In today’s Edmonton Journal/Calgary Herald on-line leaders debate (a great format, BTW), the leaders were asked the following question:
Do you believe in climate change? What should be the provincial government’s response to climate change, or should the provincial government wait for a plan from the federal government?
Unfortunately, the first part of this question, which boils tens of thousands of papers worth of academic research into 2 words, is useful only in that it allows those reading the answer to see exactly what they want to see. Answer yes, you believe in climate change and you are either keenly aware of the state of scientific evidence or a sheep faithfully following along with the herd. Answer anything other than yes, and you are a climate denier, someone with a true scientist’s level of scepticism or a brave critic of mainstream science. In other words, whatever people thought you believed before you answered the question, they will find in your answer to the question if they try hard enough.
There are few questions which are more loaded in today’s energy and environment debates than, “do you believe in climate change?” If I were asking a question along the same lines, here’s what I would have asked:
First, a 2011 US National Academy of Science report states that, “climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems.” Do you agree with this statement? If not, with which parts of it do you disagree?
Second, given your views on the risks posed by climate change, as well as global and national geopolitics surrounding climate change, energy use, and GHG emissions, why is your GHG and energy policy package the best choice for Alberta?
This gets at the two key elements – do you accept that the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests there are significant risks associated with anthropogenic climate change, and, since Alberta is an energy-producing, GHG-intensive economy, how do you plan to position Alberta to prosper in a world adjusting to deal with it?
If you think that you can hear a satisfactory answer to all of that in a one-word answer to a gotcha question, you’re far more insightful than I.
You’re asking 2 questions, one on climate science and one on GHG policy, and so did the newspaper reader who posed those questions.
First, let’s acknowledge that the reader got one thing right and pointed out a glaring omission in the discourse (including your April 4 post). To have a reasonable discussion on GHG policy, we must be clear on the scientific consensus that underpins the policy response. So it’s important that political parties answer that first question explicitly. It makes a big difference in assessing the sincerity and motivation of their respective GHG policies.
So let’s look at that first question (on climate change science). Rather than focusing on one statement from a single national body (prestigious though it may be), the emphasis should be on the overwhelming scientific consensus as embodied in the U.N. IPCC and all the world’s leading scientific organizations. You summarized the question this way:
“Do you accept that the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests there are significant risks associated with anthropogenic climate change?”
That’s pretty weak: “preponderance … suggests”. The scientific consensus is much stronger than that. How about:
“Do you accept the scientific consensus, as put forth by the U.N. IPCC and all the world’s leading scientific organizations, that contemporary climate change is primarily anthropogenic and poses a significant risk?”
In fact, I’d say “Do you believe in climate change?”, while vague, does capture the essence of the real question better than your version.
Danielle Smith answered this question a long time ago. She doesn’t accept the consensus. She doesn’t even believe that there *is* such a scientific consensus, confusing “consensus” with unanimity.
DC, your points are fair. I think there is a lot of confounding going on here, and my question could be re-posed in any number of ways. That said, I think my point stands – for all but the most extreme views, the question of “do you believe in climate change” suggests that the issue is binary which it is not. If I tell you that I believe in climate change, you’ll ascribe a whole lot of meaning to that which may or may not have been present in my answer. Ask a more precise question, you get a more precise answer.
Andrew
“do you believe in climate change?”
Wow, I can’t believe someone actually asked that in a televised debate.
That loaded question is very revealing and sounds eerily similar to “do you believe in God?”
And in many ways, it is quite identical.
I don’t think it’s in the same category as religion, although it has become close to one for many involved in the discussion. As you say, it’s a loaded question that boils one of the most important policy challenges we face globally into a single sound bite. Gotcha.
Ok not a religion perhaps but a faith. They do not have churches and no marter as yet, but they have just about everything else. In a couple hundred years they might have places of worship with ceiling frescos of Al Gore and a few other of the early deciples.
Andrew,
It would be nice if you put half the effort in clarifying your own somewhat obscure views that you have put into deriding a vague question that at least had the salutory effect of raising an election issue that no one, including you, was discussing beforehand. Then maybe we’d get somewhere.
For starters, let’s look at what you said to the Calgary Herald.
