let's get pedantic: talking climate w/ a newspaper editor
Friday, 27 February 2009
Activist defended
Daily Herald
The Feb. 25 Herald editorial takes cheap shots at a courageous and thoughtful activist. It also makes a vague and passing allusion to "mere facts" and "evidence that the planet is, if anything, cooling." To make unsupported claims like this from a newspaper desk is irresponsible. In addition to the decades of mounting scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change, here's the latest this year.
A recent U. of Illinois, Chicago international poll of over 3,000 actively researching earth scientists and climatologists found that 97 percent hold that global warming is happening and that -- believe it or not, Utah County -- human activity is a significant factor. Herald editorialists are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
Even if you don't agree with Tim DeChristopher's actions, you can't dismiss the critical role of civil disobedience in our society. And generalizations like "disorder is not succeeded by freedom and justice, but by oppression" are unfounded and misguided. Whether it's making tea in Boston Harbor or quietly throwing an auction (an auction which itself had subverted due process), the value of direct action protests will always be judged by history.
George English Brooks, Ephraim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Tynen, Opinion Editor:
Over the past several months I've grown increasingly concerned by the carelessness and even hostility shown by Herald's editorial board toward any idea or event to which it can fix the label of "environmentalism." Today's Herald editorial touches on climate change, making vague and passing allusions to "mere facts" and "evidence that the planet is, if anything, cooling." To make unsupported claims like this from a newspaper desk is irresponsible. In addition to the decades of mounting scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change, here's the latest this year. A recent U of Illinois, Chicago international poll of over 3,000 actively researching earth scientists and climatologists found that 97% hold that global warming is happening and that human activity is a significant factor(Doran & Zimmerman). Herald editorialists are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. This isn't the first case of such reckless disregard for current and legitimate data on all things environmental either. Yesterday's piece on Utah's place in WCI also characterized overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change as "hype" and "a crazy fad," again, without citing any legitimate source. This dismissive attitude has been shown not only on issues of climate but on everything from air quailty to sustainable growth. Like me, many of your readers are forced to question the paper's negligence in publishing such irresponsible and unfounded material. Whether the solution is the replacement of the editorial board with a more responsible one, or just better informed, more balanced consideration of these issues from your journalists, something must be done. I'm interested to know what solution you propose.
Sincerely,
George English Brooks
Ephraim, UT
02/25/09 7:51 PM
Dear Mr. Brooks --Thank you for your comment to Jim Tynen. The global warming discourse is indeed warm, both nationally and internationally. One of the most thoughtful pieces I’ve read on the subject is a speech given by Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html. Aside from his career as a writer, Crichton, who died recently, was a scientist in his own right and very concerned about pollution. He raises some excellent points with regard to the basis for claims of man-made global warming. Also below are two links from Investor's Business Daily, which has been critical, along with the Wall Street Journal and other responsible publications, of the claims put forward with respect to climate change. Perhaps you will find time to look at these, but I particularly recommend Crichton’s speech for anyone who is interested in the issue.http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=287279412587175http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320285810930407Again, thanks for the feedback.Randy WrightExecutive EditorDaily Herald
Randy Wright,
Thank you for your prompt response and for the links. I’ve been a fan of Crichton’s science fiction writing since I first read his novel The Andromeda Strain when I was twelve. He is articulate and somewhat well positioned to speak broadly on some of these trends in scientific inquiry. And I’m familiar with and sympathetic toward many of his critiques of the limitations of scientific consensus. That said, I also believe that, M.D. or not, Michael Crichton is no more qualified to interpret climate science than Al Gore is. Like you, I am not a scientist. And I won’t attempt a point-by-point critique of these articles. More qualified people have already done this. One example can be found at NOAA’s paleoclimatology world data center: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
But I can say that Investor's Business Daily and, yes, even The Wall Street Journal, are poor, even irrelevant sources for this kind of scientific data. The reasons for this shouldn't have to be explained to a newspaper editor. Ignoring the overwhelming majority of current and peer-reviewed data to publish a minority report on solar cycles is simply not fair and responsible data collection. Neither is cherry picking figures from unnamed “volunteer groups”.
USU physicist and climatologist Robert Davies characterizes this problem well: “Millions are simply incapable of gauging the caliber of information they receive, rendering them defenseless against those who mislead.” It is the responsibility of any serious newspaper to use sources appropriate to the nature of a story or subject. Surely you don’t imagine that your readers are well served by editorials that are themselves derived from such unsubstantiated sources.
