Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Other articles by Tim Ball
Dispatch from the Stop Global Warming Tour (35 comments )
READ MORE: Tim Smith, Laurie David
The show at Texas A&M was reinforcement of why its so important to be talking about global warming in the south. When Sheryl asked the audience how many of them drove hybrid cars, I think maybe two people raised their hand. There is work to be done here. Back on the bus, Tim Smith the guitar player and the George Burns to Sheryl's on-stage Gracie Allen (I had no idea how funny Sheryl was) proposed we play the game he calls "guilty pleasures." Everyone had to go around and say well just that...one thing they still do but feel guilty about.
Some of this crew is hard core enviro so it was really interesting to hear what they listed. Tim's was taking long, hot baths and keeping the water running while he soaked. Man did the group jump on him for that!!! But I loved this game because it just goes to the point that no one can hit the gold bar of perfection. That expecting absolute flawlessness just gives people an excuse to give up and do nothing. As the saying goes, "perfect is the enemy of good." That it isn't about everyone doing everything but it's about everyone doing something. And if Tim starts to feel guilty enough maybe, just maybe, he will turn that faucet off sooner.
It's morning now and things are getting a little confusing. I feel asleep at midnight rolling down route 6:10 and when I woke up I couldn't figure out what time it was. I really had to go to the bathroom but if it was too early I didn't want to open the door and wake Sheryl up. Yikes how long can I hold out??? Wait, its 8 am and we are in Louisiana. Yea I'm going for that door!! I look out the window and see our filmmaker Danielle Lurie in the parking lot interviewing a passerby, in her global warming pajamas!! Danielle still hasn't come up with her guilty pleasure. She may be the one saint among us.
stopglobalwarming.msn.com
Discovery is now coming up with Global Warming: What you need to know with Tom Brokaw. Premiers July 16 at 9pm. Discovery Channel is known to be an authority in science. And it’s shows are well researched on with top scientist who are experts in their field of study. So their trailer seems to talk about the usual polar region, arctic circle ice melting thus increasing sea level. It would be interesting to see what direction they will be tackling. If they will talk about CO2 levels and the greenhouse effect similar to IPCC presentations, or will they also tackle sun cycles and sunspot count observations.
(Union of Concerned Scientists), I'll be appearing at a debate on Wednesday (March 14th) about whether Global Warming is a crisis (or not). That might have gone without notice (like most of my public talks), except that our opponents are Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott. The preliminary position statements (from me and from Philip Stott) are available on the ABCnews site. It's sold out, but the proceedings will be broadcast on NPR (for instance, WNYC 820 AM on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 2PM) and there will be a podcast (though I don't know if it will stream live). There's an online poll as well for what that's worth.
I'm quite looking forward to this, but I have to admit to conflicting thoughts. Does participating help perpetuate the idea that global warming per se is still up for debate? Is this kind of rhetorical jousting useful for clarifying issues of science that most people there will only superficially grasp? Can this be entertaining and educational? Or does it just validate the least serious opposition? Is it simply a waste of time that would be better spent blogging?
I'd be interested in any thoughts people might have.
19 blog reactions
225 Comments
If the format allows enough time to really delve into a handful of topics and allows you to combat misrepresentation it could be worthwhile.
If not it could quickly descend into the denialists resorting to confusing the public with complexity and leaving them with the idea that the science is still unsettled. Time to hone the rhetorical skills!
Comment by Roger Smith — 12 Mar 2007 @ 7:36 pm
One of the postdocs I work next to recently told me "Michael Moore has it right. If you can't make it entertaining you will never reach the general population". When it comes to disseminating the truth you need to set up a solid backbone for credibility and then grab their attention with entertainment. RC is a critical part of the backbone but it can not get everything done by itself. Al Gore has made this abundantly clear with his 'documentary'. Just be careful and don't let yourself become a target. RC is too important for you to be taking unnecessary risks.
The house is sold out. Have fun with this Gavin. I have no doubt you will slaughter them. BTW, since you are going to meet Crichton in person would you mind asking him if he still believes in spoon bending, auras, etc? His book Travels is quite a trip.
Comment by Wacki — 12 Mar 2007 @ 7:44 pm
I think the value will depend greatly on the moderator. If the format and questions are fair, then truth will prevail. At least in theory.
Best of luck! We'll be watching.
Comment by Todd Albert — 12 Mar 2007 @ 7:46 pm
It is worthwhile, because it accomplishes nothing positive to let them say their spiel unchallenged. The people who deny the reality of what is happening are still going to be out there, running their mouths. An appearance by someone who has undeniable credentials to discuss the issue will only help challenge the logjam that the denialists have in some people's heads.
Comment by Gary McClellan — 12 Mar 2007 @ 7:46 pm
"If the format allows enough time to really delve into a handful of topics and allows you to combat misrepresentation it could be worthwhile."
If the debate is going to be broadcasted I would make sure they tell the listeners that you (and your friends) will be doing a post-game analysis at RC. Time is your Achilles heel and if time is short Crichton will have the advantage. Making quick catchy soundbites is where Crichton excels and the vast majority of scientists fail miserably. Make sure you leave yourself an out.
Comment by Wacki — 12 Mar 2007 @ 7:51 pm
I have often been in that situation.. really two ways to approach the challenge aside from knowing the science of global warming down cold, one needs to know incredibly well the anti-global warming challenges and lots of quick soundbites to refute them. Second some really solid texts from major university presses that can be held up.. they make great props. Aside from that just keep reminding those on the other side of the debate that you would absolutely love for them to be right. That nothing would make you happier than to be proven wrong but unfortunately there is simply too much scientific consensus to do anything other that to face the challenge. Good luck!
Comment by Steven Leibo Ph.D. — 12 Mar 2007 @ 7:52 pm
For what it's worth, Gavin, I wouldn't touch this sort of event with a bargepole. By setting up a formal debate between two "sides", it presupposes an equivalence of merit - that one side or the other can "win" on the night. It also leaves the result at the mercy of the rhetorical skills of the debaters.
My own strategy is not to ignore the sceptics - their misinterpretations of the science need to be pointed out whenever they manage to get them into the public arena (which RealClimate is of course very good at) - but to deny them importance. They are simply not relevant any more. The world is moving on, both politically and economically. The sceptics have no useful role to play, because they have no useful advice to offer. The low-carbon ship has set sail, and they're left in port shouting at the wake.
I'll still listen to the podcast, though...
Comment by Gareth — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:00 pm
I think you and others could do more to change attitudes in the U.S. on global warming by joining forces in putting pressure on NOAA administrators and NWS supervisors to educate the 5,500 meteorologists in 120 National Weather Service offices so the NWS scientists can help other government people and other meteorologists who enter people's private living rooms better understand climate change.
Comment by pat neuman — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:03 pm
While I worry about this type of thing lending too much credence to those who deny the problem of global warming, it seems like the media insists on giving even the least credible voices airtime. As a result, I think we still have to take them seriously and do our best to show the public that AGW is a serious threat. I doubt you'll get to go into too much depth, but I'm sure you can score some good points.
Comment by Grant McSorley — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:03 pm
I am ready for "Climate Change--the Movie". This will *not* be a documentary, but a rather a work of imaginative fiction. In its depiction of this iq2.us debate, lots of computing power will be used by the special effects wizards to animate the sci-fi hybrids of red herrings and straw men Dr. Stott has marshalled to support his arguments. Think of Troy meets Lord of the Rings.
I am reminded of the admonition about not getting in an argument with a fool because onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. It may be a backward step to legitimize "the sceptics" by engaging with them. However, if you don't, their argument would be "what are they afraid of?" Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I hope this goes better than the Larry King mess. And collect that bottle of whisky from the good Dr. L, or ask him why he is reneging on his bet about ice cores...
Comment by David Graves — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:04 pm
I agree with the previous comment; you have to have a strategy to prevent this from becoming a publicity stunt for the skeptics.
Part of this strategy might be to stress two things over and over again: 1) Every one of the skeptics' points has been addressed--repeatedly--in forums like RealClimate.org and Grist's "How to Talk with a Climate Skeptic" website (http://gristmill.grist.org./skeptics), and (2) One cannot construct a coherent explanation out of the many different counter-arguments skeptics offer.
These two points are related to two other points about method. First, climate skeptics enter this debate as trial lawyers, trying to hold climate scientists to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof, the standard we use when someone has been charged with a crime. That isn't how we argue about policy choices. (Noting this also allows one to pose the question about the skeptics' client(s).) Second, there are real questions of value here, one of which has to do with the precautionary principle. Do we really want to hold private property as the supreme value, which is what one does when one holds that absolute certainty is required before one acts to protect the commons?
Go get 'em!
P.S. I'd bring up Crichton's "prescient" worries, in DISCLOSURE, about women sexually harassing men in the workplace (i.e. he's always been a contrarian; it's one of his core writing strategies).
P.P.S. If Lindzen's iris theory were correct, wouldn't it have compensated for past climate changes he acknowledges?
Comment by Michael Svoboda — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Hi Gavin
Make sure you have some large printoute of http://www.englishwineproducers.com/ (especially the page on Yorkshire) and http://www.wineries-and-vineyards.com/alaska-winery-guide.html to show to Philip Stott. You could ask him why he didn't mention them during the C4 programme!
Dave
Comment by Dave Rado — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:25 pm
1. renewable energy sources and sustainable practices and technologies will STABILIZE societies and ALLEVIATE chronic poverty by giving people more control over their economies and their lives.
2. i agree: large-scale risks such as nuclear proliferation, water supply, fuel supply, diseases, and poverty should be taken seriously, not dismissed as paranoia. climate change is such a risk and it is accelerating at a pace we don't fully understand. why is it being treated less seriously than the other worldwide problems, when it is arguably the easiest to solve? there are simple, minor changes that can be applied quickly to lower the risk.
3. the risk to life could be extreme if no action is taken. our finances, if we do curb emissions aggressively, would suffer no similar risk. in fact efficiency improvements could easily yield long-term benefits as great as those of the transistor. there's really no reason not to do this! except politics.
