The Royal Society, the world’s oldest scientific academy in continuous existence, has released a new statement: :
Governments of the world are meeting in Copenhagen, with the aim of reaching agreement on how to tackle climate change. At this important time, the Royal Society has chosen to release a new statement: Preventing dangerous climate change.
This statement has been approved by the Council of the Royal Society, and was prepared in consultation with 30 leading climate scientists. It is informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations.
MITCHELL: Well, one of the things that she has written recently on Facebook is that this is doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that makes the public feel like owning an SUV is a sin against the planet.GORE: Well, the scientific community has worked very intensively for 20 years within this international process, and they now say the evidence is unequivocal. A hundred and fifty years ago this year was the discovery that CO-2 traps heat. That is a — a principle in physics.
It’s not a question of debate. It’s like gravity; it exists.
MITCHELL: If it’s so unequivocal, I’ve got to ask you about the — the leak of those e-mails. Even today, Tom Friedman talked about them massaging the evidence. Why would they feel the need to hype the evidence if it’s so unequivocal, some scientists, I should say?
GORE: Yeah, I don’t think they did. I haven’t read all the e-mails that were stolen. They’re from — the most recent one was like 10 years ago.
And what they’ve done is they’ve snatched a few phrases completely out of context, and I’ll give you an example.
One of the oft-quoted phrases has to do with the scientist saying that a particular study isn’t good science and shouldn’t be included in the — international report. Well, that was their view. They exchanged it privately.
The study was included, fully aired, discussed. The weak points were — were analyzed. The other points were analyzed. So it’s an example of how these private exchanges have been blown out of proportion, taken out of context, misrepresented.
Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?
A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing.
…
These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus. But the noise machine built by the climate deniers often seizes on what they can blow out of proportion, so they’ve thought this is a bigger deal than it is.
…
What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly. The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our very eyes. It’s been the size of the continental United States for the last 3 million years and now 40 percent is gone and the rest of it is going. The mountain glaciers are going. We’ve had record storms, droughts, fires, and floods. There is an air of unreality in debating these arcane points when the world is changing in such dramatic ways right in front of our eyes because of global warming.
…
If the people that believed the moon landing was staged on a movie lot had access to unlimited money from large carbon polluters or some other special interest who wanted to confuse people into thinking that the moon landing didn’t take place, I’m sure we’d have a robust debate about it right now.
It is continually stunning to me that people can see the evidence before their eyes” and continue to doubt the reality of climate change, he said. He turned to Holdren and said, sarcastically, “I just want to ask you if you’re a member of a global conspiracy.
We request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct a thorough and transparent investigation into the questions raised by the disclosure of emails from Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU). Additionally, EPA should withdraw the Proposed Endangerment Finding, as well as the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule until the Agency can demonstrate that the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised.
“The scientific community enjoys a tremendous amount of public trust. Unfortunately, the themes exposed in the CRU documents led to a loss of confidence in certain individuals as dispassionate arbiters of climate science,” Broun said in his letter. “At the least, the contents of the emails point to a troubling trend of groupthink where data is manipulated and withheld, scientific journals are intimidated, and reputations are attacked for political expedience,” the letter continued.
The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus … that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity.
However this particular controversy comes out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it.
On the second part, I think Carol Browner addressed that last week, on the order of several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly, among — most people — in dispute anymore.
Well, first of all, we’ve all seen bits and pieces, we haven’t seen the full e-mails. But I think more importantly there has been for a very long time a very small group of people who continue to say this isn’t a real problem, that we don’t need to do anything. On the other hand, we have 2,500 of the world’s foremost scientists who are in absolute agreement that this is a real problem and that we need to do something and we need to do something as soon as possible.
What am I going to do, side with the couple of naysayers out there, or the 2,500 scientists? I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. I mean, these people have been studying this issue for a very, very long time, and agree that the problem is real.