Of course it remains the paper’s choice what level of integrity it will uphold when reporting or opining on matters of climate and environment. But I will suggest a few places to begin when considering some of the more rigorous -and yes, accessible- data available in these areas.NASA: http://globalclimatechange.jpl.nasa.gov/
Science(journal):http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
You might also find today’s AP article on Antarctic glacier melt relevant to this discussion. It’s available both from Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/id/186434 and the SL Tribune's print edition.
Best,
George
Randy Wright
02/26/09 6:22 PM
Dear Mr. Brooks --
I hope you’re not only “familiar with Crichton's argument” but will actually read it if you haven’t already. He is actually far better trained and qualified to speak to the subject of consensus science than is Al Gore.You say you're not a scientist, yet you seem easily persuaded by the so-called scientific consensus. Rather than characterizing the Herald with adjectives, though, it would be more helpful if someone were to point out where the data we cited goes wrong. After all, this information also comes from “scientists.”One important point is that science is not (or shouldn’t be) a matter of counting votes. Unfortunately, human-caused global warming has become a virtual religion in which it’s politically incorrect to challenge the validity of certain sentiments, the modeling methods from which a lot of this springs, or even to mention certain facts such as the recent oceanbuoys that showed cooling. Respectfully, scientists are not a special intellectual class. They're only people with methodologies and conclusions, and it’s proper to challenge those conclusions when they don’t track ―especially in the case of folks like Al Gore who stand to make a great deal of money by pushing a catastrophe agenda.
There are plenty of people smarter than I who have taken the position that man-made global warming is over-hyped and that the influence of man on climate is at best minuscule, especially compared to, say, the effects of the sun. The solar science now seems to be coming to the fore in offering some of the best explanations yet for climate variability, such as it is.So I guess it might take two or three or five more years to find out conclusively (more or less) whether the reductive “planet” is warming or not. I suppose we can survive that long, especially since nobody seems to be able to answer the basic question “What temperature is the ‘right’ temperature, and how did we decide that?”
How would you yourself answer this? I would sincerely appreciate an answer because the two sides of this debate continue to pass in the night. It is the first question from which all further discussion must logically spring. Second, how much money government should invest to stop the presumed scourge? As Crichton points out, a huge government investment and imposition of costly rules on business based on little scientific certainty is probably unwarranted. There are better ways to spend the money to alleviate real suffering in the world.But I'm not letting you off the hook. How do you or Gore or anybody on your side answer the question: “What temperature is the ‘right’ temperature, and how did you decide that?” This has never to my knowledge been answered satisfactorily, and avoiding it shows intellectual cowardice. The question is absolutely fundamental to all debate -- and certainly to the formulation of rational public policy.
If it cannot be answered, then there’s no point in even having a debate about man-made climate factors ― or at least there would need to be a very, very strong reason why the question itself doesn’t matter. Cosmic forces are stupendously powerful and inexorable, and it seems to me that a lot of excitement has been stirred up based on minor nuances that can be more reasonably assigned to causes other than man. I do know, for example, that in the long run the earth will be drawn into the sun and evaporate. Talk about global warming!
Finally, a rhetorical tangle is introduced in the conjunction of pollution (aka carbon) and climate. This has now become the fulcrum of the entire debate. But questions of pollution and resource management can be taken up separately from the question of whether humans affect climate, it seems to me. Arguing pollution as precursor to warming tends to serve a political agenda -- which is likely why it's done so vigorously, and also why skeptics should demand a very high standard of proof. We can all agree that we’d like a clean Earth. In a cost-benefit analysis, however, it all comes down to whether “x” dollars to achieve “y” degree of cleanliness is warranted.
The global warming debate gets really murky when pollution is linked to climate. The degree of carbon “pollution” and its likely incremental effect ― and even the basic premise that carbon is a dangerous pollutant at all, or that it causes a greenhouse effect at all ― are proper subjects for close examination. The burden of proof is on the side that wants to effect change, not on the skeptics, it seems to me.These interlocking fallacies to support human-caused climate change creates prime territory for political maneuvering, I think. My own view is that heavy financial burdens should not be imposed on national and international economies until the science is much more certain that it is today. Crichton is right about this, I think. But the connection between pollution and supposed warming is exactly the slippery part of the debate. And where facts are slippery, greed and power are never far behind. So, again, I ask you the basic question of all so that the debate will be productive: “What temperature is the ‘right’ temperature, and how did we decide that?”