4. in regard to historical comparisons, every situation can be said to resemble other situations in the past. that doesn't make them the same, anymore than apples and oranges are the same because they're both fruit. but having found a large growth on your skin, new and unusual, the wise person does not assume the growth is safe. the wise person has the growth scanned for cancer.
5. similarly a wise person who is dizzy and is covered with spots does not assume the spots are freckles. it's common sense to be cautious, and it is common sense to listen to the doctor when the doctor has diagnosed a serious illness. climate change has thousands of second opinions available for reading on the internet.
6. as one part of our risk abatement effort, reducing fossil fuel consumption would get us many other health and safety improvements. dangers from particulates, dangers from poisons in food and water, dangers from fuel shortages, dangers from war, all of these would ease as we shifted away from this hydrocarbon economy. oil supply is not infinite; this is a change we will make one way or the other, for the good; and research and common sense both say we need to make it quickly.
Comment by hibiscus — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:35 pm
Will there be a transcript available too?
Either way, I'm looking forward to it.
Comment by Pat — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:39 pm
If I were you, I'd highlight the point that the evidence we have now warrants immediate mitigation and adaptation actions. For them to drag you into a drawn out debate on the science would simply confuse the listeners and validate your opponents' mistaken conclusions.
Keep stressing that your opponents are vastly outnumbered by the rest of the field, and science generally goes with the consensus, especially on matter as important as global warming. Also, stress the Stern reports findings that we can either pay 1% of global GDP now as an insurance policy or risk a 20% shrinking of the global economy as a result of our inaction.
Comment by George Ortega — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:40 pm
My take and rant. It is not a debate. It is a discussion of fact, prudence, reason, and a chance for clarity to action rather than fear. An option for world leadership and economic flowering of new industries.
RISK ANALYSIS
A risk analysis sums up that unless one can prove added CO2 poses no risk, which is of course impossible, that we should move at God speed to move to the alternatives of proven renewable energy technology.
FACTS ARE A CALL ACTION
Since the facts and prudent reason favor action now, hope you can impress the person on the street with the same. Phillip Stott and his thinking seems weak, so I don't really know what he will have to say... The thinking of the past has no place in the analysis of this current evidence.
As I have seen and read, Somerville has a nice way of making analogies of commonplace events, such as the ocean as a flywheel of heat energy, and the planet has a fever suggesting the necessity of taking a fever seriously diagnosed by a doctor... This will be of great help, I am sure. Facility with the science is also a great asset in dealing with Lindzen, and one could even agree with Lindzen on the aspects of uncertainty - of opposing cloud processes-- and still fully justify immediate actions.
Perhaps the argument goes like this: aspects of prudent and reasonable action should be founded on simple facts of total agreement that even a Pat Michaels is forced to admit.
- CO2 concentration is rising (due to human activities)
- CO2 retains solar energy
- the temperature is rising
- these points are admitted as scientific fact
Simple irrefutable points...
There are highly likely (almost virtually certain) manifested thermodynamic processes seen in a scientific consensus that leads one to see a sequence of events, of eventual grave consequence, that will result in adverse conditions for humanity.
Then the opposing argument is that there are uncertain cloud processes... Admittedly. And of course, this is exactly true. Emergent properties of cloud formation could very well work in opposition to rising surface temps, and could even mask the true degree of influence CO2 is having.
LINDZEN IDEAS SUPPORT ACTION
Thus, when Lindzen suggests that this is uncertain, yes, yes, yes, it is... Moreover, yes, even if the realized temperature forcings are just a few degrees, what are the eventual risks to the food chain and ecologies of that support human - Lindzen is not qualified, nor are any of the folks present qualified to render an opinion.
UNCERTAINTY IS A CALL TO ACTION
Encapsulated in this uncertainty is an even greater call to action of reason and prudence - reasoned action based on fact which meets a moral responsibility for decency.
ANALOGIES
Playing with a loaded gun, and for what benefit. If twenty aircraft mechanics tell you a plane is likely to crash, and just one, says the plane is fine, it;s time to pause before committing to that flight. That is what we need to do/alter course/think this through to a better end.
Moreover, at this juncture, proof is needed that added CO2 will have no adverse effects since it is the more than likely outcome. The burden is on business as usual to make a case, and it cannot prove safety of CO2 release.
The discussion can be nailed and framed on the notion that we are faced with such before unknown HUGE risks to human life, and there alternative technical solutions we can implement right now that work on many levels. Non action--seems - simply- foolish--unwise-irresponsible-foolish-crazy as seen by an unbiased fresh look at the facts.
Good luck.
Comment by Jim Redden — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:44 pm
I think one thing that would help is - if it is at all possible to do so in 'plain English' - give a qualitative description of how and why circulation patterns and other dynamics might be expected to change - the Hadley cells, the monsoons, and Walker Circulation, the transient eddies (size, frequency, distribution and motion, seasonality, etc.), the mesoscale and it's offspring (hail, gust fronts, etc.), the planetary waves, Brewer-Dobson, - and also, how the behaviors of ENSO, PDO, NAO, etc., may change, and then, what these effects would mean (temperature and precipitation of course, but humidity, cloud cover, and wind would also be interesting).
Comment by Pat — 12 Mar 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Go for it. At least they got someone on the "GW is real side" who knows the science very well AND has much experience in refuting all the contrarian talking points. You could probably do it blind-folded with one arm behind your back.
We all have to confront these sowers of doubt and scientific "creative accounting" and out&out dishonesty every possible chance we get.
I have my arguments, that don't depend on a high level of climate sci knowledge, but it's even better when one has that knowledge and a good scientific reputation.
Comment by Lynn Vincentnathan — 12 Mar 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Fantastic Gavin! And as a bonus, although I'd love to see this as well, Charlie Rose is considering you to debate Crichton one on one, but with this already out there it may be a two-fer. Crichton agreed to it though with an unamed scientist of Rose's chosing.
Comment by Mark A. York — 12 Mar 2007 @ 9:17 pm
i think it is hugely important to continue this discussion because the doubter population is very large and among our friends and neighbors. i agree that it not be framed as debate because that fuels an unnecessary fire.
there is a change cycle in behavioral science where at one end of the scale are those convinced and actively involved in advocating for change and at the other end, those who have made up their minds and will not budge. then there are those who haven't made up their minds, and a group of doubters - these folks can often be convinced if the science, plan or other data are explained to them, in plain english as pat suggests. this is the group that can, with education, be moved along the change, or in this case belief, spectrum and can in time become change agents/advocates themselves. this is well-doumented in behavioal science literature and i have actually not only seen it occur but have facilitated it.
i say our friends and neighbors are at various parts of this spectrum based on two personal experiences. in the first case, my handyperson was installing a new ceiling fan for me and when i gave him cfl's for the light fixture he somewhat unflatteringly referred to them as 'al gore bulbs.' we had a brief conversation on global change and he said he didn't believe it was all human-induced. i said, the data show that climate variations in the last decade, if not longer, are much greater than one could have expected...and he conceded the point. i like to think i educated him, because he was actually very thoughtful when we talked about it and i don't think he was just agreeing because i was paying him. in the other case, another friend made disparaging remarks about my cfl's and when i later said, very casually, something to the effect that he doubted the science, he referred to something dixie lee ray said at least fifty years ago about ice ages and climate variations. this is dark ages stuff. but, i knew he was at the unconvincible end of the spectrum and it was not worth the energy to further engage.
so, the dialogue must continue to effect the changes we want.
i apologize for only using lower case letters but i currently only have the use of one hand.
Comment by Susan Kaplan — 12 Mar 2007 @ 9:20 pm
Gavin,
Just so you know what you're up against with Crichton, you may end up in one of this books:
Columnist Accuses Crichton of 'Literary Hit-and-Run'
By FELICIA R. LEE
Published: December 14, 2006 New York Times
''Next,'' Michael Crichton's new novel about the perils of biotechnology, has not proved as polarizing as his previous thriller, ''State of Fear,'' which dismisses global warming. But one of the new book's minor characters -- Mick Crowley, a Washington political columnist who rapes a baby -- may be a literary dagger aimed at Michael Crowley, a Washington political reporter who wrote an unflattering article about Mr. Crichton this year.
...
Here's the whole text if you have a subscription:
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F5071FFB3E550C778DDDAB0994DE404482
Bet you no one on your side of the panel has been accused of such a thing. Maybe you should ask him about it and the general level of public discourse on GW?
Comment by Peter Backes — 12 Mar 2007 @ 9:27 pm
I am an Australian and regularly visit this site.
In this country in the last year there has been a sea change on the issue of Global Warming / Climate change. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, has been a vocal denialist until very recently. But opinion polls have shown in the last year that most people in this country accept the reality of Global Warming. The polls have forced our Prime Minister to become a believer. This has only occurred through the tireless efforts of scientific experts like you publicizing the issue.
I therefore think that you should "go for it" as we need to keep up the pressure on the crazy denialists.
Comment by Stephen Spencer — 12 Mar 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Gavin,
Crichton, Lindzen and Pat Michaels are irrelevant. You are not there to debate the science with a pulp fiction writer possessed with immoral fantasies. And, Lindzen is way past his sell date.
You are before a camera that is the means to your audience. You know the consequences that will fall on our children as the developed world follows the BAU scenario. That, of itself, will give you the passion to look into the camera and talk to the parents who may not grasp all the facts but dare not risk their childrens future.
Talk past those shills and use this valuable moment to tell us your fears as well as the facts.
Comment by John L. McCormick — 12 Mar 2007 @ 9:34 pm
I don't know if this would be the right forum, but the two questions I would most like to ask Lindzen are:
(1) How does he reconcile his belief about the climate being so stable...i.e., having strong negative feedbacks...with the ice age -- interglacial oscillations? What sort of gargantuan forcing does he believe caused those changes in such a stable climate system?
(2) Why does he make the claim that the global temperature has been basically steady since 1998? Does he really think this cherry-picking of a start year that was a few standard deviations above the mean at the time is a good way to analyze the data?
