A wonderful post, I whole heartedly agree with you and the above commentator about the often problematic mix of science and politics. It seems to me (I am a microbiologist so I don’t have much experience with modeling or climate science, apologies) that the main purpose of climate models would be to increase our understanding of the global climate, not to predict the future. I could therefore envision a model that did a poor job of predicting the future, but was nonetheless very informative; whereas if a model were to accurately predict the future yet we were unsure why this was, it would not be a very informative or useful. My point is that the models are useful to science as a method to understand complex systems, whereas they are only useful in the political sphere for what they say about future and its implications to politics.

Another thing I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on, in my readings concerning the politics and science of global warming, i almost always get the sense from the political commentators that our understanding of the climate and climate change is very good and the only relevant discussion is over how bad things will get. My understanding is that our knowledge of the global climate is quite limited, yet there is definitely a tendency (as the above commentator mentioned) to project certainty and confidence when discussing climate change in the political sphere. The recent tone of the debate has particularly alarmed me as it has become increasingly heated and personal. In my opinion, people who are threatened by climate change, evolution, etc… will ALWAYS use the legitimate uncertainty of science to unreasonably discredit its findings, this seems to me to put even more emphasis on the need for scientist to put forth deliberate, sober and factual explanations for their work; as opposed to making assumptions and simplifications for the public debate.

Thank you so much for writing this blog, I recommend it to everyone I know.

Cheers,

Thank you so much for writing this blog

This is an interesting discussion.

Please help your fellow scientists to see how important their public comments are to those who hear them. We tend to put a good deal of credence in what our respected scientists say, particularly in matters of broad concern like global warming.

The difficulty society faces in understanding and properly responding to adverse, human-induced changes in the biosphere (such as global warming) may, in part, be caused by the seeming disconnect between science and governance. While science is enhanced by ongoing questioning and critique, governance often requires timely decisions based on the best available, but often limited information.

The vast majority of even the best educated citizens cannot presume to be able to critique the methodologies and conclusions in the increasing number of studies being published on climate change. We must, by necessity, look to the credentials of person/s and organization/s who interpret this science, and to the scientific community itself for its peer review in order to judge the accuracy of conclusions.

When the IPCC issues a report, supported by hundreds of esteemed scientists, which reveals the potential for enormous and long-lasting implications for mankind, the precautionary principle requires us to act with caution and prudence.

You may agree that general, unspecific critique of the science underlying reports on climate change is a disservice to society because it tends to cast doubt about the authenticity of the problem. It seems to me that peer review and public dialogue concerning the quality of a particular study is most useful when it is specific, revealing why a certain conclusion is unwarranted.

Those of us who spend our time trying to ensure government decision making is informed by sound science and analysis need some modicum of agreement within the scientific community on matters of such consequence. While absolute certainty may not always be possible, we need some basis on which to act responsibly.

If science is to be useful in a broad social context, the listening public needs to able to put the comments and conclusions of scientists in proper perspective. For instance, in the normal course of peer review, a qualified scientist questioning a particular thing in a study on some aspect of global warming doesn’t mean that scientist disagrees with the general proposition that global warming is occurring. But to not put such comments in that broader context when addressing the public, may lead some listeners to believe the commentator is questioning the premise of climate change.

If ever there were a time for us to err on the side of caution, and speak the plain truth about the science of climate change as we presently understand it, it is now.

Patrick is correct in saying that it is more difficult to be precise in one’s statements during a live interview than in writing. Still, having agreed to do the interview, I take responsibility for what I said. So to answer Patrick’s questions:

Patrick: “You suggest the Thomas et al. 2004 paper is `maybe the worst paper’ you had ever read. In hindsight, do you think that it really is the worst paper you ever read, or you may have gotten carried away in a bit of rhetoric that might take away from an intellectual discussion of the weaknesses of the paper?”

Yes, unfortunately, I do consider it to be the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal. There are some close rivals, of course. I class this paper as I do for two reasons, which are explained more fully in the recent article in BioScience:
Botkin, D. B., Henrik Saxe, Miguel B. Araújo, Richard Betts, Richard H.W. Bradshaw, Tomas Cedhagen, Peter Chesson, Terry P. Dawson, Julie Etterson, Daniel P. Faith, Simon Ferrier, Antoine Guisan, Anja Skjoldborg Hansen, David W. Hilbert, Craig Loehle, Chris Margules, Mark New, Matthew J. Sobel, and David R.B. Stockwell. 2007 “Forecasting Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity.” BioScience 57(3): 227-236.

