[WikiEN-l] Re: Formulation requested by Jimbo

Wed Nov 26 15:45:24 UTC 2003

Ed Poor wrote:

>Sheldon's formulation is fine, provided he can locate a source for the
>"overwhelming majority" part and gives a numerical definition for
>"overwhelming majority".
>
>As it stands now, the only survey mentioned at Wikipedia seems to show
>much less than "overwhelming" support for the GW theory. Perhaps it
>depends on how one interprets the survey results?

Yes, I guess it does depend on how one interprets the survey results. 
If the results are "interpreted" by someone like Ed who doesn't know 
the basic language of science, it is possible to misconstrue the 
survey and imagine that it shows less than overwhelming support for 
the GW theory. Ed is referring here to the Wikipedia article titled 
"Scientific opinion on climate change" and a survey which it cites 
that was conducted in 1996 by Bray and von Storch. As Gareth Owen has 
pointed out, however, Ed has completely misunderstood the Bray and 
von Storch survey. Evidently Ed doesn't understand some of the basic 
scientific terminology in the questions to which the scientists were 
responding.

The most relevant question in the Bray and von Storch survey was, "We 
can say for certain that, without change in human behavior, global 
warming will definitely occur in the future." The scientists were 
asked to rate this statement on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 meaning 
they "strongly agree" and 7 meaning "strongly disagree." They gave it 
a mean rating of 2.6, which is pretty high.

They were also asked to rate the statement, "There is enough 
uncertainty about the phenomenon about global warming that there is 
NO need for immediate policy decisions." The scientists strongly 
_disagreed_ with this statement. Their responses were rated on the 
same 1-to-7 scale. To quote the study itself, "Here there is 
undisputed support for immediate policy to be implemented with the 
overall mean response of 5.6 and no statistically significant 
differences among groups."

So how did Ed read this survey and conclude that scientists are 
"about equally split"? He misinterpreted _another_ question in the 
survey which asked, "To what degree do you think the current state of 
scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of 
inter annual variability?" In order to make this kind of error, Ed 
would either have to be flagrantly dishonest (Gareth Owen's 
interpretation) or simply incompetent (my interpretation). I think 
the reality is that Ed doesn't know what the phrase "interannual 
variability" means. Here's a definition: "Interannual variability" 
means "climate variation from one year to the next." What the 
scientists are saying is that they don't think the climate models are 
precise enough to predict how the climate will change between 2003 
and 2004. This is clearly not the same thing at all as the question 
of whether they think "the global warming theory" holds up.

This is a really basic error on Ed's part. The term "interannual 
variability" is widely used in climate research. If you do a Google 
search for that phrase, you'll find more than 36,000 references, 
almost all of which appear in scientific contexts. Of course, the 
term is hardly used at all _outside_ of scientific contexts, which 
undoubtedly explains why Ed doesn't know what it means. As I stated 
previously, the fact that Ed doesn't grasp this kind of thing does 
not mean that he is stupid or lacks integrity. Nevertheless, he ought 
to be rather humbled by the fact that he keeps making this sort of 
error. If he doesn't understand the everyday language of climate 
science, he shouldn't be trying to impose his interpretations as 
aggressively as he has been. This is rather akin to having someone 
trying to rewrite articles on music theory who doesn't know the 
meaning of phrases such as "chord progression."

Ed also wrote:

>But really, on such a crucial issue as Global Warming theory, with tens
>or 100s of billions of dollars at stake (not to mention human lives,
>assuming the theory is actually true!) -- I'd rather have more than an
>average of answers from a survey question. Better to dig up exactly how
>many answered "strongly agree", "somewhat agree", etc.

