Eric Alterman: "After all, what do I know about this complicated science?"
I feel the need to comment on this piece recently by Eric Alterman on the website of The Center for American Progress:
Think Again: A Hard Week on the Planet
Alterman highlights some recent developments including the resignation of UN climate chief Yvo de Boer, Ralph J. Cicerone’s comments about public trust of science, and get this…that skeptics can have their way with the media. I guess that’s why we see skeptical views and coverage of climategate and all the IPCC-gates on the front page in all the mainstream media.
He correctly points out the coverage by The Wall Street Journal and a few others, but he’s mistaken if he thinks the skeptical view has been adequately covered.
Let’s look a just a few select comments from his piece. First, he comments how skeptical coverage gets more coverage:
“This skepticism, which has always received far more play in the U.S. media than it did in scientific circles, has two significant effects. On the one hand, it appears to legitimize editorials like this one, in which the noted climatologists of Journal editorial page feel emboldened in their frequently stated belief that “the science [of global warming] is still disputable.” On the other hand, it adds significance to the decisions of corporations like oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy equipment maker Caterpillar to withdraw their cooperation from business-environmental efforts—in this case the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership…”
On his first point, WSJ has been the only mainstream news organization to provide real coverage of the recent climate science issues. On his second point, maybe these organizations realize they are being had and have nothing to gain after the failure of Copenhagen.
At least he agrees there’s a problem:
“To be fair, the critics have a point. Their storyline is driven by more than just a bunch of purloined emails from East Anglia scientists making embarrassing admissions and giving voice to their own uncertainties. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the alleged “gold standard,” as the Journal editors point out—has been caught offering some questionable or flat-out wrong arguments…”
I couldn’t agree more. But to expand a bit, the IPCC has been inflating some dubious science with alarmist stories of doom, right in line with comments by alarmist Steven Schneider:
“So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
The editors at the IPCC seem to have taken Schneider’s advice to heart. I wonder how many more gross exaggerations will be found in AR4? Is it too difficult for Alterman to see this?
“Atmospheric scientist Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, or NAS, says his “reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by” the new information, and the ensuing brouhaha reflects, instead, “the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.” Yes, I believe Mr. Cicerone. After all, what do I know about this complicated science?”
Alterman incorrectly assumes that you need to be a scientist to read the climategate or NASA emails to understand them. Fortunately many of the emails are very clear to understand to anyone with no scientific background:
- Phil Jones telling other scientists to delete emails
- Ed Cook telling Keith Briffa that we don’t know anything about the climate more than 100 years ago
- Briffa admitting “the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago”
- NASA scientist saying that no conclusions can be drawn from the temperature data
- A collection of the climategate emails annotated by John P. Costella
We know Alterman is a smart guy, so his “need to be a scientist” comment is disingenuous at best. Better for him to ignore the emails himself rather than face up to what they actual disclose.
He does realize that the skeptics want disclosure of data and code:
“Apparently, it is not as simple as it sounds: The data are voluminous and difficult to collect and collate; the models are complicated, sometimes proprietary, and can certainly be seen as the intellectual property of the scientists. Moreover, complying with the requests can be very time consuming.”
Still assuming Alterman is intelligent, he’s not using facts and is using the standard climate scientist defense of hiding the data and code. A few points:
- Database management systems (DBMS) have been used widely for decades. Why don’t climate scientists use them? Their method of using text files is so error prone it is beyond description. If they used a DBMS extracting data for a request would be trivial. The data should always be organized, though Phil Jones has recently admitted that it is not.
- The models are complicated, in part due to the fact that climate scientists don’t follow standard software development practices (documentation, source code management, etc.). See the “Harry read me file” for an example of the mess. If the code isn’t kept in good enough shape for release, how do the scientists keep track of it or even know that it is doing what it is supposed to do?
- The “proprietary” argument doesn’t hold water. Our taxes pay for this work, and trillions may be spent on solutions. Show us your work (see more here and here).
I can agree with Alterman on a few of his points:
“…they can be fairly accused of having violated the “scientific ethic” of welcoming re-analysis of their data in the pursuit of truth. They succumbed to a siege mentality and became resistant to even reasonable requests.”
And here’s where I don’t agree:
“The more recent disclosures of unrealistic glacial disappearance rates and incorrect Netherlands geography also demonstrate some scientific sloppiness in the editing and review in the IPCC process.”
The errors discovered so far go beyond typos and minor citation mistakes. They are extreme exaggerations or distortions of the science for the purpose of scaremongering. Science has taken a backseat to politics and special interests.
Speaking of politics, Alterman highlights that recent surveys show little support for climate change:
“As Luntz’s poll also shows, climate change itself isn’t important for most voters. A mere 5 percent pick “ending climate change” as the single most important environmental and economic goal. Alas, it falls far behind ending dependence on foreign fuels, halting air and water pollution, saving the planet from destruction, and creating new energy jobs.”
I couldn’t agree more. We have many more pressing issues than passing climate legislation that will do nothing to reduce CO2, and at this point we don’t even know how much of a problem it is.
It is well past time to get climate science research on a track to clean up the data we have and make it publicly available. Not the homegenized or “fixed” data, but the raw data. Same goes for the code.
There’s a final point Alterman makes that I can agree with:
“it’s so much more fun to make fun of Al Gore because it snows”
Which of course Al Gore brings on himself (see more here, here, and here).
P.S. I don’t normally use Wikipedia as a source as I did for the Schneider quote, but in this case I’ve made an exception since Schneider’s entry has been santized by William Connolley (check the edit history).