====================
Andrew Leach, an associate University of Alberta professor on natural resources, energy and environment, said the scientific discussion about climate change has gone beyond whether it’s real.
“There is significant uncertainty in climate science,” he said. “There are still many debates going on, but those are not at the level of whether there is any significant relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature change. They are at the level of to what degree.”
================
Sure there is uncertainty, but with respect to “degree” of human attribution of recent global warming, the evidence is clear: Contemporary global warming has been primarily driven by anthropogenic causes, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions, and natural drivers are less important. In fact, the “preponderance” of evidence (your word) suggests *no* role for natural drivers in the warming of the last 30 years.
So you are *still* understating the consensus when you posit only a “significant relationship”, which implies the possibility that natural influences might still predominate. The scientific consensus and evidence clearly points to the primacy of human influence. Is warming over say the last 30 years 100% attributable to human causes (as most climate scientists closest to the issue hold) or only 80%? Will doubling atmospheric CO2 lead to 2C or 4C rise in global temperature?
These legitimate questions show the extent of uncertainty, but also put some constraints on it. Bottom line – if you do not clearly articulate the *primary role* of human causation in climate change, you have failed to properly express the scientific consensus.
You have a responsibility as a self-appointed expert on GHG policy to get this right, especially since so many of your economist colleagues, such as Ross McKitrick and Jack Mintz, spew out misinformation on the topic of climate science.
DC, do you disagree with my quote? The IPCC agrees with it: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/box-10-2-figure-1.html
My use of the term significant implied statistically significant and positive. As you see from the link above, the studies cited all allow the rejection of the null hypothesis that there is no impact of GHG emissions, regardless of source, on global average surface temperature.
So, here’s a question back to you. Is the science on climate change settled? If so, should we abandon all funding for research since the major debates needed to underpin global policy responses have been solved? Give me a 20 minute audio answer, and I’ll pick one sentence to print in the newspaper, okay?
I also appreciate your term “self-appointed” expert. I put all my credentials in public view for all to see. If you or anyone else want to criticize my ability to comment on these issues, you are more than welcome to, but don’t put me out there as a self-appointed expert when you are hiding behind an anonymous account.
Andrew
“DC, do you disagree with my quote?”
I think you have misunderstood that IPCC figure (on climate sensitivity). To explain that will take a more time than I have right now, so I’ll return to that another time.
“Is the science on climate change settled?”
This is another vague question (usually invoked by “skeptics”, so I’m surprised that you even ask it). Obviously, I have quoted wide uncertainties on key top-line questions above, uncertainties that could be usefully narrowed. But it is also the case that the uncertainty bands are not as wide as you appear to be believe.
On top of that, a lot of questions clearly need a lot more research – for example regional projections are very uncertain.
Finally (for now), it’s fair to object to my “self-appointed” crack (although not necessarily for the reason you cite). So I will happily withdraw that and apologize. I should not have said that.
I think you are a bona fide expert on GHG policy. But I think your understanding of climate science is weak, although not irredeemably so. However, I think it is well worthwhile to engage you on this issue, because you strike me as a good faith proponent for your point of view, as well as someone who is willing to admit mistakes when they are explained.
““DC, do you disagree with my quote?”
I think you have misunderstood that IPCC figure (on climate sensitivity). To explain that will take a more time than I have right now, so I’ll return to that another time.”
My understanding of that figure is that it shows the probability density functions for estimated values for the long run climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. My understanding of this parameter is that it represents the equilibrium response of globally‐ and annually‐averaged surface air temperatures to a doubling of carbon dioxide above preindustrial concentrations. I realize that this is only a convenient metric of expressing the severity of climate change, and that it does not capture all of the important parameters. My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that given uncertainties in the underlying mechanisms and/or uncertainties in the historical data used to estimate this relationship, that it is not possible to establish a point estimate. As such, authors of studies generally provide probability density functions for their estimates, rather than a single value. As with any estimate, standard errors matter, which is why I phrased my conclusions in terms of statistical significance. I have spent a great deal of time working with this parameter in my own research, so I have talked to a number of climate scientists (which I do not pretend to be) to make sure that my use of the mean and distribution parameters make sense, but please do point me to any new research in this area.