Comment by Joel Shore — 12 Mar 2007 @ 9:44 pm
I think you should confront Michael and Lindzen and really debunk every incorrect thing they say. Be confrontational; they will try to put out a message that's not correct and defends the people who fund them. Don't let this happen; just like they'll be representing their people, make sure you defend us in saying the truth.
Also, point people to www.realclimate.org for accurate information about the climate debate. Good luck! You'll do great!
Comment by Carlos Rymer — 12 Mar 2007 @ 9:52 pm
I think you need to state clearly that a consensus exists around the idea that increased CO2 will lead to significant warming. However, you need to acknowledge that there is uncertainty in how much warming will actually occur, and that the consensus also acknowledges this uncertainty. Then point out that this uncertainty extends far enough that it is possible that the skeptics will be right, and warming will not be disastrous. The final, key point is that the uncertainty extends just as far in the other direction, and it is possible that the warming will be much worse than the consensus!
It is up to scientists to attempt to determine a "most likely" scenario and a range of uncertainty over and below that scenario, ideally with some kind of probability estimates. Then it is up to policymakers to determine how much it is worth to bring down the upper, horrible end of the uncertainty tail by controlling emissions, and what the best way to do it is.
I don't envy you, though. If there is one thing that being on debate team in high school taught me it is that the debate format is designed to favor the better speaker, not the speaker with the best facts.
Comment by Marcus — 12 Mar 2007 @ 9:55 pm
Since I've been in a number of these debates, although not formal on stage, you have to watch language like "consensus." To this crowd that means the ones onboard the gravy train of government climate funding, so it's a conspiracy on its face in that regard. Define it upfront. On Charlie Rose Crichton ended with, "Are we moving away from science to 'consensus.' Why don't facts matter anymore?" He's a highly skilled propagandist. This has to be science defending its honor from political manipulation, much the same as when Darwin's brother, I think, performed before the Royal Society, and slaughtered his creationist critics in public. This is huge. You'll do well. If a line of sceptic reasoning is a fallacy, say so: This is fallacious because_____.
Comment by Mark A. York — 12 Mar 2007 @ 10:00 pm
I think you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Both Crichton and Stott are adept with the media, it seems.
I dare say you know your opponents well enough anyway (and I wouldn't presume to teach this grandma to suck eggs), but Prof. Stott's position is here and here and he will likely want to raise the work of Vezier and of Svensmark at some point, and possibly grapes!
I saw the RC piece on British wine and Roman grapes some time back. I didn't get around to commenting there (and I suppose this is not really the place to do it now), but on the off chance that Prof. Stott (or Crichton) bring Roman grapes up, perhaps this contemporaneous account of Roman Britain's weather by the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus in AD94 may be instructive:
The sky is overcast with continual rain and cloud, but the cold is not severe.
(Tacitus, Agricola, 12.3.)
And also from sections 10-13 of Tacitus's biography of Agricola:
The climate is pretty foul, with frequent rain and fog, but no extremes of cold. The days are longer than in our part of the world. The nights are light, and at the further end of Britian so short that you can hardly tell when one day ends and the next begins.
...
The land supports plenty of cattle, and the soil bears fruits, though not the olive and grape and others which grow in warmer climates. Fruit ripens rather slowly, despite growing quickly; both facts are caused by the same thing, the sheer wetness of the weather and the ground.
Then there's this (from http://www.englishwineproducers.com/history.htm, which is well worth a read, I think) about wine and vineyards in Britain during the height (or should that be the depths) of the LIA:
There are records of some vineyards in the 17th century . The great botanist John Tradescant [1608-1662] planted 20,000 vines on his employer Lord Salisbury's estate in Hertfordshire and the vineyards became well-renowned. In 1666, John Rose, Gardener to Charles II at His Royal Garden in St. James's, wrote a treatise on the cultivation of vines in this country called "The English Vineyard Vindicated", in which he discussed the question of site selection, vine varieties, pruning and training and care of the vines up to the harvest...
And do what the politicians do: answer the questions you want asked (stick to your script), not what the other side or the questioner are asking (within reason, of course).
Comment by P. Lewis — 12 Mar 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Gavin, I sure hope you all can agree on a final numbered list for Global Warming Bingo, er, I mean, Coby's list of stock arguments, to save time and enhance footnoting.
"Briefly -- you can look this up, it's skeptic point 7 on the list at the website --- it's been wrong since ...."
Comment by Hank Roberts — 12 Mar 2007 @ 10:24 pm
a debate (...) about whether Global Warming is a crisis (or not)
In order to help you in understanding skeptical lay psychology , my first reaction to your quoted sentence is: of course, global warming is NOT a crisis. I mean, nobody can seriously assert that the 0,75 K warming 1850-2005 (or, 1,7 mm/yr sea-level rise) lead to disasters, when compared to real disasters affecting humanity (wars, dictatorships, diseases, malnutrition, poverty, etc.).
Most models tell us GW would be a crisis in BAU scenario. Your basic problem is to give credibility to such a putative threat, whereas most people reason with present evidences. These remarks are just a reflexion on the word "crisis" and its implication for popular psychology.
Good luck.
Post scriptum : In France, for example, the mean climatic difference between two departements (administrative areas) like Bouches-du-Rhone (South, mediterranean) and Aisne (North, semi-continental) is 3,5 K. Hard to believe for laymen that the Southern French already live in hell (while most people prefer warm South departements - Riviera - for holidays as well as retirement).
Comment by Charles Muller — 12 Mar 2007 @ 10:43 pm
Practice. Research your opponents past performances. Get people to play your opponents roles. You probably can use the C4 thing for text as a start. Look at video of the moderator to gauge his or her style. Find video and transcripts of Crichton, Lindzen and Stott. Be prepared for their pat answers.
Go to the School of Journalism and have them video you during practice runs. Take advice on how to pitch and modulate your voice, hand motions, etc. Learn how to know where the camera is and talk to the camera. Plant someone in the audience with a small portable TV to point out to you where the camera is pointing if they hide it. Talk to Drew Shindell, he did very well at the House hearings.
Comment by Eli Rabett — 12 Mar 2007 @ 10:52 pm
..."The preliminary position statements (from me and from Philip Stott)
are available on the ABCnews site."...
The gist of Stott's argument is going to be a hard row to hoe and
defend against, because Stott's points are sadly, very real
and very true.
Global Warming Is Not a Crisis
PHILIP STOTT March 9, 2007
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1
..."Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming hysteria. Each
day, 20,000 people in the world die of waterborne diseases. Half a
billion people go hungry. A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven
seconds. This does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting about
"saving the planet." What is wrong with us that we downplay this human
misery before our eyes and focus on events that will probably not
happen even a hundred years hence? We know that the greatest cause of
environmental degradation is poverty; on this, we can and must act."...
The best line of defense is to agree with his point that those are
issues that need to be addressed, especially as adaptation methods for
climate change will be both technologically and economically
challenging to those very same countries; proving to be an additional
and extra burden to their fledging attempts to become second and first
world countries.
What benefit, and to whom, at what cost, does it serve to ignore
factors of climate change if one,instead, focused on those issues that
Stott's make?
Additionally, until those parts of the world are under stable
governments, the world wide financial aid that has been provided
to them for the last thirty plus years, is not effecting much of a
benefit to the direct residents of those countries.
So I would bring up that additional point up as well. That those issues
have been addressed for the last thirty years and xyz has resulted, or
not, from such and such.
The world bank essentially controls the loans provided to the third and
second world countries have, which is why Bono lauds loan forgiveness
DATA, Debt AIDS Trade Africa
http://www.data.org/
Furthermore, many of those countries who have received financial aid
and or loans, have had their resources exploited by various outlets
without
the people reaping any benefit.
Not addressing climate changes will not change the reality of those
things that Stott mentions, but will just prove an additional hole for
those countries and residents to dig themselves out of.
One would need to be almost an economist, or do a lot of research on
the matter, to be able to defend against Stott's arguments.
Bono's DATA website has a lot of information on the numbers.
Personally, this appears to be a debate arranged to be against apples
and oranges.
Why one would subject themselves to a card game that has one with the
hand of the veracity of the science of climate change versus world
poverty and health versus the victim/no â??consensusâ?? and a pop culture
author is beyond me.
Now if you were debating the climate change scientific views against
OTHER climate change scientific views, negative and positive
perspectives of the science that underlies such, it would be a
different story. However it seems someone put you into an
orchestrated card game where it will be very difficult to just stay in
the game.
Yes, Lindzen's name is listed, however he has made some of the very same
points as Stott in relation to climate changes plus his big gun, the
money spent on climate science, and of course he plays the victim card.
All that said, the only way, I think one would be able to come out of
this debate looking decent, is to be able to anticipate the points the
will use in their arguments and to have prepared a counter to each
point one would think the other players would make in the debate.
And of course, to have at least unanticipated ace on your part to use
against them that they won't be expecting.
This is a strategic debate, and one has to think and anticipate many steps ahead, as
one does when they play cards or chess. One also has to decide whether
to take the offensive road, and play an offensive strategy and to someone be in the position to get ones points out first; or to play
a defensive strategy where one allows them to make their points and then
one is always on the defensive against their points.
I wish you the best of luck and strategy. And, personally, I would definitely
ask each of them what makes them so imminently qualified to have the power endowed
upon each of them to advise others on the mantra of doing nothing
when the ante they are putting up,
the earth and its six billion plus people and animals, isn't theirs to speculate with or roll the dice on.
Its everyones.
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
April 12, 2006 OpinionJournal - Extra
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
..."Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the
recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly
gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes?
"...
..." After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or
space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the
success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal
spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars
pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened
spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies,
as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists
who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear,
their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges,
scientific hacks or worse. "...
MIT's inconvenient scientist
Alex Beam, Globe Columnist August 30, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/
..."He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve
Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him.
It's easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than
to debate him on the merits."...
