal cyclical range of atmospheric CO2 levels. In fact the CO2 levels continue to increase at a fairly good clip. Other locations have started performing direct CO2 measurements and confirmed the trend of increasing concentrations.

Where is all the CO2 coming from and why does the level keep increasing? What activity is occurring today that has not been present for the greater part of the last 420,000 years? What agent or effect is actively producing large amounts of CO2 today but did not produce them in prehistoric times? If you had a CO2 meter and held it near the tail pipe of your car (while it was running) you would find one source.

The human body doesn't count as a net source of CO2 in this context. Our fuel comes from a source that absorbs CO2 out of the air. Which we then return to be reabsorbed, no net increase will occur.

That CO2 is a "green house" gas can be easily shown under laboratory condition. Simply take a sample and see what frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum (light) the sample is transparent to, which it is opaque to and which it absorbs. It transmits light but absorbs infrared (heat). So a body submerged in CO2 will cool more slowly since the infrared (heat) it is emitting does not exit it's immediate environment.

You know, I think I covered two questions with that last post. It also covers the question:
"Why do you think that global warming is occuring as an undeniable and enduring trend, and dismiss as unlikely the notion that it could be transient? Or is it again just a matter of risk assessment? "

What do you think of the satellite data from the Christy Lab in Huntsville, which has provided some intriguing evidence that global warming may not actually be taking place? Also, while CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas, industrial emissions also act as aerosols and disperse solar radiation, thereby producing a cooling effect in addition to the well characterized warming effect. Most global warming analyses that I have read have not accounted for this. Finally, what do you think of the fact that all the recent data comes from a different source type (surface CO2) and location than the older data (ice cores), using different methods?

DMS: I'm only one person, and I haven't even scratched the surface of bk's questions.

Check out this web site and the previous thread on this subject.
http://www-class.unl.edu/geol101i/15b_CO2.htm
http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/001794.html

"Why do you lean towards the view that the climactic effects are more likely to be primarily negative rather than positive? Or is it a matter of insisting that the risk of negative outcomes is too great to adopt a wait-and-see attitude? If so, is this an evaluation based on data, data plus gut instinct, or a subjective one based on your philosophical views? "

I guess the short answer is "yes". When you add energy to any system you will disrupt the system. When you are in your car and press the gas pedal, you are adding energy and the car accelerates, take your foot off and the car coasts, keep a constant pressure and it will keep a constant speed Your car is a very predicable system (its linear) a little pressure on the pedal means a little acceleration, a lot of pressure means a lot of acceleration..

Climate and weather are nonlinear dynamical systems. By increasing the CO2 levels you are increasing the amount of energy in the system. But that doesn't mean everything just gets a little hotter. Climate and weather are governed by Chaos theory and operate differently than what we are use to. I'm going to have to go from memory since I can't find this quote on the web. In “Chaos: Making A New Science, a nonfiction book by James Gleick.” he stated that chaotic systems tend to be very stable, but if you disrupt the system sufficiently it will suddenly seek a new stable state.

Using the car example: If you are driving down the road and your gas pedal was connected to a nonlinear system you could floor it or take you're foot off and there may be little or no noticeable effect. But If you floored it and held it there long enough the speed of the car would attempt to find a new stable state consistent with you new input. Once it achieves that new state (say 114 mph in a 55 zone) it would not readily (or ever) return to its original state once you removed your foot from the pedal. It may return to a lower energy state but it will never be exactly were you started or want to be. (Never buy a car with a nonlinear control system unless you are suicidal.)

Here is a whole page on chaos, loaded with links including the following quote: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=chaos%20theory

“The human heart also has a chaotic pattern. The time between beats does not remain constant; it depends on how much activity a person is doing, among other things. Under certain conditions, the heartbeat can speed up. Under different conditions, the heart beats erratically. It might even be called a chaotic heartbeat. The analysis of a heartbeat can help medical researchers find ways to put an abnormal heartbeat back into a steady state, instead of uncontrolled chaos.”

What we call "climate" and "weather" is really just moving energy around. Energy leaves the sun and impact the earth. Take a square piece of cardboard one meter on each side. When you hold the square, so that it directly is facing the sun, it receives the maximum amount of energy per square meter. Angle it a little and the same square meter of card board receives less energy. You just made a model of summer and winter. Climate is all about energy.

When energy reaches the earth it is not uniformly distributed the equator gets more than average and the poles get less. Climate, weather and ocean currents are how heat flows from the hot spots to the cold. The wind doesn't blow just so we can go sailing. It's moving energy. Clouds and ocean currents also move energy.

Next experiment: Go make some pasta (rice also works nice). When the water comes to a boil put in the pasta. After it gets all wiggly, reduce the heat so that you can watch its movement in the pot. You just made your own weather system. The bottom of the pot is the earth's surface the water is the atmosphere. Energy is being transported from the bottom of the pot to the surface by the water. Energy is escaping by evaporation, radiation and by conduction to the air (or you if you grab the pot). Watch the noodles boiling in the pot, although there is a pattern, you would need a super computer to predict the movement of any one noodle. This is a "chaotic system". By raising and lowering the burner setting you can watch it change states.

Whether the system is linear or nonlinear, adding energy to it is going to make that system more dynamic (translation: more violent). If you consider we are living inside a giant pot of hot pasta, would you like the control set to LOW, MEDIUM or to HIGH?

Remember from the CO2 data we have already past the prehistoric HIGH setting.

“most important in terms of action, for you
What are the specific and verifiable effects of pollution upon both people and earth that concern you the most and seem like the most urgent? In other words, what do you say to someone who says humans are living longer and doing a decent job of keeping the air and water clean compared to the past, and that they don't see the sorts of terrible things that would make them feel we should do much more as soon as possible? “

Well for starter I a physicist not a biochemist. My knowledge base on the effects of pollutants is anecdotal at best. Describing the mechanism of how pollutants affect cellular systems is well outside my area of expertise. I can comment but not with much authority.

I attribute the extended life and health of modern humans to several factors, assorted medical advances (antibiotics, vaccines....), mechanization of tasks and a constant supply of food. Freed from disease, famine and back breaking labor simple means its going to take longer for us to wear out.

I remember a nature show on lions. The commentator said “You will never see a lion run unless it involves a battle or catching prey. They only have so many runs in them and will only use them for important events” People like lions just wear out.

As for not seeing terrible things: My mother and two aunts on my dads side died of cancer. (no they didn't smoke and they were all about 60 years old) My home town is called a “cancer node” and has elevated cancer rates. During the first half of the 20th century it was heavenly mined for coal and iron. During the later half it had a host of heavy industry present (until the Japanese put them all out of business in the 70's). No remediation was every attempted. Most of my life the river would flow bright orange every spring as mine acid would be swept into it from the melting snow pack. This went on for almost 100 years until natural forces reclaimed the land. Finally the river is coming back. I attribute it more to the collapse of mining and industry in the area than any remediation efforts.

One of the cities near where I currently live near is experiencing the life my hometown did 50 to 100 years ago. Tire, paper and chemical factories line the river front and it is very prosperous. But how the people live there I can't imagine. Every time I drive threw I almost loose my lunch. The smell is horrific. Occasionally there will be huge fish kills, that will never be explained, but coincidentally are always down river from the industrial section of town.

Obviously I don't have scientific proof that this or that compound is danger. But I would put money on the fact that a lot of 60 year old mothers in that town are going to die in the later half of the 21 century. But some rather ugly personnel memories have obviously biased my views on the subject.