The beauty of science is that it depends on independent verification and replication as part of the process of confirming research results. This process, which is tied intrinsically to the procedures leading to publication of research results in the peer-reviewed literature, allows the scientific community to confirm some results while rejecting others. It also, in a sense, lessens the impact of any one set of research results, especially as the body of research on any topic grows. The AMS plays an important role in the scientific process through its peer-reviewed publications, as well as through its many other activities, such as scientific conferences. The Society strives to maintain integrity in the editorial process for all its publications.
For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.
Opponents of climate change legislation are trying to deceive the American public on climate science. After years attacking the science on its merits and failing, they’re now using stolen e-mails to attack climate scientists directly.
Our understanding of climate science is based on decades of research from thousands of scientists. These e-mails don’t affect what we know about human activity driving dangerous levels of global warming or the measures we must take to address it.
I think it is important for scientists to clearly state that if basic data were withheld, or if there was unprofessional tampering with the peer-review process, we do not condone these acts. It is equally essential to emphasize that alleged problems with a few scientists’ behavior do not change the consensus understanding of human-induced, global climate change, which is a robust hypothesis based on well-established observations and inferences.
Scientifically, it means little. All scientists know that this kind of language and kidding goes on verbally all the time. Some of us forget that email has the potential to become public at any time. The public perception is another matter. There may be some people who do not know any scientist personally and think they are lily pure, dedicated (do-gooder) nerds. These private comments might lead to less confidence in science. It is a shame, since our country is so scientifically illiterate and is easily swayed by perceptions that have little to do with scientific method and culture. They have very little influence on my opinion.
The “contrarians” or “deniers” do not have a scientific leg to stand on. Their aim is to win a public relations battle, or at least get a draw, which may be enough to stymie the actions that are needed to stabilize climate.
t is not unlikely that this event may have some real repercussions for the public perception of climate science, however unfair it may seem (unfair both in terms of the actual intended meaning of the emails, as in terms of the way they were obtained). ”Skeptics” will certainly try to get as much mileage out of this as possible, in order to undermine the science and the political process (e.g. Copenhagen). However, there are also plenty of sane voices commenting on the issue.
One of the issues with how the UEA emails are perceived is whether the reader understands the context of the dubious pseudoscience and constant harassment the field faces. If you understand that, the emails are understandable and mostly excusable. If you don’t, if you think that normal science is being stymied, then you come away with a very different impression.
This episode is not a window into how climate science works. It’s a window into how electronic communication has altered our standards and the way we work. Nobody looks good here. We should all be embarrassed.
Most of the contents that have had people getting so excited about on the blogs seem pretty innocuous to me – the usual to-and-fro of scientists discussing, arguing, sometimes exhibiting frustration. We are, after all, human. A handful of messages hint at something a bit worse, and I’m not going to excuse anyone who has behaved in an unethical manner, but it is hard to condemn anyone based on a few cherry-picked emails, many of which in any case have straightforward explanations. If there was a lot of serious malpractice, I’d expect to see more substantial evidence from the past decade of email at one of the world’s leading climate research centres. On the whole it is thin gruel indeed. It is clear that most of what people are getting excited by is just the typical banter of scientists engaged in debate and discussion, and many of the commenters just don’t have a clue about the scientific process. The person who quoted our email correspondence about the edits to the manuscript claimed that this proved how political all us scientists are! In fact we were simply improving the paper in accordance with various comments from reviewers (which we basically agreed with), which is how the peer review process normally works.
In summary, there are probably some minor lapses in there, but everyone who has read any of the emails is already guilty of something worse and there’s no firm evidence of major crimes.
Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.
The hearing will be webcast at this link at 10am. Expect SwiftHack conspiracy theories from the Republicans on the committee.
With the international climate change talks in Copenhagen fast approaching, there is real urgency to reach diplomatic consensus on a planetary solution. In a hearing this Wednesday, the Select Committee will explore with climate scientists from the Obama administration the urgent, consensus view on our planetary problem: that global warming is real, and the science indicates that it is getting worse.
At the hearing, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) will host two of America’s preeminent climate scientists, Dr. John Holdren and Dr. Jane Lubchenco.
Dr. Holdren is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and was formerly a professor at Harvard University and the director of the acclaimed Woods Hole Research Center.