..."``This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming,"
says Lindzen, who adds he has never communicated with the auto
companies involved in the lawsuit. Of course Lindzen isn't a fake
scientist, he's an inconvenient scientist. No wonder you're not
supposed to listen to him."
The Stern Review: A Dual Critique
http://www.world-economics-journal.com/
Authorsâ?? Introduction
Part I: The Science
Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany,
David Holland & Richard S. Lindzen
Part II: Economic Aspects
Ian Byatt, Ian Castles, Indur M. Goklany, David Henderson,
Nigel Lawson, Ross McKitrick, Julian Morris, Alan Peacock,
Colin Robinson & Robert Skidelsky
..."Each paper has its own list of authors. In relation to both
scientific and economic issues, the authors question the accuracy and
completeness of the Stern Reviewâ??s analysis and the objectivity of its
treatment. They conclude that the Review fails to present an accurate
picture of scientific understanding of climate change issues, and will
reinforce ill-informed alarm about climate change. Two interrelated
features of the Stern Review are that it greatly understates the extent
of uncertainty as to possible developments, in highly complex systems
that are not well understood, over a period of two centuries or more;
and its treatment of sources and evidence is persistently selective and
biased. These twin features have combined to make the Review a vehicle
for speculative alarmism. In the judgement of the authors of the Dual
Critique, the Stern Review mishandles data; gives too little attention
to actual observation and evidence, as distinct from the results of
model-based exercises; and takes no account of the failures of due
disclosure, and the chronic limitations of peer reviewing, that have
been characteristic of work relating to climate change which
governments have commissioned and drawn on. As to specifically economic
aspects, the authors note among other weaknesses that the Review
systematically overstates projected costs of climate change, partly
though by no means wholly as a result of its failure to acknowledge the
scope for long-term adaptation to possible global warming;
underestimates the likely costâ??including to the worldâ??s poorâ??of the
drastic global mitigation programme that it calls for; and proposes
worldwide adoption of a specially low rate of interest for discounting
the costs and benefits of mitigation, on the basis of inadequate
analysis and without regard for the problems and risks that would
result."....
Comment by BarbieDoll Moment — 12 Mar 2007 @ 11:42 pm
I am a marketing and PR professional and yes, you are correct -- participating in the debate validates the premise that the human of climate change is debatable. Your opponents need this kind of visibility and validation much more than you do! (e.g. Crichton's writing isn't exactly peer-reviewed.)
And so, yes, your time would be better spent on other activities. NPR's willing to host this -- great, they're interested in the topic, find a way to give it to them without your opponents getting equal or more air time. Blogging here at RC is great, but how about expanding the base -- some guest blogging posts perhaps on other extremely popular blogs? Or starting a betting pool for RC readers -- which Antarctic shelf will fall into the ocean next? (and when? this could generate some media coverage..)
That said, don't back out of the debate. However, push Crichton to identify the areas of his expertise and qualifications in those areas. Identify your opponents as the "Charton Hestons of oil" (you'll get my SUV when you pry it from my cold, dead hand!" Ask them if they what they love about thousands of drowning polar bears--what do they have against polar bears? Bring some sample quotes from tobacco industry lobbyists of the 60s, 70s and 80s. The general public has a schema for the lying tobacco lobbyist--transfer that schema onto your opponents.
Also, tell the audience a story. Why do you do what you do? Gore does a good job of this in AIT.
By the way, you'll get this advice and a whole lot more from reading "Made to Stick" by Chip and Dan Heath.
I strongly recommend this book for all RC readers -- it's a well-researched & diligently end-noted general interest book along the lines of "The Tipping Point" but with more useful/actionable advice on how to communicate your ideas.
Good luck.
Comment by Rob Davis — 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:03 am
The point is if they going to use parts and words/phrases out of the context to deliver their message. As in "swindle". Or if you have the opportunity to clarify things and educate the public.
Comment by s.ball — 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:06 am
Slightly off topic, whats up with the story slamming Gore's movie in today's Times? (link at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?8dpc)
Is Revkin on vacation this week? I'd really expect better from them than gems like:
"The [IPCC] went further than ever before in saying that humans were the main cause of the globe�s warming since 1950, part of Mr. Gore's message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process.
It estimated that the world's seas in this century would rise a maximum of 23 inches - down from earlier estimates. Mr. Gore, citing no particular time frame, envisions rises of up to 20 feet and depicts parts of New York, Florida and other heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves, implying, at least visually, that inundation is imminent...
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore's portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period."
They clearly ignore the fact that IPCC sea level projections explicitly excludes ice melt, and their interpretation of the NAS report is rather off the mark. How one could read the AR4 and get the impressions that "climate change as a slow-motion process" boggles the mind, unless one happens to only care about impacts that occur in a single generation...
Comment by Zeke Hausfather — 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:17 am
I'll second Rob Davis's comments. It's worth looking over that recent Larry King interview with Lindzen - Lindzen's style is to attempt to go on the attack. Crichton's style is that of the carnie operator. Philip Stott is smooth and suave, and will say things like climate is too complex to be understood, and that it was warm in the past. What they all have in common is that they'll shy away from any real discussion of the science in favor of polemic-style debating.
I'd say ignore them and just get the basic science out to the audience. If they try and bring up the medieval warm period, I'd suggest pointing out that it's limited in extent and that it's an example of how the climate is sensitive to various influences like volcanic inputs. It's also sensitive to the atmospheric composition of gases, and humans have influenced that by burning fossil fuels for over a century. In other words, don't talk to Lindzen, Stott and Crichton, but rather talk to the audience. I don't expect that they'll go for the honest debate approach.
Topics they are likely to try and avoid: the warming at the poles and the retreat of glaciers all over the world. They'll try and focus on small-scale examples that support their position while ignoring the big picture. They'll also try and avoid a discussion of the basic physics of how CO2 and water vapor act as a blanket. Again, I'd say just roll right over them - dismiss their statements in one sentance and spend the next five sentance explaining the actual science to the audience.
Anyhow, best of luck - I'm sure you'll do a great job.
Comment by Ike Solem — 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:27 am
Science-based issues do need public exposure, but the proposed format and individuals for this debate lead me to believe that the real issues will not get the review they require. The moderator ought to be knowledgeable about the subject, if not a respected scientist. Involving the "average citizen" and young people will add value to the debate. This is not entertainment, but neither is this the end of the story.
Comment by Curt Schroeder — 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:37 am
Re #31
Good idea Rob Davis, marketing and PR profesional. Thousands of drowning polar bears??? Crichton will point out the fact that polar bear populations have increased dramatically during the current warming period. That is why Gore's movie shows a computer generated drowning polar bear and not a real drowning polar bear.
Comment by Wang Dang — 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:41 am
The online poll link at the site
where the FOR (Global warming is not a crisis)
outlead the Against ((Global warming is not a crisis) by a great margin.
Global warming is not a crisis
Speaking for the motion: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, Philip Stott
Speaking against the motion: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville
Moderator: Brian Lehrer
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12
Global warming is not a crisis
This poll is not closed yet
Votes Online Poll
For 72.86 %
Against 26.00 %
Donâ??t Know 1.14 %
Comment by BarbieDoll Moment — 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:52 am
Make sure you have physical copies of all the most commonly distorted/cited articles and blog statements so you can quote them verbatim if they try to cite them out of context. i.e. take everything mentioned in "State of Fear" or in their op-ed pieces, all the Hockey Stick stuff and similar followup studies, Peiser's differing methods and subsequent admissions, examples of his 34 abstracts, glacier retreat statistics ("some are advancing"), Greenland ice melt, Kilimanjaro, etc etc.
Not to drag up old controversies, but I was at the library this weekend to pull Hansen's oft cited June 1988 testimony ("300% wrong"). It was missing, so I pulled the November 1987 testimony instead, and lo and behold, it ALSO includes the chart and Hansen's specific statements as to which he believed was most plausible ("B"). From what I can tell, the '88 testimony didn't make this clear (which is what I was trying to find out), but the '87 testimony certainly did. I will have this prepared by tomorrow if you want me to email you a copy.
Comment by cce — 13 Mar 2007 @ 12:59 am
Listen to #6, #25, and #27. I'd be ready to fire back quickly and strongly at any bald assertions made by the opposition. You've done it a thousand times before here, but be ready to do it again, and be succinct too. Knock them down while the argument they've just made is fresh in the listeners head. If they use any rhetorical 'tricks' call them out on it.
Also, cite papers briefly, if at all. The fact that evidence or work exists to back you up is infinitely more important than the actual authors name and date to the audience. 'Verifiable' is just as useful as a bibliographic citation, and much faster. You can always apologize to a colleague later.
Last. While not always 100% accurate. A good, simple, well placed analogy or simile can be invaluable to describing complex arguments to a layperson. I'd make up a useful list ahead of time.
Comment by Matthew Z. Davis — 13 Mar 2007 @ 1:00 am
Gavin, bon chance!
The risk in the debate is that they throw enough mud at sensitivities in forcings to say that given doubt/uncertainty about the level of warming, we should focus on issues such as debt relief/poverty/health etc (seems to be their position in the debate brief).
I think the best way of rebutting this is a three fold strategy.
First - get people thinking about what is acceptable risk? If someone has a 20% chance of losing their job, should they look at other options? If there is a 30% chance of a plane crashing, would someone fly? - make sure the scenarios hit home with everyday people.
Second - link acceptable risk levels to climate risk and a reasonable % chance that under BAU we get crop failures, flooding, droughts etc. - link these outcomes to the same ones Stott and co are saying we need to combat (health/poverty etc)
Third - point out that mitigating this risk can be done by reducing emissions with flow on benefits including improved air-quality, increased energy security, decreased geo-political risks and long run cost savings. Make it clear that current technologies can not only address climate issues, they can solve health issues, political issues, employment issues etc. I think it is important people understand that cleaner energy is great for the environment, but more directly, it will be great for them as individuals!
I think it is really important to sell the benefits of clean energy beyond climate change. Climate change can be too abstract for people to grasp. A big point to hit on in the US would be enegry security and independance - even energy freedom.