““Is the science on climate change settled?”
This is another vague question (usually invoked by “skeptics”, so I’m surprised that you even ask it). Obviously, I have quoted wide uncertainties on key top-line questions above, uncertainties that could be usefully narrowed. But it is also the case that the uncertainty bands are not as wide as you appear to be believe.”
On top of that, a lot of questions clearly need a lot more research – for example regional projections are very uncertain.
You missed my sarcasm. I was asking you the reverse ‘gotcha’ question, to point out the idiocy of asking the “do you believe in climate change” question.
My beliefs on the uncertainty are informed by my reading of the literature on climate sensitivity, in addition to meta analyses by IPCC, NAS, and others. My understanding continues to be that a median estimate of +/- 3 degrees with a left skewed distribution with a long right tail is consistent with the best estimates. For example, Knutti et al. in 2008 which states that, “various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 °C, with a likely range of about 2–4.5 °C.” If you read any of my papers on policy under uncertainty, you would see that I use 3 +/- 1.5 95% confidence intervals, although I have previous papers using a normal distribution as a pdf which is an obvious simplification based on the 3rd and 4th moments of the distributions cited in the climate literature. The IPCC figure suggests that some studies support a 95% confidence interval of as large as 2-9°C, but my understanding is that has narrowed significantly. By all means, correct me where I am wrong.
Finally (for now), it’s fair to object to my “self-appointed” crack (although not necessarily for the reason you cite). So I will happily withdraw that and apologize. I should not have said that.
I think you are a bona fide expert on GHG policy. But I think your understanding of climate science is weak, although not irredeemably so. However, I think it is well worthwhile to engage you on this issue, because you strike me as a good faith proponent for your point of view, as well as someone who is willing to admit mistakes when they are explained.
Apology accepted. You strike me as someone who knows the literature well, and I am always open to learn more, so I welcome your feedback. Please base your feedback on the assumption that I read the general literature on climate science, not the media interpretation of it. I’ve worked with climate-economy models for 10 years, and my principle area of research is finding areas where economic simplifications yield incorrect results. If you provide more inspiration there, I am more than happy to listen.
Deep Climate, is your Deep Climate web blog still alive? It does not seem to be very active lately.
Klem – asked and answered at DC’s blog.
It’s interesting to see an attempt to push you around in your own comments thread. You seldom see the proper emphasis put on the name of the originating body for anthropogenic global warming and its intrinsic nature : intergovernmental is not the name of a science debating group.
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/18115/
It’s been a while since ‘the penny dropped’ and I recognized the Christian epithet ‘Denier’ at work conflating scientific method at work with a ‘disbelief in science’ in a political positioning/framing exercise and Poisoning the Well Argument. You correctly describe it as a ‘gotcha’ setup.
Roger Pielke Sr. is a climate scientist who derides the idea that a model has been made, let alone that we have the ability to project future conditions from any such.
I suspect he might make an exception in this case.
http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/blog/2012/04/24/23-april-keeping-global-warming-within-limits
This is an interesting discussion – Science enters Andrew Leach’s blog.
But there’s something funny going on here: The scientist and Andrew and talking apologies (where’s Alison and Dalton?), and Klem thinks various forms of met data are like a bible.
Huh?
The problem with the science is that people are talking about it. Ad nauseum. It might be right, it might be wrong (its probably right). But the opposite of Andrew’s null hypotheis of zero climate sensitivity, is the 100% sensitivity where VERY bad things start to happen. And the nature and magnitude of those bad things are generally less in dispute than are the temperature projections — and the athropogenic interference — underlying them.
So this is a case of insurance and hedging against those very bad things. And the evidence suggests, that based on what we know, it makes sense to buy insurance, rather than engaging in endless actualialism over the probability the house will burn down. It it greater than 5% or 10%? Probably. If there was a 5% to 10% chance your house would burn down would you buy insurance? Probably.
However, given that Alberta’s first real crack at insurance policy execution – a Transalta CCS facility – didn’t get done, suggests a lot more needs to be more on the insurance policy rather than jerking around with actuaries and people who think the insurance division are religeous zealots.