I agree completely. We shouldn't be relying on opinion polls to 
assess the current state of scientific knowledge. Surveys like the 
one conducted by Bray and von Storch can be helpful in getting a 
general sense of the state of scientific opinion, but their utility 
is limited. To begin with, surveys can only ask a limited number of 
fixed questions, and responses to surveys can vary dramatically 
depending on minor changes in wording of the questions. Moreover, the 
value of the Bray and von Storch survey is limited by the fact that 
they only sent it to 1,000 scientists and only got a 40 percent 
response rate, and also by the fact that it was conducted seven years 
ago.

Fortunately, we have a better indicator of what scientists think: 
namely, the reports of the International Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC), which was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological 
Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Program 
(UNEP) to fulfill the critical role of providing objective 
scientific, technical, and economic assessments of the current state 
of knowledge about various aspects of climate change. Some 2,000 
scientists, experts and government officials prepared and signed off 
on the IPCC's 1995 report, which represented the broadest consensus 
available on the issue at that time. The conclusions of the IPCC's 
1995 report are consistent with the opinions expressed in the Bray 
and von Storch survey, but the IPCC report is incomparably more 
detailed and specific.

Of course, the nature of science is that it continues to progress, 
and the IPCC's 2001 report is an improvement over its 1995 report, 
even though fewer scientists participated in drafting the 2001 report 
(only 995, which is still more than double the 400 respondents to the 
Bray and von Storch survey). The difference between the 2001 report 
and the 1995 report is that the quality and quantity of scientific 
research has improved in the meantime, while global warming has 
accelerated, making it easier for scientists to measure and assess 
the the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on global climate. (The 
signal-to-noise ratio has improved, because the signal is stronger.)

Here are a few relevant excerpts from the IPCC's 2001 report:

>Globally, it is very likely  that the 1990s was the warmest decade 
>and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record, since 1861.

>The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased 
>by 31% since 1750. The present CO2 concentration has not been 
>exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the 
>past 20 million years. The current rate of increase is unprecedented 
>during at least the past 20,000 years.

>The warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to 
>internal variability alone.

>In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining 
>uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years 
>is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas 
>concentrations.

>Emissions of CO2 due to fossil fuel burning are virtually certain to 
>be the dominant influence on the trends in atmospheric CO2 
>concentration during the 21st century.

In reading these statements, it may help to understand that the IPCC 
uses the term "likely" to mean a  probability of 66% or higher. "Very 
likely" means 90% or higher, and "virtually certain" means 
probability of 99% or higher. Conversely, "unlikely" means 
probability of less than 33%, and "very unlikely" means a probability 
of less than 10%.

If we were dealing with someone who was less of an ideologue than Ed, 
the IPCC's report would settle the matter. The problem is that Ed 
doesn't want to accept the IPCC's standing as an indicator of what 
climate scientists think. He prefers the opinion of S. Fred Singer 
and the dozen or so people clustered around Singer at SEPP.

One way around this impasse might be to look at what other leading 
scientific bodies have said about the matter, so here are a couple:

(1) The American Meteorological Society issued a detailed statement 
this year, which strongly agrees with the IPCC:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

Here's an excerpt:

>The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement 
>among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers-the 
>validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately-can be 
>exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the 
>scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in 
>reality, a strong scientific consensus.
[SNIP]
>IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year 
>intervals by a large international group of experts who represent 
>the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the 
>issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the 
>results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. A large number 
>of U.S. scientists are on the international Working Groups of the 
>IPCC that prepare and review these reports. They provide an analysis 
>of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some 
>indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the 
>various statements and conclusions. These reports have become the 
>prime scientific basis for international political decisions about 
>climate change.

(2) The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (the most prestigious 
general scientific body in the world) has issued a number of reports 
reaching similar conclusions. In a 2001 report, for example, it 
stated that the IPCC "does an admirable job of reflecting research 
activities in climate science." You can download the full report, or 
simply read the accompanying press release, from the following URL:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_webextra6

Obviously I can't do full justice to the substance of these reports 
in the space of a single email, and I see that this message has 
already gotten quite long. I could continue citing similar reports 
from other leading national and international scientific bodies, but 
I think I'll stop here.
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------