Lastly, they may try out the whole conspriacy theory debate. This is best done by highlighting, in detail the backgrounds and processes (that ensure due diligience) undertaken by researchers in this area. Reinforce the seriousness of the allegation of consipriacy and talk about what drives you, as a scientist to discover truth... as opposed to a fiction writer who is driven to create dramatic stories.
Good luck,
Tosh
Comment by Tosh — 13 Mar 2007 @ 1:03 am
Medical metaphors may be much more effective as the general public is very sensitive to those. Such as: "First, do no harm", the prime directive of the Hippocratic oath. Thus doctors, and in this case climate-doctors, must be able to anticipate possible factors that might harm their patient, which in this case, is the planet and all it's inhabitants, human and otherwise. To conserve ie to protect against coastal erosion, is more than a little like advising a patient to wear sun-screen, or to reduce their intake of fat. That is you are looking ahead and you are in the business of prevention of harm, to the coral reefs, to the arctic ecosystem, etc. and to be a medical conservative is a good thing as a trusted MD should not be advocating untried or unproven remedies but give the patient good advice about what you have been trained to detect ie dangerous trends in eating behaviour or inhaling noxious vapors into one's lungs. The planet, too has lungs, the atmosphere. The body needs clean potable water. Sealife also does not thrive and is unlikely to be able to adapt to increasingly acidic sea-water. There are close analogies with the human body and it's health all the way down the line Gavin. Play on these easily understood truisms. Appeal to the medical common-sense of the audience. If one knows that a course of action, or of inaction, would be dangerous to one's health, one does not blunder ahead, he plays it safe.If there is a choice, any sane person plays it safe and does not advocate taking a silly chance with the lives of himself or of his loved ones. Yes, an emergent course of emission-reduction strategies might indeed be ill-advised but we cannot afford to take that chance. If we err, we must err on the side of caution.This is where Crichton, et al wll not have an answer.Some treatments are very expensive but still vitally necessary.
Comment by Vern Johnson — 13 Mar 2007 @ 1:12 am
You need to start by explaining what Science is: "Nature isn't just the final authority on truth, Nature is the Only authority. There are zero human authorities. Scientists do not vote on what is the truth. Nor do scientists conspire. There is only one vote and Nature owns it. We find out what Nature's vote is by doing Scientific [public and replicable] experiments. Scientific [public and replicable] experiments are the only source of truth. [To be public, it has to be visible to other people in the room. What goes on inside one person's head isn't public unless it can be seen on an X-ray or another instrument.]
Science is a simple faith in Scientific experiments and a simple absolute lack of faith in everything else."
==================================
You need to explain that "Adapt" means "Die". In the drudge report, people keep saying really stupid things like "No problem, we will adapt", not realizing that adaptation is 99.999+% death and extinction, and .001- % mutation.
Comment by Edward Greisch — 13 Mar 2007 @ 1:23 am
Does participating help perpetuate the idea that global warming per se is still up for debate? Yes.
Is this kind of rhetorical jousting useful for clarifying issues of science that most people there will only superficially grasp? No.
Can this be entertaining and educational? On FOX, perhaps... given their audience.
Or does it just validate the least serious opposition? Yes.
Is it simply a waste of time that would be better spent blogging? Yes.
Comment by E.R. Beardsley — 13 Mar 2007 @ 1:30 am
That you would be concerned about legitimizing an argument counter to your own shows that this debate is moving from science to crusade. A sound scientific theory will take on critics for 10,000 years, without fear, and without regard to who profers the criticism, for the true scientist is interested only in the truth, and that can only be derived by vigorous testing and debate. Ignore those passioned pleas about "our children." A trial lawyer makes his story emotional in order to sell it because he cares only about winning. Show me that you care about the truth. Argue the facts and insist the other side do the same. And let the chips fall where they may.
[Response: Arguing the facts is what I generally do. Insisting on the same from the other side is extremely unlikely to work. - gavin]
Comment by Patrick McKnight, J.D. — 13 Mar 2007 @ 2:39 am
Hi gavin - go for it
Eli says it all in #30
Those three are all skilled communicators and rhetoricians who have honed their message in public, in front of audiences , cameras, etc.
I would expect their side would 'win' the debate on the night, but it doesn't matter. The audience will consist of people that have heard Crichton, Lindzen, and maybe Stott and either know its all rubbish, in which case hearing it again won't make any difference, or people that have never heard the answers to their objections - if you get a few of these thinking, you will have done a good job.
You could also look at this as a 'practice run' for a bigger event!
I'm not sure what persona you project in front of an audience, but you come across on these forums as a honest scientist trying to inform people of the truth - if you can project that to an audience it will be a very powerful message (so probably not too sarky, etc)
Comment by PeteB — 13 Mar 2007 @ 2:56 am
It's hard to imagine this debate being a lot different to previous examples, so my suggestion would be to take the moral high ground right from the start. If we know of an ill and a prevention of that ill, yet refuse to act, we are culpable. Put them on the back foot; make clear statements and force them to respond to your assertions rather than the other way around; put them in the position of defending their (indefensible) position, rather than attacking yours. Confront the falsehood, not the person; ignore ad homs.
My feeling is that you should aim for the most basic points and insist on agreement or denial: CO2 is a GHG; we produce CO2; ergo...
I have long said that the general public (ijn my experience) struggles to understand science and struggles to accept the word of scientists, often doesn't have enough basic knowledge to distinguish good science from bad, but does want to know what the facts are. We are often swayed more by clever rhetoric than good argument, because few of us can tell a logical fallacy from a fish.
Set your stall out; let them try to knock it down; they can't; they 'lose'. If it goes the other way, you 'lose'.
I'm not sure why I'm teeling you how to suck an egg, but there you go, for what its worth.
Regards,
Comment by Fergus Brown — 13 Mar 2007 @ 3:30 am
Gavin
Having read the two outlying articles he seems to be suggesting that climate change is but one of many challenges facing humanity, however we failed to feed the world when climate change was not known about so his argument there is spurious at best.
He is using sounds bites, non linear chaotic system to explain the climate, you could have him here as the non linear bit only comes into effect (tragically) once you push a system way beyond its equilibrium as we are starting to do.
Just be careful and best of luck.
Comment by pete best — 13 Mar 2007 @ 3:44 am
Check whatever William Broad's up to in today's NYT; nothing there but a teaser:
From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2007
Some scientists argue that a number of central points in Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," are exaggerated and erroneous.
Comment by Hank Roberts — 13 Mar 2007 @ 4:05 am
P.S. -- check if Broad's talking about the movie, which is definitely outdated by now, or about the current slideshow, which one of the people here recently said is being kept up to date and has good cites. It'd be tempting to attack the old version instead of the current version, for those favoring the smoke and mirrors approach. (I mean the PR version, not the sulfates and orbiting reflector variety thereof.)
Comment by Hank Roberts — 13 Mar 2007 @ 4:07 am
Gavin
Stott wrote in his statement:"Doubling CO2 is a convenient benchmark. It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 - 6.4 C warming." The IPCC gives 1.5-4.5 as the range for CO2 doubling (in equilibrium). Might be he is referring to transient response of all scenarios until 2100? If so you might ask him if he read the report.
Comment by Georg Hoffmann — 13 Mar 2007 @ 4:36 am
I notice that Stott's positioning text (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1) does not deny man made global warming per se, it just says that it won't be so bad (to paraphrase) and is small compared to the natural processes that do the same thing (SLR for example). You could start off by pointing out that he isn't denying man made global warming and get the debate moved on straight away?
Comment by Adam — 13 Mar 2007 @ 4:43 am
Much like the Saints of early Christianity, who 'got the word out' amongst the pagans, and risked life, torture and death to do so, so too will the message on global warming only get out if we engage in one to one combat with the sceptics.
It's a hard thing to understand, but this is about belief, in the minds of most of the human race. What is believed is determined by who triumphs, in a social and political sense.
It's not about what is 'true'. Truth is socially constructed (primarily). Most people are not scientists, and large minorities (majorities) of people believe, for example, that heavier objects fall faster, or that Darwin was wrong.
It's about who gets the message out. Who alters the social consensus. If the social consensus is altered, then the political consensus will force change.
Comment by Valuethinker — 13 Mar 2007 @ 5:10 am
I think the title of the debate sets the tone:Global warming is not a crisis. Why not "Is global warming a crisis?" It seems like the undertone is already set; so I think the scientists need to be very vocal and confrontational at this debate. Good luck Gavin. I'm looking forward to the podcast.
Comment by teacher ocean — 13 Mar 2007 @ 5:30 am
re: 44. Actually, it is the contrarians/denialists who have moved from science to a crusade/charade. The science behind global warming is strong and unquivocable. The research is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As opposed to the opinions of science-fiction writers, journalists and economists who somehow and arrogantly beleive they know more than literally thousands of climate science researchers across the world.
And that is the "truth."
Comment by Dan — 13 Mar 2007 @ 6:21 am
And I think it's important to push them on why they keep making statements to the public that they know to be wrong? Ask them why they want to mislead the public? Stott knows that vineyards are not a proxy for temperature and yet he spent nearly 10 minutes saying that they are in the C4 programme. That's why I suggested earlier taking along proof that there are many more vineyards in Britain now than there were in the MWP and that there are even vineyards in Alaska today - the public must be made aware that these people are not potential Gallileos who are bucking the consensus, they are simply extremely dishonest people who have an axe to grind and will go to any lengths in order to grind it.
Similarly the graphs of the MWP and LIA in northern Europe that they showed on C4, but pretended that they were global graphs; the Fritz Christianson graph which mysteriously stopped at 1980; their implied claim that global warming theory was devised in 1974 rather than in the early 19th century; and so on.
Dave
Comment by Dave Rado — 13 Mar 2007 @ 6:21 am
Gavin,
You are welcome to use any figures and text from the links below.
Snowmelt runoff, and flooding, is getting underway this week at river gages in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota, including those gages used in the figures shown at the links below for beginning day in the year (1900-2006) of snowmelt runoff river flow (cfs-day).