Regarding opinions published by the newspaper ― We are not a specialized magazine or scientific journal that can devote large amounts of space to a single subject day after day. All sides cannot be addressed in any 600-word editorial. We have our conclusions, others have theirs. The way we try to achieve balance is by offering space for other voices. I think you place too great a burden on virtually all newspapers ―and particularly small ones ― if you’re going to demand that we write virtual books so that we can claim to have fully fleshed out both sides of an argument. Daily opinions are not intended to be multi-sided academic papers. They are sound bites that tend to be reductive, even in the world’s most respectable opinion pages.
Randy Wright
Executive Editor
Daily Herald
Dear Randy Wright,
Yes, I did read the Crichton piece you sent. And I've read parts of his novel State of Fear, including his afterword and appendices, which essentially advance the same thesis as the piece you sent. Please understand that I'm being sincere, not cynical, when I say I appreciate you sending the link to his speech. I don’t lump Crichton with corporate shills like Phil Cooney, Myron Ebell and Joseph Bast. Neither do I question his motives. I think guys like Crichton and Gore, whether or not they’re the most appropriate people for shaping national policy, aren’t motivated by profit but are only speaking for what they believe is true and right. And let me repeat that I think Crichton does make some valid points. Voices like his can be important gadflies in public debate. But I still have to disagree on Crichton's authority in climate science or public policy. If, say, Harry Reid had called a sci-fi writer like Ursula LeGuin or Kurt Vonnegut (like Crichton, both with formal backgrounds in anthropology) to testify before congress on global warming, just as Oklahoma's Senator Inhofe called Crichton to do a few years ago, I think you might better appreciate the absurdity the situation.
So why shouldn’t I or any concerned citizen -scientist or no- be persuaded by scientific consensus? Or at least value the conclusions reached by scientific methodology over lay opinion reporting from business journals? You talk about the scientific process as if it were simply a matter of counting votes. Perhaps you don’t fully appreciate what is meant by “scientific consensus”. Scientific consensus isn’t a community of scientists coming together in grand councils to hammer out official positions as a body. It’s not a mere consensus of people, but of data itself. That is, based on all the available data reached by verifiable and repeatable observations, across multiple disciplines, certain overall conclusions emerge.
Did you read the Naomi Oreskes piece from the journal Science that I sent? It speaks to the nature of scientific consensus (more than 900 articles) from over a decade of scientific research in all applicable fields. If you’re concerned with her methodology being religious or sentimental you can review the details here:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Similar public misunderstanding exists on the difference between the popular and the scientific definitions of the word “theory”. Newton’s law of gravity has been falsified in certain measurements. And Einstein’s general theory of relativity, although more precise, is still considered a “theory” and not “proven” because our observations are still not perfect. All the same, the scientific method is by far the most rigorous -and even the most dully conservative- way we have for arriving at our understating of the observable world around us. If this process, even with its inherent limitations, is good enough to bring us extremely useful and accurate knowledge in genetics, rocket science, geology, etc. what makes it suddenly so suspect when it comes to climate?
That a minority of certain monitoring sites accurately show regional cooling in some areas only complements the greater picture of a dynamic and complex planet that, on the whole, is experiencing increased warming and regional chaos. Do you really believe that nuances like this, solar cycles and other such factors are lost on the scientific community? Not to pull rank but this is the conclusion of NASA, NOAA, NAS and every other current and peer reviewed source. What source to you cite to the contrary? For more on this, NASA’s Goddard Institute is a good place to start. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Your central question about “the right temperature” and how do we know, decide, etc? is a good one. To me it also seems a surprisingly simple one. (And I assume you’re not merely asking about a degrees Fahrenheit number.) I guess I would just answer: that same level of temperature that has maintained stability for life on earth (human and otherwise) since the beginning of the Holocene, for the last 10,000 or so years. Until now, climate has been relatively stable since then. Now that we recognize the changes we are effecting, is it unreasonable to try to mitigate our role in the extinction of entire biomes of other species? In bringing on long term worldwide droughts and dustbowls, expanding deserts, increasing wildfires?