Dr. Lubchenco is the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States’ leading climate office.
The past decade has been the hottest in recorded history, with all of the years since 2001 being in the top 10 of hottest, according to NASA. This summer, the world’s oceans were the warmest in NOAA’s 130 years of record-keeping. Meanwhile, global heat-trapping pollution continues to rise.
WHAT: Select Committee hearing on the State of Climate Science
WHEN: 10 AM, Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009
WHERE: B-318 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC
WITNESSES:
Dr. John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.
Dec. 2006: Pawlenty lays out an ambitious clean energy program for Minnesotans to reduce their use of fossil fuels 15 percent by 2015. Cutting greenhouse gases, Pawlenty said, would “be good for the environment, good for rural economies, good for national security and good for consumers.” He also calls for a regional cap and trade program.
May 2007: Pawlenty signs the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, requiring the state to reduce its emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent in 2050. At the signing ceremony, Pawlenty said Minnesota was “kicking-starting the future” by “tackling greenhouse gas emissions.”
Oct. 2007: Pawlenty declares that the climate change issue is “one of the most important of our time.” He also brushes off “some flak” from right-wingers who doubt climate change science.
Sept. 2008: During the election, Pawlenty backs away from his own cap and trade program, says such a system would “wreck the economy.” He then tells hate radio personality Glenn Beck (a climate change denier) that human activity only contributes “half a percent” to climate change.
Nov. 2009: Pawlenty backs away from acknowledging that any human activity is the cause of climate change.
“One of things that they do in this chapter is try to frame this as them versus the environmentalists, to say, ‘We’ve got the scientists on our side, and you’ve got Al Gore’,” says Romm. But, he argues, climate scientists familiar with the book see Dubner and Levitt as gravely mischaracterizing the state of the science
And I’ve also been meaning to link to this open letter to Steve Levitt, which is excellent. Very much worth taking the time to read if you are following the controversy over Superfreakonomics.
And while most who argue against meaningful action on climate change limit themselves to disputing either the science or the economics, you have apparently accepted no such limitations. Perhaps if you had limited your arguments to one of these angles or the other you wouldn’t have made so many egregious factual errors.
But perhaps this was all just a clever marketing ploy. I can’t help but wonder if chapter five was deliberately crafted to cause an uproar. Some sort of hail mary attempt to draw attention to an otherwise less-than-spectacular book. If this is the case — and you truly have adopted the ‘all news is good news’ mantra — then I guess congratulations are in order. Your book is almost as relevant as the balloon boy.
Several climate science contrarian Web sites are misrepresenting the findings of a peer-reviewed study published in the July 13 issue of the journal Nature Geoscience. The study—by scientists from Rice University, the University of Hawaii and the University of California at Santa Cruz—provides evidence that current climate models are underestimating the amount of warming that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide can cause. In other words, the potential consequences of global warming are likely worse than what scientists are predicting.
The study examined the extent to which increased carbon dioxide levels could explain a 5 to 9 degree Celsius increase the Earth experienced 55.5 million years ago. The authors concluded that current estimates of how much carbon dioxide increases the average Earth temperature only explains 3.5 degrees of warming.
In a commentary published with the study, David Beerling, a paleobiologist at the University of Sheffield in England, writes: “The upshot of the study…is that forecasts of future warming could be severely underestimating the extent of the problem that lies in store for humanity as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere.”
According to Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), carbon dioxide-induced warming can lead to changes that exacerbate the problem. For example, increasing CO2 concentrations:
melt tundra, which then releases methane and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere;
warm the air, which then can hold more water vapor, another heat-trapping gas; and
melt white ice, which exposes the ocean and land, which, because they are darker in color, absorb more heat from the sun and reflect less of it back into space.
Scientists are still trying to precisely quantify the effect of such “positive feedback cycles” that took place millions of years ago as well as the ones that are happening today, Fitzpatrick said. The scientific literature, including the new Nature Geoscience study, indicates that positive feedbacks greatly outweigh negative ones and that current climate models are likely underestimating potential temperature increases from overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.