First, the paper uses a theory that is inappropriate and illogical for the question. Second, the data on which the calculations are based — the areas of the world’s biomes — are crude, lacking estimates of measurement error. My textbook Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet has a chapter on the scientific method in which I state that “a measurement without a statement about its degree of uncertainty is meaningless.”

As I discuss in another scientific article, where we report actual valid measures for the biomass of the boreal forest biome of the world and northern hardwoods biome of North America, even the scientifically valid estimates we made have an error of more than 20%. And we show that biogeographers have not agreed on the total area covered by a biome, differing by as much as 100% in their estimates. So when Thomas et al. discuss comparatively small changes in biome areas, these small changes are less than the known errors and therefore do not discuss a statistically and scientifically valid distinction.

For more information, see Botkin, D. B. and L. G. Simpson, 1990, Biomass of the North American Boreal Forest: A step toward accurate Global Measures: Biogeochemistry 9:161-174; Botkin, D. B., L. G., Simpson, and H. J. Schenk, 1992, Estimating Biomass, Science Letters; and Botkin, D. B., L. G., Simpson, and R. A. Nisbet, 1993, Biomass and Carbon Storage of the North American Deciduous Forest, Biogeochemistry 20: 1-17.

Patrick: IPCC statements about extinctions: IPCC presents a number of versions of its most recent reports, some for journalists, some overview statements, some detailed reports. The statement about likely extinction rates varies among these.

Patrick 2) Do you think that among the “600″ scientists that participated in the IPCC report, there was an effort to accumulate other information from the literature, or do you believe that an inappropriate amount of emphasis was placed on this single paper?

I am not privy to the IPCC report process, as I have not been involved in it. Some of my colleagues have, but I do not feel qualified to give you any insights into how much scientific literature was used. The point I make in the interview is that the IPCC summary statement is very close to the Thomas et al. statement.

Patrick: 3) I think if the format had been a little different in your interview, I would have enjoyed hearing a debate about the difference between a 1.5 degree rise threatening a species pre-human verse post-human.

This is very much worth discussing and investigating, and I would welcome a forum where this could happen.

Patrick 4) At one point, you suggest that “…we teach science more and more poorly” in a larger part of a comment about your concerns about science education in the face of rising skepticism. So, the question for you here is….”Do you have evidence that we are doing a worse job teaching science then at any other point in time in American history?” …or were your comments more from a personal observation perspective?

I have taught full courses in ecology and environmental science at Yale University, the University of California, Santa Barbara (where I was chairman of the Environmental Studies Program), and George Mason University; participated in a well-known summer course in ecology at the Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA; taught ecology as a visiting professor at the University of Notre Dame, including a summer field course at a field station; and for two years taught a field course in ecology at the University of Michigan’s Douglas Lake summer field station. I have taken students on ecology and environmental field trips; and have been a lecturer on these topics on several ocean cruises. Over four decades, I have given talks at many major universities in the United States and elsewhere.

It is my personal experience that students seem less well prepared and less knowledgeable now than in the past. For example, at one university where I was a visiting professor, I was warned by a faculty member that the students would not ask questions, and even worse, would not answer questions asked of them. They just sat silently until the class was over. They showed no interest in learning to understand science, just to “get through.”

Colleagues confirm my concerns about the teaching of science.

A leading textbook in ecology makes it easier and easier for the student to memorize information, but in doing so challenges the student less and less to try to think for oneself.

The statistics suggest that students are doing more poorly in science and math.

For all these reasons, I believe that science is in general being taught less well. There are, of course, wonderful exceptions at certain colleges and universities. Two come to mind especially: my experiences as a guest lecturer at Amherst College, and at the College of the Atlantic, where the students were well prepared, enthusiastic, inquisitive.

Patrick 5) I enjoyed your discussion about the false notion of an equilibrium state in ecology that also pervades a public perception of nature.

My book Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century discusses this idea and its importance to human society, to conservation and management of natural resources, and to our perception and appreciation of nature.