This is why most of the arguments one sees about burdening global economies and impacting developing nations come off as so disingenuous to me. It is precisely the people who are least prepared to shield themselves from such changes that are most negatively and drastically affected. For example, about half of Asia’s water (think potable, agricultural, hydropower, etc.) originates from Himalayan snow pack, the stability of which is immediately threatened by global warming. And as sea levels rise, places like Bangladesh and Tuvalu, have far fewer resources with which to sustain themselves than does the U.S. or Holland. When local populations are destabilized we face mass migrations in addition to water and food security crises. I’m pretty sure you’ll consider this all alarmist “hype” but it’s the picture that most (sure, maybe not absolutely all, but overwhelmingly most) current data presents. One of the most recent iterations comes from a study headed by senior NOAA scientist Susan Solomon. Here’s an abstract from the National Academy of Sciences:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract.
And a fuller report from NOAA’s website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html
If you take the time to read these, as I’ve taken the time to read all that you have sent me, you’ll find that, as is consistent with sound scientific methodology, these studies all quite conservatively follow the lower limits and minimum impacts, and they still find previously held projections to be less severe than what we’re now seeing. You’ll also find the proposal that we wait and watch for more data to come in seems pretty imprudent to say the least. Sure the Yellowstone supervolcano could suddenly decimate life on our continent, a big meteor could destroy more than that, and eventually we’re all starfood. But to take these as reasons for ignoring our hand in global warming seems to me the most extreme nihilism.
At this point I can accept that we seem to be speaking different languages, which is fine. I think we agree on one important thing: that the data informing public policy must be rigorously reviewed and separated from sensationalism, special interests, and ulterior motives. And as the head editor of a daily paper, this is where I don’t think you aught to be let off the hook either. Returning to the matter of balance and responsibility, isn’t it reasonable to require more balanced and better informed reporting and editorializing? I don’t think anyone’s asking you to do long term in depth investigative journalism on these subjects. The publication of dissenting viewpoints is a fair start, and I genuinely appreciate your inclusion of mine in today’s edition. But, with all due respect, I still think you guys could do a lot better than this. I also appreciate the thought you’ve put into this discussion. I respect your personal optimism on this issue, and it would be foolish of me to hope you were not right. But it's more foolish, I believe, to wishfully imagine that the argument you present here, and so often in the Daily Herald, has any credible scientific basis or compelling rationale for informing public policy.
Best,
George
Activist defended
Daily Herald
The Feb. 25 Herald editorial takes cheap shots at a courageous and thoughtful activist. It also makes a vague and passing allusion to "mere facts" and "evidence that the planet is, if anything, cooling." To make unsupported claims like this from a newspaper desk is irresponsible. In addition to the decades of mounting scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change, here's the latest this year.
A recent U. of Illinois, Chicago international poll of over 3,000 actively researching earth scientists and climatologists found that 97 percent hold that global warming is happening and that -- believe it or not, Utah County -- human activity is a significant factor. Herald editorialists are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
Even if you don't agree with Tim DeChristopher's actions, you can't dismiss the critical role of civil disobedience in our society. And generalizations like "disorder is not succeeded by freedom and justice, but by oppression" are unfounded and misguided. Whether it's making tea in Boston Harbor or quietly throwing an auction (an auction which itself had subverted due process), the value of direct action protests will always be judged by history.
George English Brooks, Ephraim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Tynen, Opinion Editor:
Over the past several months I've grown increasingly concerned by the carelessness and even hostility shown by Herald's editorial board toward any idea or event to which it can fix the label of "environmentalism." Today's Herald editorial touches on climate change, making vague and passing allusions to "mere facts" and "evidence that the planet is, if anything, cooling." To make unsupported claims like this from a newspaper desk is irresponsible. In addition to the decades of mounting scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change, here's the latest this year. A recent U of Illinois, Chicago international poll of over 3,000 actively researching earth scientists and climatologists found that 97% hold that global warming is happening and that human activity is a significant factor(Doran & Zimmerman). Herald editorialists are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. This isn't the first case of such reckless disregard for current and legitimate data on all things environmental either. Yesterday's piece on Utah's place in WCI also characterized overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change as "hype" and "a crazy fad," again, without citing any legitimate source. This dismissive attitude has been shown not only on issues of climate but on everything from air quailty to sustainable growth. Like me, many of your readers are forced to question the paper's negligence in publishing such irresponsible and unfounded material. Whether the solution is the replacement of the editorial board with a more responsible one, or just better informed, more balanced consideration of these issues from your journalists, something must be done. I'm interested to know what solution you propose.