-
Spring floods on the Upper Mississippi River
Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:13 AM CDT
http://npat1.newsvine.com/
-
Earlier snowmelt runoff trend on the Red River
Wed Mar 7, 2007 10:25 AM CST
http://npat1.newsvine.com/
-
NOAA NWS disregards climate change in their Spring Hydrologic Outlooks
Mar 9, 2007 7:37 AM CST
http://npat1.newsvine.com/_news/2007/03/09/606139-noaa-nws-disregards-climate-change-in-their-spring-hydrologic-outlooks
-
Earlier in the Year Snowmelt Runoff and Increasing Dewpoints for Rivers in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota Table 1 and Figure 1
September 11, 2003
http://www.mnforsustain.org/climate_snowmelt_dewpoints_minnesota_neuman_table_figure1.htm
-
Please let me know if you would like additional information or have any questions, at:
npat1@juno.com
Comment by pat neuman — 13 Mar 2007 @ 6:23 am
Lastly, they may try out the whole conspriacy theory debate. This is best done by highlighting, in detail the backgrounds and processes (that ensure due diligience) undertaken by researchers in this area. Reinforce the seriousness of the allegation of consipriacy and talk about what drives you, as a scientist to discover truth... as opposed to a fiction writer who is driven to create dramatic stories.
I agree. And how research grant applications actually work, and the fact that scientists award most of them, rather than politicians, and the fact that they award them based on the quality of the science, and that if an applicant hyped up their hoped-for conclusions in a grant application that would count strongly against their chances of getting the grant. And challenge Stott to deny it's true and if he does, to give some hard evidence.
Comment by Dave Rado — 13 Mar 2007 @ 6:31 am
Gavin,
- It's important to "show the flag": Even if you don't blow them away rhethorically, it's important to make sure that the audience doesn't get the impression that their incorrect statements are uncontested. Ultimately, the real target of your talk is the audience: You will NEVER convince your opponents.
- Most important: Don't lose your cool. In a debate, whoever loses his cool has lost - no matter what the facts are, no matter which side has logic on its side.
Comment by Neal J. King — 13 Mar 2007 @ 6:32 am
Gavin,
Patronising them would make you sound arrogant and could turn the audience against you.
Nothing like using their own tables & figures against them. Ask them "Do you stand by your chart?" Then superimpose the accurate results. Explain how they distort, twist and never retract their assertions or apologise.
Expect them to emphasise
Taxes.
Uncertainties in the science.
"Better" uses the money could be put to (sceptical economist).
After all you have a wider view of things whereas all they'll be pushing for all it's worth is doubt here and uncertainty there. The phrase 'more research is required' can easily be twisted.
Mike
Ps
Excellent that George Monbiot of the Guardian mentioned you and RealClimate today. Be good if a banner with the RealClimate logo was somewhere on screen and the programme finds its way onto Youtube.
Pps - Wine in Northern England
Spotted on website http://www.thirtyfifty.co.uk/spotlight-english-wine.asp
"it is York that was the surprise with the number of Vineyards in York increasing from 1 to 4."
Comment by Mike — 13 Mar 2007 @ 6:54 am
What about trying to have a formal written internett debate with the sceptics? I think that would be better compared to a oral debate due to time constraints etc.
The main problem is probably to get the sceptics to participate though.
Comment by Fredrik — 13 Mar 2007 @ 6:56 am
Gavin, I wish you the best of luck, and I will be praying that you kick denialist butt when the debate actually takes place. My only bit of advice is -- stay on the attack. Don't let them force you to take valuable time explaining basic science unless it's something that can be explained quickly and vividly. Stay on their mistakes, their misquotes, their ignoring important factors. And as they say in the Army -- admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations.
Comment by Barton Paul Levenson — 13 Mar 2007 @ 7:11 am
The topic shows you have already made progress, "whether Global Warming is a crisis or not" implies an acceptance of serious problems from global warming, the debate question is really "how serious?".
"Crisis" is subjective and thus neither side can can obtain a definitive victory on the official question.
Use as much time as you can explaining to the audience the "republic of science", "the scientific method" (and how it is implemented) and "skepticisim" (ala: Sagan's Demon haunted world). Let the audience decide if a collapsing food web is a crisis for mankind or a boon to soylent stockholders.
If you can get the audience to understand the difference between a skeptic and a psuedo-skeptic you will win the day. Your opponents promote themselves as skeptics yet many people miss the fact that they do not practice what the preach. I'm guessing a skeptical look at their writings would provide enough rope to hang them from the nearest contradiction tree.
Comment by Alan — 13 Mar 2007 @ 7:25 am
I have no significant connection with formal debates, but the question strikes me as quite vague. Are the participants to argue:
- whether the climate is getting warmer
- whether humans are a major reason
- how much it will warm in the next 100 years
- whether this constitutes a crisis
It seems to me that the participants could easily end up arguing rather different points given the initial question. Any bets on who concentrates on which variant?
Comment by Bob Arning — 13 Mar 2007 @ 7:29 am
"Does participating help perpetuate the idea that global warming per se is still up for debate?"
Thought you were a scientist? Of course it's still up for debate. On the other hand, whether we should seriously curbe our emissions following the crystal clear logic of the pre-cautionary principle, shouldn't be up for much debate any longer. I think you should concentrate on that principle when talking to laypeople. It's a principle anyone can understand. Like watching both ways before crossing the road. Your science doesn't prove 100% that a truck is coming (so it's upto debate) but the indications are strong, that one might actually be approaching... and fast.
Remember that you have a stronger moral stance than your opponents. THis is why these discussions are important. You don't need the 100% conviction, you don't have to deny the debate still exists. You can talk of strong indications and strong moral principles in a language most people can relate. That way you will come across less elitist, less arrogant and more down to earth too. Just my opinion.
Comment by hopp — 13 Mar 2007 @ 7:32 am
I suppose we have a pretty good idea of how the opposition will roll, but a couple of thoughts come to mind. First, it seems to me that the title presupposes the existence of GW in the here and now. Second, it appears to me that the question isn't about whether/how much of GW is AGW, but rather whether the existing state portends an intermediate-term irreversible escalation. I guess then comes the question of what such an escalation would mean. This is where things get murky for me--how exactly are the other sides' people qualified to debate that? If they were to settle on a predicted path of disruption, how are they qualified to discourse on threats to biodiversity, increased warfare, refugee populations, desertification, economic disruption, marine food chain degradation, et al, or our technological ability to adapt to a low-C system? I can see MC's putative ability to discuss the infectious disease impact, but even there I don't see expertise in avian and insect vectoring. I am not intimately familiar with their overall attitudes, but my impression is that their worries are limited to direct impact on people in the West without regard to food production, disease, or the importance of preserving biodiversity.
To me, that sort of synthetic view is the stuff of science fiction--'we won't worry about the systems needed to allow people to live in space; we'll just cut to the chase for the bad guys.' On the other hand, it's a pathetic state of affairs if those three are the best the no risk/no crisis crowd can supply. I'd probably rather hear insurance executives talk about current planning to evaluate/manage the risk than listen to the scifi brigade's inability to connect the slo-mo pulling of a grenade pin with the urgent need to exit the scene. It doesn't give me much comfort that the bulk of the needed audience is more concerned with the NCAA tournament than with climate change, despite the fact that GW likely would impact such sport activities in the future. The scenario reminds me of a fictional story about a lab accident. Upon smelling the aroma of almonds in the chemistry lab, visiting laymen think "great, someone brought party snacks--where's the beer?," while the chemists are moving for the exits faster than they ever moved before. Good luck, Obi Wan, er Gavin.
Comment by ghost — 13 Mar 2007 @ 7:41 am
The debate is more than a science discussion, it is more like a battle.
To win a battle you need to understand your enemy, how they think. I suggest three works that may help: "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us" by Robert D. Hare, "The Mask of Sanity" by Hervey M. Cleckley, and, "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu
I do not believe we have the luxury of winning the war without the battle.
Good luck!
Comment by Lawrence McLean — 13 Mar 2007 @ 7:43 am
One of the nastiest things your opponents are likely to do can also be one of the easiest to turn against them. I'm talking about the, "Gee, all this climate stuff is hard to understand" hand-waving. If they do that you have a perfect response that makes them look like they're talking down to the listeners: "Yes, it is hard, which is why I'm glad people are smart enough to understand it with just a little work. And it helps that we have a lot of highly trained professionals plus the Internet, including realclimate.org, to help people with that educational process."
I'm delighted that you're doing this debate/discussion. Yes, you're giving the other side legitimacy just by showing up, but you're also taking a huge step toward injecting real science into the mainstream discussion of this critically important topic.
Comment by Lou Grinzo — 13 Mar 2007 @ 7:44 am
Global warming deniers are much more likely to have a background in the mathematical sciences than those warning about the dangers of global warming.
Is that because it is much harder for those who understand the mathematics behind the data to misinterpret the facts in their favor?
Comment by Diogenes — 13 Mar 2007 @ 8:03 am
I've heard the Galileo analogy before, and it's a false one. Remember, Galileo was correct, he was fighting a power structure bent on preserving their power. The church knew Galileo was correct, they just hadn't figured out how to preserve their position in light of the new view of the universe. In short, they were fighting a battle of self-preservation.
In the denialist model, they're Galileo trying to buck the system.
The real analogy holds when you consider the oil and political industries as the power-holders who need to preserve their economic and political dominance. The neo-Galileos are those trying to point out the problem with the current system, not those who agree with it.
Comment by Terry Miesle — 13 Mar 2007 @ 8:06 am
Looking again at the brief, if I was Stott/Crighton, I'd probably be tempted to go for the definitional approach: rather than argue the science: let's argue the concept of 'crisis'; how can something that might not have a substantial impact over most of the world in 50 years be described as a 'crisis'?
My guess is that they'll also attack 'sensationalism', so get your cricism of that in first. They may also try to confuse climate science with environmental extremism. They have several ready strategies.
