Thank God

Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming.

No joke. We need these kind of coalitions.

UPDATE: One commenter suggests Michael Crichton as an authority on global climate change. That is such an unfortunate recommendation that I have to take exception. Michael Crichton went to medical school decades ago (so even his opinions on medicine would likely be out-to-date.) He is a fine writer of pulp escapist novels (I hope that is not an oxymoron) which I have quoted admiringly, in their proper context.. But he has as much credibility as I do to be quoted on the science of climate change i.e. zero. Of course everyone is free to opine on politics (that is why there is so many "political" blogs -- it requires little substantive knowledge). But to offer Crichton as an authority on science rather than "faith" (under which category he properly belongs when it comes to climate for he is relying on others' opinion) is inappropriate, maybe even preposterous.

Chrichton's "ideas" have been thoroughly shredded at RealClimate, a group blog of working climate scientists which I highly recommend. There is something to be said for the authority of people actually working in the trenches -- in this case doing science rather than simply reading/hearing about it in Rupert Murdoch media -- and who have first hand experience with "the material."

Comments

[Glen Raphael]

Not too surprising, since global warming is fundamentally a religious issue more than a scientific one.

I recommend Crichton's Aliens Cause Global Warming speech.

[David Sucher]

Touche, Glen, clever.

Though you do realize that people who don't believe that there is global climate change -- most likely warming -- are in a miniscule minority? That alone is not conclusive I agree. But the consensus (again not the reason to believe) is that the only dispute so far is the role of human agency in the phenomenon.

[Glen Raphael]

I don't think anybody doubts "there is global climate change" since the literal definition of that phrase is that the globe sometimes gets warmer and sometimes gets colder. Which is self-evident. What's at issue is whether we should be worrying unduly about it.

There's a general consensus that we're in the warming period between ice ages and average temperature has probably been trending ever-so-slightly upwards over the period for which we have good records. Which is more than one could have said a decade or two ago. That's progress.

But to be certain that (a) the warming trend will continue, (b) to a degree that will cause significant harm, (c) that human agency is causing a significant portion of it, and (d) that it's worth trying to do anything about it yet, still requires faith, not science. There are too many variables in the equations and there really is no way to know what will happen until it does happen. There's also no way to know what costs one is incurring by choosing to act or to not act.

My hunch is that the longer we wait to act, the better we'll know what actions are necessary and the better we'll be able to accomplish whatever goal is appropriate at that time. But that's not a scientific belief. It's just skepticism towards the revealed wisdom of those who have a religious belief to the contrary.

I see relatively unhindered economic progress as helping us grow the knowledge and resources to understand and solve /all/ potential problems, and I don't want to rein that in in order to address any /single/ potential problem that might not even be the most important one we face.

[David Sucher]

" But to be certain that (a) the warming trend will continue, (b) to a degree that will cause significant harm, (c) that human agency is causing a significant portion of it, and (d) that it's worth trying to do anything about it yet, still requires faith, not science."

Glen, may I suggest very gently that you are thinking too much? That you have been reading too much Michael Crichton? There is such a thing as "death by over-study" and many intellectuals are prone to do so to the point where it is too late to act. A nonchalant attitude is charming but not reassuring.

I too have been skeptical but at some point -- and of course it is a judgment which you dismiss by calling it a matter of faith -- the weight of _informed_ opinion becomes persuasive. That has happned for me.

Precisely what course we should be taking socially I don't know but simply saying "More of the same! Full speed ahead!" appears to be a bit foolhardy. But as you prefer for yourself.

[christopher Brandow]

two things:
1. I wouldn't be overly cheered by the evangelical calls for action on climate change. This group of evangelicals is not the same as the Dobson/Roberts/Falwell contingent. That general group still considers climate change to be as bogus as anyone.

2. Glen, I would recommend that you read the recent series in the New Yorker that over the course of three articles fleshes out quite clearly what scientists think about this problem and how they address each of your points. If in fact the evidence was not so strong, your approach of wait and see would indeed be quite sensible. Given the known science of climate change it is not. I don't have time to detail all this but I *strongly* urge you and others to read the climate change series. here is the link to the first article: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050425fa_fact3

as a PhD chemist, I can tell you that to describe the current state of climate science as one of uncertainty is truly outrageous.

[Glen Raphael]

Yeah, I read the New Yorker series a few days ago in the context of a different discussion. That's what dragged me back into this debate, one I'd managed to stay out of for a while.

David: I wasn't recommending Crichton as an authority, I was recommending you read a particular speech of his and think about the points made therein. It's not a long speech. Here's that link again.

Incidentally, I wasn't impressed with RealClimate's attack on State of Fear either. It felt to me like they read a diffferent book than I had. SoF does a good job of debunking many of the misconceptions most people have. RealClimate didn't /shred/ it, they argued with two or three of the hundreds of points in the book, and of the few points they addressed, they even got some of those wrong. (RealClimate does a good job at times but would be a lot more impressive if they didn't so heavily edit the blog comments as to prevent actual debate.)