Sincerely,
George English Brooks
Ephraim, UT
02/25/09 7:51 PM
Dear Mr. Brooks --Thank you for your comment to Jim Tynen. The global warming discourse is indeed warm, both nationally and internationally. One of the most thoughtful pieces I’ve read on the subject is a speech given by Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html. Aside from his career as a writer, Crichton, who died recently, was a scientist in his own right and very concerned about pollution. He raises some excellent points with regard to the basis for claims of man-made global warming. Also below are two links from Investor's Business Daily, which has been critical, along with the Wall Street Journal and other responsible publications, of the claims put forward with respect to climate change. Perhaps you will find time to look at these, but I particularly recommend Crichton’s speech for anyone who is interested in the issue.http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=287279412587175http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320285810930407Again, thanks for the feedback.Randy WrightExecutive EditorDaily Herald
Randy Wright,
Thank you for your prompt response and for the links. I’ve been a fan of Crichton’s science fiction writing since I first read his novel The Andromeda Strain when I was twelve. He is articulate and somewhat well positioned to speak broadly on some of these trends in scientific inquiry. And I’m familiar with and sympathetic toward many of his critiques of the limitations of scientific consensus. That said, I also believe that, M.D. or not, Michael Crichton is no more qualified to interpret climate science than Al Gore is. Like you, I am not a scientist. And I won’t attempt a point-by-point critique of these articles. More qualified people have already done this. One example can be found at NOAA’s paleoclimatology world data center: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
But I can say that Investor's Business Daily and, yes, even The Wall Street Journal, are poor, even irrelevant sources for this kind of scientific data. The reasons for this shouldn't have to be explained to a newspaper editor. Ignoring the overwhelming majority of current and peer-reviewed data to publish a minority report on solar cycles is simply not fair and responsible data collection. Neither is cherry picking figures from unnamed “volunteer groups”.
USU physicist and climatologist Robert Davies characterizes this problem well: “Millions are simply incapable of gauging the caliber of information they receive, rendering them defenseless against those who mislead.” It is the responsibility of any serious newspaper to use sources appropriate to the nature of a story or subject. Surely you don’t imagine that your readers are well served by editorials that are themselves derived from such unsubstantiated sources.
Of course it remains the paper’s choice what level of integrity it will uphold when reporting or opining on matters of climate and environment. But I will suggest a few places to begin when considering some of the more rigorous -and yes, accessible- data available in these areas.NASA: http://globalclimatechange.jpl.nasa.gov/
Science(journal):http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
You might also find today’s AP article on Antarctic glacier melt relevant to this discussion. It’s available both from Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/id/186434 and the SL Tribune's print edition.
Best,
George
Randy Wright
02/26/09 6:22 PM
Dear Mr. Brooks --
I hope you’re not only “familiar with Crichton's argument” but will actually read it if you haven’t already. He is actually far better trained and qualified to speak to the subject of consensus science than is Al Gore.You say you're not a scientist, yet you seem easily persuaded by the so-called scientific consensus. Rather than characterizing the Herald with adjectives, though, it would be more helpful if someone were to point out where the data we cited goes wrong. After all, this information also comes from “scientists.”One important point is that science is not (or shouldn’t be) a matter of counting votes. Unfortunately, human-caused global warming has become a virtual religion in which it’s politically incorrect to challenge the validity of certain sentiments, the modeling methods from which a lot of this springs, or even to mention certain facts such as the recent oceanbuoys that showed cooling. Respectfully, scientists are not a special intellectual class. They're only people with methodologies and conclusions, and it’s proper to challenge those conclusions when they don’t track ―especially in the case of folks like Al Gore who stand to make a great deal of money by pushing a catastrophe agenda.
There are plenty of people smarter than I who have taken the position that man-made global warming is over-hyped and that the influence of man on climate is at best minuscule, especially compared to, say, the effects of the sun. The solar science now seems to be coming to the fore in offering some of the best explanations yet for climate variability, such as it is.So I guess it might take two or three or five more years to find out conclusively (more or less) whether the reductive “planet” is warming or not. I suppose we can survive that long, especially since nobody seems to be able to answer the basic question “What temperature is the ‘right’ temperature, and how did we decide that?”