Regards,
Comment by Fergus Brown — 13 Mar 2007 @ 8:15 am
Gavin. I saw you somewhere on the news, so I assume it must have been CNN, being interviewed. You were appalling. Sorry, but you rambled, and failed to make any intelligible responses to the questions. The reason I think was that you were terribly nervous, and had no idea at what level to pitch your responses. You are at NASA. Do you teach classes? I don't mean 3 student graduate seminars either, I mean intro-science, 300 non-science majors in the auditorium waiting to be 'entertained'? That's where you sharpen scientific communication skills for interfacing with the public. You don't appear to have them (in debate, your written contributions are generally fine). Sharpen up fast or you will end up eaten alive, especially by a very well-informed gadfly like Lindzen.
Comment by macles — 13 Mar 2007 @ 8:31 am
If your opponent says the climate record shows X and you say it doesn't, the audience probably won't go and look up the point later. But it only takes a second for your opponents to make some crappy scientific claim, while it could take you several minutes to refute it. I would consider being as non-techincal and brief as possible on science points - appeal to authority.
my $0.02
Comment by Herb — 13 Mar 2007 @ 8:32 am
Expand the debate by using Real Climate, as in we will be placing more information on this on our web site, Real Climate, etc and we hope others read and link to it.
Then, of course, you could always close with something like, as Bill O'Reilly says: "The world is getting warmer...So that's true, so everyone agrees on that unless you are a crank or a nut."
Comment by Eli Rabett — 13 Mar 2007 @ 8:42 am
Diogenes needs a match for his lantern. Please light the poor fellow up.
Comment by Eli Rabett — 13 Mar 2007 @ 8:43 am
If a different question, do we really have global warming, or do we have an unprecedent climate change-rate? I wonder, if we have global warming than cooling does contradict the theory, but if we have climate change-rate-increase, than cooling and warming in different places fits into this? It would be nice to finally have some clear and sharp definitions, otherwise perfectionist engineers like myself abandon the whole theory, because it has nothing to do with a scientific debate, but more with an orwellian political discussion...
Comment by Max — 13 Mar 2007 @ 8:50 am
there is evidence that shows that CO2 emmisions are not the only cause of climate change. But simply the world has ignore that the animals are causing most of the climate change. the cows with their menoure the nitrogen oxiode. i am not an expert in this but the government are totally going the wrong way about it. It seems more like its a money making scheme for them and not helping the earth. There has also been research found that in medieval times the weather was like this and hey they did not have cars.I would like a more in depth research done into the climate change because i do not like it. The hot weather gives me rashes and heat wave. and have you seen the trees in the UK its spring and they have no leaves.the whole world is not willing to give up there luxuries. Money is more important but for me life is more important. The world seems more likely to end with another world war or maybe a meterorite.
Comment by Naz — 13 Mar 2007 @ 8:59 am
Gavin,
I'd advise you to take some lessons from the evolution-creationist debates. They are very hard to "win", basically because skeptics can generate plausible-sounding pseudoarguments at a much greater rate than such arguments can be convincingly rebutted, and in general such debates are not a good method for trying to communicate complex but necessary points.
You may want to read these two essays for some advice that may translate into general public debate.
Comment by NU — 13 Mar 2007 @ 9:03 am
Gavin, the challenge you have is that you have is that you are addressing three very different types of denier. Lindzen is a pure contrarian who actually likes being in the minority since it gives him more limelight. He does at least understand the science, though. I'm not as familiar with Stott, although it would appear from his opening statement that his grasp is tenuous. He seems to rely on proof by blatant assertion. Crichton is a pure anti-science agoraphobe. He does not seem to understand or trust inductive reasoning. In my opinion, the most dangerous thing about him is that he has renewed Paul Feyerabend's attacks on the concept of scientific consensus--in my opinion, one of the most powerful and necessary aspects of modern science. It may be worth your while if you get a chance to outline exactly what is meant by scientific consensus. And if he insinuates that scientists are only in it for the grant money, you should let him have it both barrels. Scientists are still held in high esteem by the public, and you could probably discredit him significantly if you catch him impugning the integrity of scientists and of science in general. Nobody deserves it more.
Two, things I would emphasize: 1)We cannot predict with certainty what the effects of climate change would be, since climate is chaotic. However, far from being a comfort, this should give us a cold chill. An unquantifiable risk is the scariest thing you can have to deal with.
2)The past 10000 years of so have been a time of exceptional climatic stability in Earth's history. This period coincides with the development of all of the infrastructure of human civilization. It is reasonable to assume that significant unpredictability in climate would adversely affect that infrastructure.
Finally, two points specific to Stott's "everything will be fine" statement. First, malaria was not endemic to Michigan (or to DC, for that matter). It was seasonal--dying back in the winter and advancing in the spring. If we lose the winter entirely, it may well become endemic. Second, re: his argument that addressing climate change will keep us from addressing issues of poverty and disease in the developing world. It's not as if we've concerned ourselves with such humanitarian pursuits to date. Moreover, since this is a global crisis and since literally billions of people will be using more and more energy in the future, solving the problems of development and climate change are inseparable issues.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 13 Mar 2007 @ 9:13 am
I think you need to explicitly make the point that the format of the debate gives a very false impression of the weight of opinion, and back this up with an estimate of numbers on the scientists who represent the consensus (and the number of papers published) versus the number of denialists with any kind of climatology research credibility.
When they bring up yet another tired old discredited argument, point out that it is yet another tired old discredited argument - and then patiently explain when and why it was rejected in the first place. By repeatedly pointing this out and expressing your astonishment that they continue to present ideas that have been clearly discredited in the climatology community for years you'll bring the audience to an awareness of the painful pattern of deceptive argument that these guys use.
It would be worth stating the current consensus about the likelihood there is a real and urgent problem, and then asking them how certain they believe we need actually need to to be before we act.
Good luck!
Comment by Craig Allen — 13 Mar 2007 @ 9:19 am
Craig, frankly, your arguments do not sit well with me.
I am quite aware that this "consensus" largely represents an echo chamber where scientists of the same POLITICAL bent tell each other how right each other are.
Failure to own up to that is the fatal flaw in the larmist camp.
If you guys each tore into other's research with the same vigor you tore into the '" global warming swindle' piece, we'd certainly be seeing a whole lot less ' consensus, wouldn't we?
[Response:Like the 'Global Dimming' documentary maybe? or the hype surrounding the Bryden paper? I know it is difficult for some to believe but we really are trying to be objective. -gavin]
Comment by tom — 13 Mar 2007 @ 9:30 am
Re 70. Diogenes. I can only hope that you have the ability to appreciate the delicious irony in your choice of screen names. Since when are physics, climate modeling, atmospheric science, oceanography... not "mathematical sciences". The mathematics the deniers seem to be most familiar with seems to be confined to the imaginary axis.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 13 Mar 2007 @ 9:32 am
If you look back in the tobacco documents, you'll find that setting up public debates between respected scientists and industry shills was part of their strategy.
These debates would normally be moderated by a respected journalist or someone to that effect. And they would attempt to ensure that it was very high profile and got great media coverage. One of the things that tobacco wanted to ensure was that people did not point out that their bought scientists were not seen as bought scientists.
Thus the need for an objective public forum for them to air their views.
So this is nothing new.
Comment by Thom — 13 Mar 2007 @ 9:35 am
I for one think this is a mistake - for the same reasons Thom above. This is the usual sort of "false balance" one gets in the media. Three of you vs three of them - sounds like the issue is still contentious among scientists.
Comment by Mitch Golden — 13 Mar 2007 @ 9:41 am
Gavin:
Maybe you are, personally. I will take you word on face value as I don't know you.
But this has been my observation.
I first found this out in the exercise science field, and I see the exact same similarities here.
Climate scientists eventually put themsleves in one camp or another. Once in that camp, your reputation is at stake.
It then becomes a case where you seek out and become more easily accepting of information that supports your views and highly skeptical of contrarian data. This is human nature, we all do it to a degree, but I find it more pronounced when on this particular subject.
After all, reputations are at stake. If you spent a good part of your career supporting a certain, and then changed it, how would that look?
[That's rhetorical question, as I would see that as a person making a logical decision]
Comment by tom — 13 Mar 2007 @ 9:48 am
Re:82. Tom, I think your aspersions of the consensus being the product of a political echo chamber are unfair and actually reflect poorly on your own understanding of how science is done. Just last week, some of us tore into each other pretty hard on the issue of nuclear power--an indication that we are hardly all cut from the same political cloth. You have pro-market, pro-nuclear, libertarian-left types like myself, and I find that there are folks both to the right and to the left. What we have in common is that we have decided to take seriously our duty as scientists to look at the evidence, and our duty as citizens to alert decision makers when the evidence reveals a threat.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 13 Mar 2007 @ 9:58 am
Wang, thanks for debunking (#38) the extensive polar bear research credentials I had claimed. Gavin - what's going on with the polar bear population?
Back in 2003, Dr. Andrew Derocher said "as the sea ice disappears, so will the polar bears." But then there's the recent survey I hadn't been aware of, showing an increase in bears at the Davis Strait.
Is it possible for the overall bear population to be in decline, while a regional population (the Davis Strait) grows?
Comment by Rob Davis — 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:04 am
Hi Gavin,
For years I have been trying to identify the causes of weather changes.
Two mainstream theories kept opposing : the man induced weather change VS the "universe" induced weather change.
Both theories seems to propose some very valid points.
Recently I stumbled on this article, where for the first time I read that those two kinds of factors (human induced and "universe" induced factors) might co-exist and explain the current weather changes.
For more information you can have a look a this above mentioned article, that is entitled " Fire and Ice, the Day after Tomorrow".
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/125454-Fire+and+Ice%3A+The+Day+After+Tomorrow
Comment by Pedrolito — 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:07 am
I sense that this may be part of a search for a "middle ground" on climate change, which seems to be a developing trend. (See, e.g., William Broad's piece in the NYT Science Times today.) That has the danger of lulling the public right back asleep.