Really appreciate the courage that you and others share to put ideas into words in interviews and articles open for critique. I just listened to the interview you had with Russ Roberts on Econtalk (3 months ago). So, not knowing where to post my questions for you, I post them here. Forgive me if I seem to parse your words very carefully, but in a larger context I think that scientists have a special responsibility to speak carefully in the complex debate. I will also preface my questions and comments by saying that I understand that participating in an interview is very different from writing, and it is difficult to have your best word choice at the ready. So, I have four questions that I would enjoy reading your response to:

1) You suggest the Thomas et al. 2004 paper is “maybe the worst paper” you had ever read. In hindsight, do you think that it really is the worst paper you ever read, or you may have gotten carried away in a bit of rhetoric that might take away from an intellectual discussion of the weaknesses of the paper? I note that the paper has been cited almost 500 times since publication suggesting it valuable enough for debate, critique, challenge and hypothesis generation by many other ecologists. My question stems from an assumption about the likely audience of economists listening to this podcast. IF you had to do the interview again, do you think you would speak about it in the same terms when trying to convince an audience of the merits or weakness of the paper? Would you use the same terms in front of an audience of ecologists?

2) You suggest that the IPCC goes onto repeat the same claims of this original 2004 paper and the number of times you repeat the statement does not lend veracity to the statement….I will include here the text from the draft summary of the IPCC report for lawmakers as it is very accessible….”There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5°C over 1980-1999 levels.”

Your comments in the podcast suggest (perhaps inadvertently)
that the scientists looked at the 2004 paper and repeated the claims of the paper without scouring the available literature for other information about how diversity might be threatened. Do you think that among the “600″ scientists that participated in the IPCC report, there was an effort to accumulate other information from the literature, or do you believe that an inappropriate amount of emphasis was placed on this single paper?

3) I think if the format had been a little different in your interview, I would have enjoyed hearing a debate about the difference between a 1.5 degree rise threatening a species pre-human verse post-human. Will the discontinuity in the landscape caused by human disturbance, in essence: fragmentation and disturbance act in concert with a 1.5 degree rise to create greater threats to species than that caused by a 1.5 degree rise without these antagonizing factors.

4) At one point, you suggest that “…we teach science more and more poorly” in a larger part of a comment about your concerns about science education in the face of rising skepticism. So, the question for you here is….”Do you have evidence that we are doing a worse job teaching science then at any other point in time in American history?” …or were your comments more from a personal observation perspective?

Finally a comment….I enjoyed your discussion about the false notion of an equilibrium state in ecology that also pervades a public perception of nature. The concept returned in the discussion of climate change. I think another idea that would have been valuable to discuss here is the notion of what people “value” in their landscape and a desire to maintain (conserve) some semblance of what they knew from their earlier memories. While I think it is hard for people to comprehend that the landscape in a certain area 5000, 500, and 50 years ago was probably very different from the one they are growing up in, and conservation will almost always be in light of what they “value” rather than some true ancient state or true natural state of the landscape. Personally, I find this concept much more worrisome then a false belief in an “equilibrium” state, but perhaps in essence it is the same. Thinking about a perception of the overall “health” of the oceans for example, there is a generational ignorance that develops as chances are what your great grandfather remembers as a kid was a healthy estuary is very different than what you will remember as a child as a healthy estuary.

Realize I’ve written a lot here….if you have time, I look forward to hearing your comments about some of these questions. Thanks for having the courage to put your ideas into the public discourse.

Best wishes.

In the past – scientific credentials would be RUINED if one attempted down your third path (to influence public behavior).

Today however, it seems as if there are no consequences of making unlikely, unfounded and HIGHLY improbable projections – based upon straightline extrapolations of a) whatever metric (populations / occurrence of birds, trees, fish, men, rain, hurricanes) based upon b) whatever baseline (1970 – present, etc.) of variation in c) whatever causal ‘driver’ (CO2, BTU, SL, Earth ‘temp’, etc.)

Due to how ‘citations’ are counted (more numbers than quality), there is no ‘COST’ to being outrageous. Notoriety USED to be a BAD thing; now it seems that it is rewarded – perhaps even admired.

I would rather see scientists as the ones who inject truth, honor and the long view into this important debate. But in many cases – they’re the zealots themselves.

It is sad to me. My advice is – lets do some great science.