How would you yourself answer this? I would sincerely appreciate an answer because the two sides of this debate continue to pass in the night. It is the first question from which all further discussion must logically spring. Second, how much money government should invest to stop the presumed scourge? As Crichton points out, a huge government investment and imposition of costly rules on business based on little scientific certainty is probably unwarranted. There are better ways to spend the money to alleviate real suffering in the world.But I'm not letting you off the hook. How do you or Gore or anybody on your side answer the question: “What temperature is the ‘right’ temperature, and how did you decide that?” This has never to my knowledge been answered satisfactorily, and avoiding it shows intellectual cowardice. The question is absolutely fundamental to all debate -- and certainly to the formulation of rational public policy.
If it cannot be answered, then there’s no point in even having a debate about man-made climate factors ― or at least there would need to be a very, very strong reason why the question itself doesn’t matter. Cosmic forces are stupendously powerful and inexorable, and it seems to me that a lot of excitement has been stirred up based on minor nuances that can be more reasonably assigned to causes other than man. I do know, for example, that in the long run the earth will be drawn into the sun and evaporate. Talk about global warming!
Finally, a rhetorical tangle is introduced in the conjunction of pollution (aka carbon) and climate. This has now become the fulcrum of the entire debate. But questions of pollution and resource management can be taken up separately from the question of whether humans affect climate, it seems to me. Arguing pollution as precursor to warming tends to serve a political agenda -- which is likely why it's done so vigorously, and also why skeptics should demand a very high standard of proof. We can all agree that we’d like a clean Earth. In a cost-benefit analysis, however, it all comes down to whether “x” dollars to achieve “y” degree of cleanliness is warranted.
The global warming debate gets really murky when pollution is linked to climate. The degree of carbon “pollution” and its likely incremental effect ― and even the basic premise that carbon is a dangerous pollutant at all, or that it causes a greenhouse effect at all ― are proper subjects for close examination. The burden of proof is on the side that wants to effect change, not on the skeptics, it seems to me.These interlocking fallacies to support human-caused climate change creates prime territory for political maneuvering, I think. My own view is that heavy financial burdens should not be imposed on national and international economies until the science is much more certain that it is today. Crichton is right about this, I think. But the connection between pollution and supposed warming is exactly the slippery part of the debate. And where facts are slippery, greed and power are never far behind. So, again, I ask you the basic question of all so that the debate will be productive: “What temperature is the ‘right’ temperature, and how did we decide that?”
Regarding opinions published by the newspaper ― We are not a specialized magazine or scientific journal that can devote large amounts of space to a single subject day after day. All sides cannot be addressed in any 600-word editorial. We have our conclusions, others have theirs. The way we try to achieve balance is by offering space for other voices. I think you place too great a burden on virtually all newspapers ―and particularly small ones ― if you’re going to demand that we write virtual books so that we can claim to have fully fleshed out both sides of an argument. Daily opinions are not intended to be multi-sided academic papers. They are sound bites that tend to be reductive, even in the world’s most respectable opinion pages.
Randy Wright
Executive Editor
Daily Herald
Dear Randy Wright,
Yes, I did read the Crichton piece you sent. And I've read parts of his novel State of Fear, including his afterword and appendices, which essentially advance the same thesis as the piece you sent. Please understand that I'm being sincere, not cynical, when I say I appreciate you sending the link to his speech. I don’t lump Crichton with corporate shills like Phil Cooney, Myron Ebell and Joseph Bast. Neither do I question his motives. I think guys like Crichton and Gore, whether or not they’re the most appropriate people for shaping national policy, aren’t motivated by profit but are only speaking for what they believe is true and right. And let me repeat that I think Crichton does make some valid points. Voices like his can be important gadflies in public debate. But I still have to disagree on Crichton's authority in climate science or public policy. If, say, Harry Reid had called a sci-fi writer like Ursula LeGuin or Kurt Vonnegut (like Crichton, both with formal backgrounds in anthropology) to testify before congress on global warming, just as Oklahoma's Senator Inhofe called Crichton to do a few years ago, I think you might better appreciate the absurdity the situation.
So why shouldn’t I or any concerned citizen -scientist or no- be persuaded by scientific consensus? Or at least value the conclusions reached by scientific methodology over lay opinion reporting from business journals? You talk about the scientific process as if it were simply a matter of counting votes. Perhaps you don’t fully appreciate what is meant by “scientific consensus”. Scientific consensus isn’t a community of scientists coming together in grand councils to hammer out official positions as a body. It’s not a mere consensus of people, but of data itself. That is, based on all the available data reached by verifiable and repeatable observations, across multiple disciplines, certain overall conclusions emerge.