The most important thing to communicate is the high degree of confidence that this is indeed a crisis, but one that will develop slowly. Only the severity of the crisis remains in question, to be determined by how we respond. Also, the basis for this confidence is the high level of understanding of the radiation physics involved. (Force them to challenge the AGW analysis itself, not just the result.)
By the way, the criticisms of "An Incovenient Truth" in Broad's article can easily be answered. I hope someone from RC will do that, since the Times has such wide-ranging influence.
Comment by Ron Taylor — 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:09 am
The evidence that audience will understand most easily is the fingerprint of the recent temperature changes. The cooling of the Stratosphere and the fact that nights, winters and the polar regions are warming more rapidly than days, summers and the tropics. Solar variation can't explain this. Greenhouse gases can.
The other main argument that I think you should use is the fact that Global warming is what we would expect to happen if large amounts of greenhouse gases are introduced and nothing happens that would reduce their effect. Use crude first approximations to what is happening. You can show that doubling CO2 by itself should lead to a temperature increase of about 1ðC. Have a slide giving a very brief mathematical justification for this. It will come over well if you can show that a first approximation to the direct effect of greenhouse gases does not require an elaborate model but can be derived by a argument only a few lines long. Just have it there on a piece of paper or on a slide. Let people know that you have it, you won't have the time to go into details but if they challenge it they could get themselves into knots. And while water vapor increasing with temperature to keep relative humidity roughly constant is an outcome of the models it is also an intuitively plausible result. The direct effect of greenhouse gases is enough to get the lower end of the sensitivity estimates even without cloud or circulation change feedbacks. It is these feedbacks that are hard to model. Even without them to have a temperature rise that we can neglect we need large negative feedbacks. Your opponents have to demonstrate the existence of such feedbacks. They can't.
I think you have to aim your arguments at those opponents that are willing to listen and change their minds and those people who have not made up their minds. To do this you have to identify these groups and argue in a way that gets their attention. You have to ignore people who are already on your side. If you seek their approval you could alienate the rational doubters.
You have some opponents that you will not be able to convince because they will let political ideology trump science. They find the political consequences of attempts to mitigate climate change unacceptable. They will simply look for reasons to believe that we are not affecting the climate and hence don't have to do anything about it.
You have to reach people who may share your opponents politics but won't let politics trump science. People who can be convinced that steps to mitigate Global warming are necessary even though they don't like it and don't like the more zealous environmentalists. Forget the precautionary principle. That will go over like a lead balloon. You are trying to convince those people who are prepared to make rational risk calculations and they will see the precautionary principle too cautious. Rather, point out that business as usual is gambling. If Global warming is a serious problem than the cost of doing nothing will be fare greater than the cost of precautions. And the chance of Global warming not being a serious problem is small.
There are quite a few people who are skeptical because they ave heard a lot of things which aren't true. Global warming on Mars, volcanoes put out more CO2 than industry etc. Win over the people who have only heard these myths but not their refutations.
Comment by Lloyd Flack — 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:20 am
Gavin,
Looking forward to the broadcast and podcast (please post the link when/if it's available). Good luck - I'm just an "ordinary" person who simply wants to learn as much as I can on this issue.
You and all those contributing to this site provide an excellent source of information on this issue. There is a lot of "noise" out there, largely polticial, so the discussions and information provided here helps clear the "clutter".
To fellow San Francisco denizens:
Airs on KQED FM 88.5 in San Francisco on Wednesday, March 28th at 8:00 PM
Thank you.
Comment by Ed — 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:20 am
I would be prepared for the "heart-strings" rhetoric that states that environmentalists are alarmists who distract the world from real problems of poverty and hunger. This disingenuous rhetoric is meant to stymie efforts to educate the public at-large about a serious problem - and is employed every time the groups in support of a status quo attempt to redirect fact by creating suspicion and feeding cynicism. They will state that poverty and hunger are caused by an inefficient energy system and that environmentalists are earth-centric and people-haters. You must be aware of this argument and counter it if you are to get your message to the layperson who needs factual information for understanding and decision-making (in consumption and at the electoral polls).
One strategy to counter this argument is that poverty and disease are political problems (people will understand that given the enormous cynicism towards the US government) and not problems of food production. In fact, one could make the case that oversupply by some nations may lead to poverty in others exactly because of politics of distribution. Overproduction has led to the current crisis as well - more consumers and fewer producers lead to the disconnection between humans and ecological understanding.
The downside of this strategy is that the dogma and propaganda of Western agricultural agencies, and governments in general, has been fed to people for decades leading them to believe that our production methods are "feeding the world".
One last note - Scott completely misses the social and ecological problems of the "green revolution" as he asserts the huge increases in food production brought on in the last century - the green revolution has led, in many areas, to increased poverty through increased participation at the local level in commodity cropping and export driven economies.
Comment by Jason Parker — 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:37 am
I tried submitting this once before but I don't know if it went through.
I'm no expert, but taking assuming that this is a debate you can structure your thinking around the traditional strategies of 'proving the positive', or 'disproving the negative'. Naturally they'll do the opposite. You'll have the weight of evidence, training, experience, and consensus on your side. They'll have opinion, slander, cherry-picked data, and conservative rhetoric on their side. Their tactic will be the traditional one of putting you immediately on the defensive trying to use science-speak to refute their sound-bite.
Naturally some lines of debate on the 'proving the positive side' is the scientific evidence, the climate models, the consensus, and the lack of alternative theories.
On the 'disproving the negative side' is the lack of peer-reviewed science, the potential agendas of the individual skeptics and their funders, the lack of credentials by most skeptics (do you want a politician or political pundit telling you the pain in your side is nothing to worry about), and the over-arching strategy of trivializing their argument - their argument has no merit, these people have no credibility, the science has been decided and all scientists are doing now is refining it.
I hope this helps.
Comment by Jeff DeLaune — 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:43 am
RE:86
There's the key question, Tom.
What would it take for anyone to abandon their personal view? That can be a direct question - as in the Evolution Debate. What would it take for a fundamental Creationist to abandon that view? If the answer is no argument would sway them, then it's religion. No argument or data can change that opinion.
If the answer is, essentially, data and results which directly and overwhealmingly refute the held theory, that's science. To rely on specious arguments, outright lies and data manipulation as has been done thus far in the climate denialist camp will not sway science. These arguments will not be published in scientific journals because they don't claim to prove anything, merely cast doubt.
The analogies to the tobacco and creation campaigns are apt. These are lawyer arguments (frequently written by lawyers like Johnson's Darwin on Trial) and make no effort to address the underlying science.
The only way to refute such arguments is piece-by-piece. Unfortunately, the same arguments will be used repeatedly with no acknowledgment of criticism or refutation. This is because, as I said, they're not trying to prove anything so don't have to make any assertions, they merely cast doubt. In a court of law, that is enough. In science, you have to explain your observations and publish them so they can be viewed and reviewed.
These sorts of media "debates" are rarely true debates. This is not typically an arena well-suited to scientific discussion. It can be turned against the lawyer-style arguments by using their own means, but that does take practice and presentation. The true scientific debates take place in journals, at conferences and in letters and replies to papers. There is vigorous debate at this level, with models and observations held to peer review and discussion. That this interaction is not seen on the evening news or "talking head" shows is not the fault of the scientific community.
The panel can hold Chrichton, Stott and Lintzen accountable for their mis-statements. Confront them where they outright lied or misled their audiences and perhaps even ask why they continued to use debunked arguments. Certainly, if one tries to publish a paper using disproven or outdated theories one should expect a rather harsh treatment from reviewers and certainly would need to fully explain why they're doing so. If these three individuals want to wade into the pool, they should be expected to dive into the deep end, not just splash water on the sunbathers...
Comment by Terry Miesle — 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:55 am
[Since when are physics, climate modeling, atmospheric science, oceanography... not "mathematical sciences".]
To be a mathematical science, you need equations that can predict things to [more or less] 100% accuracy. Physics is a mathematical science. Few physicists believe that carbon dioxide is a major cause of warming.
Climate modeling? The best they can model next month's weather is to say it will be a lot like the same month last year. How can they predict the weather 100 years from now.
Long range climate modeling isn't a mathematical science. It isn't any kind of science. It's a confidence game.
Comment by Diogenes — 13 Mar 2007 @ 10:57 am
Re 86: Once again, your arguments reflect a misunderstanding of science. By all means, one's choices reflect one's judgement, but that is not an argument for rigidity, but rather for carefully weighing the evidence BEFORE deciding which "camp" to join. How is this any different than deciding to believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or plate tectonics?
Indeed if the evidentiary situation changes and you rigidly cling to your old views, your reputation will suffer more than if you change your position. This is not a US presidential election where "flip-flopping" is grounds for qualification. It is science, where the goal is to arrive at the best approximation of the truth we can given the available evidence.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 13 Mar 2007 @ 11:06 am
Good God, Diogenes, do you just make this stuff up as you go along? How about this:
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
Oh, since you seem to be unfamiliar with physics and physicists, AIP is an umbrella organization of physics professional societies. Just try and find more than a handful of physicists who don't think we're influencing climate. And while you're at it, learn the difference between climate and weather.
Comment by Ray Ladbury — 13 Mar 2007 @ 11:28 am
Re 96
You seem to be saying that the only real science is in situations that can be described by mathematical equations having closed form solutions. That is utter nonsense. The step-wise solutions of the differential equations in the climate models is quite similar to the approach used to aerodynamically design aircraft or send probes to Mars. Only the simplest of problems could be described as "scientific" under your understanding.
Comment by Ron Taylor — 13 Mar 2007 @ 11:35 am
Re 96
You state..
"Few physicists believe that carbon dioxide is a major cause of warming.'
Hmm...news to me (being a physicist myself) and the many members of the American Institute of Physics (see www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm ) for starters.
BTW. Weather and climate are not quite the same thing...you'll have to do better than that (see http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/we-cant-even-predict-weather-next-week.html).
Comment by David donovan — 13 Mar 2007 @ 11:41 am