[Terry]

I have been reading quite a bit on the climate-change controversy for years. For what it's worth these are my observations:

You are right that the consensus is that there is warming occurring now. This is not news. For decades climatologists knew that there has been a long-term warming from the time of the Little Ice Age. The disagreement is over what role humans play. To say that there is a consensus regarding the existence of warming and to imply that only crazy skeptics disagree is dishonest -- it conflates the two.

The one thing about which essentially everyone agrees is that the Kyoto protocal and similar proposals will have virtually no effect on climate change. (The IPCC, Greenpeace, et al. as well as the skeptics all agree on this.)

As to sources, I reccommend WorldClimateReport.com. They read the literature and clearly know what they are talking about. Junkscience.com is also useful (although quite obnoxious) since he reads the papers and usually gets his facts right.

Realclimate.com is also good since they know their material and keep the obnoxiousness to a minimum. However, the authors have a lot of reputation invested in catastrophic climate change. I have seen first-hand how this can warp academic reasearch, so these guys are not the last word. Their central contribution is the "hockey stick" which is almost certainly flawed. It simply misses the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Optimum. See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip. Further, it requires that the surface temperature record be used for the 20th century and ignores the satellite record. (There is no good basis to reject the satelite record.)

[David Sucher]

I am pretty sure that I did indeed say something to the effect that "The disagreement is over what role humans play." And if I didn't write it clearly, that was my mistake.

Yes, I agree, that question of human impact -- along with "OK, if so, what do we do?" -- is at the heart of the matter.

What I was trying to say is tha there is indeed a growing consensus among people who actually work in the field -- not political commentators but practcing scientists of various types -- that the climate change and the industrial revolution are not merely coincidental but the former is caused by the latter i.e. climate change is a result of human activity.

It is my understanding that the vast majority of scientists believe this relationship climate change is a result of human activity to be so. Does the fact that a consensus believes so prove it to be true? Of course not. But unless one has some real insight from serious study to suggest otherwise, it's pretty convincing & cautionary.

That still leaves open the question "What to do?" -- so don't worry there is still plenty of room for political hacks to get involved.

[Terry]

I didn't mean to imply you were being dishonest. Your were clear in what you said and did not conflate global warming with human-induced warming. When warming advocates claim a consensus, however, they often use this trick -- they claim that only loons deny that there is global warming (pretty much true), but they then slide over to implying that only loons deny the warming is caused by humans (not true at all).

From what I have seen, there is no consunsus, growing or otherwise. The surface temperature record is highly suspect, the satelite and weather balloon data tell a very different story, the hockey stick is almost certainly wrong, the models are at best wild guesses, warming is probably beneficial, and there is nothing that can be done about it. There have been some very dishonest surveys of scientists to support the claim of a consensus. Don't believe them. Don't believe the New Yorker, the WSJ or the NYT either. Their science reporting is abysmal. I have never seen a pro-warming, popular press article honest enough to confront the problem of the satelite data (which shows very very modest warming).

Moreover, this is exactly the kind of situation where you would expect opportunistic alarmists to thrive (ambiguous and technical data with no way to clearly resolve the issue in the near future).

I remember vividly how environmentalists lied to us about how all the oil would be gone by 1990 and how world-wide famines would kill untold millions or billions in the 70s and 80s. This has all the earmarks of another such hysteria. These things always thrive in areas on the edge of genuine testability.

[Glen Raphael]

Since apparently nobody wants to read the speech, I'll see if I can summarize the relevant bit.

In retrospect it's self-evident that the Drake Equation and "nuclear winter" both had the form of science, but not the substance. An equation just isn't very useful when it is filled with terms that are inherently unknown and unknowable.

The hysteria over human-caused increases in global warming fits the same mold as those two in that the "science" behind it boils down to a staggeringly large equation whose output is the global temperature a century or two from now and whose inputs are largely unknown and unknowable. We can plug in hypothetical values ("Hey, let's see what happens if CO2 doubles!"), assume everything else stays constant or maintains its prior momentum and call it a "positive forcing" if making that input bigger makes the output value bigger too, but assigning values to factors that are currently unknown and unknowable is really the role of religion, not science.

It is my understanding that the vast majority of scientists believe this relationship "climate change is a result of human activity" to be so.

/Some/ climate change is undoubtedly /a/ result of /some/ human activity. For instance, when I light a fire, that makes my house warmer, which ultimately makes the climate slightly warmer, which is a change. So if that were the question, you could probably get a consensus. But the magnitude matters. It is my understanding that there is no scientific consensus as to what degree climate change is a result of human activity. (It's conceivable there might eventually be such a consensus, but that doesn't make it it correct to say there is a consensus or even "an emerging consensus" right now.)

David, may I ever-so-gently suggest that the next time you read an assertion that the vast majority of scientists believe X you should put on your devil's advocate cap and ask yourself "how could we know that?" What question was asked, exactly? What did the listeners understand the question to mean? Which group of "scientists" was surveyed under what circumstances and does the result represent an informed scientific opinion or does it merely represent the random biases of a group of people who bring no relevant expertise to bear?

