Sigh.
I should be beyond getting riled about this kind of thing, but an article by Martin Livermore in today’s Telegraph takes this biscuit. Those of you who understand how science works, may skip the rest of this post.
His headline is ‘All those scientists may still be wrong’ and he is talking about climate change. The headline is correct, they may. We know that and they know that. That’s why the recent Intergovemental Report on Climate Change said that it was very likely that the climate change was caused by human activity. They even define ‘very likely’ as more than 90%, a level of precision not found in Mr Livermore’s article.
He seems very upset about the lack of experiments, for example, lamenting that scientists must
rely on observation and, in parallel, produce mathematical models of how the climate system operates. These models – fed with a range of assumptions about how population and energy use may change – are run on the world’s most powerful supercomputers to give projections for future climate changes. It is these on which tales of future catastrophe are based.
Well, yes. How else does he think scientists actually work? ‘Relying on observation and producing mathematical models’ is a pretty good one setence description of the scientific method! Or are we supposed to distrust these results because supercomputers are lest trustworthy than Newton and a pencil?
Mr Livermore then puts forward a theory (which is not his alone – I have met scientists who share this view) which blames change on Earth on changes in solar activity. The most recent variation on this theme is the suggestion that high energy cosmic rays can cause clouds in the atmosphere, and that an active Sun can protect us from these rapidly moving particles. This may or may not be true (and how we are supposed to test these ideas without ‘observation’ and – worse – ‘mathematical models’ I do not know), but I am convinced that the experts in this field weighed up the possibility as best they could. As Mr Livermore says The IPCC’s view is that these changes are too small to cause the climate changes we have seen.
Yes, the IPCC could be wrong; that’s why they said it was only very likely that climate change was our fault, not ‘extremely likely’ (95% confidence) or ‘virtually certain’ (99% confidence). Yet we are told by this pathetic article that
The scientific mainstream, however, refuses to concede that it could be wrong. It insists we must act now to decarbonise our economy, whatever the consequences. If the science were as certain as suggested, it would have a point.
How, how, how is saying you are 90% certain of something ‘refusing to concede’ that one might be wrong? Quantifying errors is what science is all about. It seems writing pieces for think tanks is about not quantifying anything at all.
There is worse, much worse in the article. Go and read it if you dare, but I need coffee.
on March 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Hi Chris, I took up the dare and I think I need coffee too. And to buy a copy of the Independent.
Oh, how terrible, we can’t experiment so we have to . . . yes . . . experiment, by using mathematical models, since we haven’t got a spare Earth sitting in the lab to experiment with. And whatever the consequences of decarbonising our economy – which I thought had to happen when the oil runs out anyway? – are those going to be as bad as what’s ALREADY happening due to climate change? The ice caps melting, desertification . . . ?
Is it just me or is being nice and balanced supposed to be more important than trying to get things right? I read Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia a few years ago, where a lot of students thought that to be sceptical of climate change – “oh, it would be happening anyway” – was the clever thing to do! We had a lecture by Bjorn Lomborg, the “Skeptical Environmentalist” man – some of us had great fun picking apart his data and seeing what factors he’d left out of the models HE was using, such as positive feedback mechanisms, release of methane bubbles from the oceans etc – but a lot more tried to turn it into a moralistic/philosophical debate about his intentions. Is that easier to deal with than finding out HOW to live sustainably? I think so.
on March 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am
We have the same thing happening in Australia, “only 90% certain, that’s not ver certain at all” and similar blather. I wrote a blogpost on this. There seems to be something fundamental about science that people just don’t get, I find it frustrating too.
on March 7th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Great post, Chris. I heard a funny quip, I think on the Skeptics Guide To The Universe podcast (which I love and which, despite the name, isn’t an astronomical report!). They said that anyone who still grumbles that climate change is ‘just a theory’ should also doubt gravity, which remains a bit theoretical too, and stick their own head in a guillotine to illustrate their faith in their own grumbles!
Keep up the good work. Always a pleasure to see both you and Patrick on The Sky At Night – surely the most noble-feeling and outright informative TV programme in the UK.
on March 7th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I should add to my last post that, scientists are just explaining it straight. There migth not be such a massive eco problem, or it might be even worse.
Ultimately, if 20 scientists tell me my chest pain requires an operation while only one suggests that it may instead be caused by ‘gas’, I’ll go with the majority and plan the operation!
on June 5th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
The problem is if we aren’t wrong about climate change, by the time we reach even the 95% certainty it will be too late!!!
As has been said the public doesn’t understand probability and the way science works.
I suspect reporters only misunderstand it if there’s a saleable story in it though.
Also the press are very good at the ‘it must be global warming’ statement for any and every bit of unusual or severe weather, i had this discussion with Alice [Sheppard] early, about how careful we have to be not to attribute climate change as the cause of events without evidence. Nothing gives weight to the ‘oh it’s just scientists scaring us’ brigade more.
90% seems to me a tolerable probability in this case, we can’t afford to ignore . And yes Mike I’d plump for the operation too!!
on August 6th, 2007 at 1:28 am
I agree with you totally and I find the present hystreria about climate change rediculous and even kids are being taught that climate change is all down to man kind, THIS IS MADNESS!!!!! scientists aren’t even sure if co2 does increase temperature or if it is the case that temperature increase causes co2 increase.
on August 7th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Hi Hashim
You might want to read my post more carefully; I am convinced that mankind is causing climate change, the CO2 increases temperature rather than the other way round, and that we should be doing something about it.
Sorry to disappoint.