Did you read the Naomi Oreskes piece from the journal Science that I sent? It speaks to the nature of scientific consensus (more than 900 articles) from over a decade of scientific research in all applicable fields. If you’re concerned with her methodology being religious or sentimental you can review the details here:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Similar public misunderstanding exists on the difference between the popular and the scientific definitions of the word “theory”. Newton’s law of gravity has been falsified in certain measurements. And Einstein’s general theory of relativity, although more precise, is still considered a “theory” and not “proven” because our observations are still not perfect. All the same, the scientific method is by far the most rigorous -and even the most dully conservative- way we have for arriving at our understating of the observable world around us. If this process, even with its inherent limitations, is good enough to bring us extremely useful and accurate knowledge in genetics, rocket science, geology, etc. what makes it suddenly so suspect when it comes to climate?
That a minority of certain monitoring sites accurately show regional cooling in some areas only complements the greater picture of a dynamic and complex planet that, on the whole, is experiencing increased warming and regional chaos. Do you really believe that nuances like this, solar cycles and other such factors are lost on the scientific community? Not to pull rank but this is the conclusion of NASA, NOAA, NAS and every other current and peer reviewed source. What source to you cite to the contrary? For more on this, NASA’s Goddard Institute is a good place to start. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Your central question about “the right temperature” and how do we know, decide, etc? is a good one. To me it also seems a surprisingly simple one. (And I assume you’re not merely asking about a degrees Fahrenheit number.) I guess I would just answer: that same level of temperature that has maintained stability for life on earth (human and otherwise) since the beginning of the Holocene, for the last 10,000 or so years. Until now, climate has been relatively stable since then. Now that we recognize the changes we are effecting, is it unreasonable to try to mitigate our role in the extinction of entire biomes of other species? In bringing on long term worldwide droughts and dustbowls, expanding deserts, increasing wildfires?
This is why most of the arguments one sees about burdening global economies and impacting developing nations come off as so disingenuous to me. It is precisely the people who are least prepared to shield themselves from such changes that are most negatively and drastically affected. For example, about half of Asia’s water (think potable, agricultural, hydropower, etc.) originates from Himalayan snow pack, the stability of which is immediately threatened by global warming. And as sea levels rise, places like Bangladesh and Tuvalu, have far fewer resources with which to sustain themselves than does the U.S. or Holland. When local populations are destabilized we face mass migrations in addition to water and food security crises. I’m pretty sure you’ll consider this all alarmist “hype” but it’s the picture that most (sure, maybe not absolutely all, but overwhelmingly most) current data presents. One of the most recent iterations comes from a study headed by senior NOAA scientist Susan Solomon. Here’s an abstract from the National Academy of Sciences:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract.
And a fuller report from NOAA’s website: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html
If you take the time to read these, as I’ve taken the time to read all that you have sent me, you’ll find that, as is consistent with sound scientific methodology, these studies all quite conservatively follow the lower limits and minimum impacts, and they still find previously held projections to be less severe than what we’re now seeing. You’ll also find the proposal that we wait and watch for more data to come in seems pretty imprudent to say the least. Sure the Yellowstone supervolcano could suddenly decimate life on our continent, a big meteor could destroy more than that, and eventually we’re all starfood. But to take these as reasons for ignoring our hand in global warming seems to me the most extreme nihilism.
At this point I can accept that we seem to be speaking different languages, which is fine. I think we agree on one important thing: that the data informing public policy must be rigorously reviewed and separated from sensationalism, special interests, and ulterior motives. And as the head editor of a daily paper, this is where I don’t think you aught to be let off the hook either. Returning to the matter of balance and responsibility, isn’t it reasonable to require more balanced and better informed reporting and editorializing? I don’t think anyone’s asking you to do long term in depth investigative journalism on these subjects. The publication of dissenting viewpoints is a fair start, and I genuinely appreciate your inclusion of mine in today’s edition. But, with all due respect, I still think you guys could do a lot better than this. I also appreciate the thought you’ve put into this discussion. I respect your personal optimism on this issue, and it would be foolish of me to hope you were not right. But it's more foolish, I believe, to wishfully imagine that the argument you present here, and so often in the Daily Herald, has any credible scientific basis or compelling rationale for informing public policy.
Best,
George
posted by english at 9:35 AM