My suspicion is that "most scientist believe" is usually best translated as "I believe, and some of my friends do too." :-)

[Glen Raphael]

I should have said "I am not aware of a consensus as to..." rather than "It is my understanding that there is no consensus as to..." It's bad form to make overbroad claims while counselling skepticism toward overbroad claims. Obviously, I didn't survey all scientists to determine this.

[David Sucher]

Glen,
This not the proper forum for us -- neither of whom has much expertise in the field -- to argue whether there is or is not a consensus about the role of human action in global change.
I believe there is such a consensus (i.e. that human agency is a major cause) and that it doesn't take a great deal of research to find that consensus; you believe otherwise.
How we would resolve that here I have no idea but I doubt if Terry's "Don't believe the New Yorker, the WSJ or the NYT either." is a fruitful path.

[Glen Raphael]

How we would resolve [whether there is a consensus] here I have no idea

Hey, how about Google? We could Google "global warming consensus" and read the top result on the page. Skim down to the section titled Consensus and the Current "Popular Vision" for a nice summary of the history of the alleged consensus.

One big problem is that past environmental activists have poisoned the well. By claiming a consensus before there actually was one, they've created a situation where even if there were a consensus now I'd be predisposed not to believe in it. The burden of proof has shifted. Maybe "crying wolf" is a better metaphor than well-poisoning, given the severity of the predictions and the frequency with which they have to be discounted later (fun example of that here). Anyway, I agree it's off topic for this blog, so I'll shut up now. :-)

[David Sucher]

Glen, how about Googling a bit further and seeing that Lindzen agrees that there is change afoot and the only issue is a matter of policy -- which is exactly what I have suggested. The article seems to be focussed on whether Kyoto is an effective approach -- he suggests in it that there are better ways than Kyoto to deal with global warming. So I am nrt sure if his article shows what you would like it to show.

And btw, the article by Lindzen to which you link is undated but seems to from when Gore was a Senator so I wonder if it is still worthwhile as a reference on your particular concern.

That said, I don't think it's "off-topic for this blog" -- merely no expertise here.

[Glen Raphael]

Thanks, the article you linked to was exactly what I had in mind. It says the full NAS report makes it clear that among that group of scientists "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."

It goes on to note that the much-quoted IPCC Summary document merely "represents a consensus of government representatives" rather than one of scientists.

Another money quote was "we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."

I'm not saying there won't ever be a consensus that, as you put it, human agency is a major cause of climate change. (as opposed to a minor cause, or a cause of unknown degree). There might be. There just isn't yet. Give it another few decades to tweak the models, gather more data and and test more predictions -- then we'll see what comes of it.

[David Sucher]

Glen, I too - if you read this blog you will know that -- am suspicious of conventional wisdom and like to be somewhat of a contrarian. But that doesn't mean that conventional wisdom is always wrong.

Another few decades? No problem. That's what it will take in the normal course in any case.

So far as I can make out, the key right now is to peel away as many energy subsidies as possible so that energy can be as accurately priced as possible. That will lead to conservation by the most effective means possible: a rise in market price.

[Terry]

The key quote from the Lindzen article is:

"What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor."

Thus, the "skeptics" say the increase is modest and not a big deal, while the others say it is huge and catastrophic.

The fascinating feature of this debate is how people approach it. Most fascinating of all is how relatively uninformed people can be so adamant about it. Lindzen is a top climatologist. I don't see how his view can simply be discarded. The more you read, the less certain the results are.

I have a Ph.D. in economics and I have published empirical papers, so I can read the climate literature at a reasonably advanced level. I also know how hard it is to prove something, and I have seen first-hand how a "concensus" can be created from weak and even bogus empirical work.

My instinct is that climate is just too complicated and the data too weak to support the alarmist position. Lindzen and other skeptics estimate their 1 degree of warming based on very simple interpretations of the climate models and extrapolations of the temperature data. It sounds reasonable to me, although there is obviously a large margin of error here since we understand the climate so poorly and the economic assumptions about future co2 use are absurdly speculative.

Things like the hockey stick, however, require elaborate analysis of weak data to get their results. Modest adjustments to the model make big differences. Most amazing of all is that the hockey stick is famous because it is a negative result ... it finds virtually no variation in temperature over the past 1,000 years and flies in the face of much other research. This is hardly the basis for an enormous pubic policy initiative.

BTW, science reporting in the NYT, WSJ, and New Yorker are abysmal. I have repeatedly read about things I actually know something about and found the reporting to be ludicrous. I suggest http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ (skeptical) and http://www.realclimate.org/ (catastrophist). Both are quite good.

Try this experiment: read a NYT article about a recent development in climatology. Then go to these two sites and read what they have to say about the actual papers. See how correct they get it.

Good blog. Your instincts are good. Go with them. We always think we know more than we actually do. That is why there is so much wisdom in what has withstood the test of time.