May 12, 2016
Climate Feedback: More Snark than Science
By Todd Myers
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2016/05/12/climate_feedback_more_snark_than_science_109632.htmlA new web site called Climate Feedback purports to offer an objective scientific analysis of climate-related editorials and news articles. Its authors claim readers can “see exactly where the article’s information is consistent — or inconsistent — with scientific thinking and state-of-the-art knowledge in the field.”
An examination of some of their analysis, however, shows many of their comments are more about snark than science. Many of Climate Feedback’s critiques offer not definitive science, but a differing opinion or simply a different, subjective risk assessment.
For example, the site reviewed a Wall Street Journal article by Bjorn Lomborg titled “An Overheated Climate Alarm.” Lomborg takes issue with a report on climate change impacts from the Obama Administration, noting that since the number of deaths due to cold weather is greater than those due to heat, the claim that higher global temperatures will increase human mortality is dubious.
The response from the scientists cited in Climate Feedback is illustrative of the type of games that activists substitute for science in the climate debate.
Snark is Not Science
A good example of Climate Feedback’s snarky tone is provided by Kristi Ebi of the University of Washington. She objects to Lomborg’s observation that people prefer the heat to the cold. Lomborg notes, “Migration patterns show people heading for warm states like Texas and Florida, not snowy Minnesota and Michigan.”
On the Feedback site, Ebi claims “This has more to do with economic factors than weather. If people moved only because of poor weather, why hasn’t everyone left Northern Europe?” Ebi’s response is hardly scientific. It is also inaccurate.
First, she acts as if Lomborg said “people moved only because of poor weather,” (emphasis mine) but that is not what he said at all. He only said it was one factor among many. She intentionally misconstrues his argument to make it easier to refute. That is simply dishonest.
Further, her snarky quip about Northern Europe actually makes Lomborg’s point. Italy is a good-sized country; 116,348 square miles and a population of 61.3 million. Sweden, on the other hand, is 173,860 square miles – fifty percent larger than Italy – but has only 9.7 million people, just 16 percent the population of Italy. Why haven’t people left Northern Europe? They have!
Of course, her remark is not intended to be a scientific argument (which contradicts the whole claim of the web site), but it does demonstrate the sloppy thinking on a site that pretends to offer thoughtful, “scientific” critique.
My Speculation Is Better Than Your Speculation
Another comment on Climate Feedback comes from James Renwick of the Victoria University of Wellington. He says:
This [Lomborg’s observation] focuses on average climate rather than on extremes, and such patterns of migration are based on our knowledge of the past. As the frequency of extreme hot days increases, as the number of extreme hurricanes increases, and as sea levels rise, people may find that Florida is not so attractive after all.
The first sentence is a reasonable clarification, although the claim about what causes migration is debatable.
The second sentence, however, is not based on a scientific conclusion. The statement that “people may find that Florida is not so attractive after all,” is just speculative rhetoric. He claims that “as sea levels rise” people “may” be less inclined to move to Florida. The weasel word “may” is an indicator this is speculation not science.
Indeed, from Venice to the Netherlands, there are numerous examples of people finding ways to deal with rising sea levels. We will have 100 years to deal with the possible 18-inch sea level rise predicted by the IPCC. Whether this is an overwhelming problem is not a scientific question but an economic one.
It is also worth noting that the IPCC science on extreme weather is not settled. As Roger Pielke Jr. notes, the IPCC admits “No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.” As a result, future projections are not based on empirical observation but modeled projections. Throwaway lines, like “as the number of extreme hurricanes increases,” represent a hypothesis, not settled science.
Oh Yeah? Well, What About This Different Issue?
Finally, some of the Climate Feedback critique is not actually critique, but simply misdirection.
For example, the first rebuttal to Lomborg’s piece is not an analysis. It is a claim that there are other possible impacts from climate change that he (Lomborg) does not address. Their headline notes, “Climate change impacts on health are not limited to just cold and heat-related deaths but also include air quality, extreme events, diseases carried by parasites…” They quote Rasmus Benestad, senior scientist of The Norwegian Meteorological institute, who says, “Climate change is much more than just temperature. It also affects precipitation and the lack thereof – with consequences such as floods, mud slides, droughts, and wildfires.”
All these points may be true, but they are non-responsive. Lomborg did not say there are no impacts from climate change. Indeed, he wrote in the very same piece Climate Feedback purports to analyze, “Climate change is a genuine problem that will eventually be a net detriment to society.” They virtually repeat his own words back and then claim to be rebutting him. Either they did not read the piece closely (which is likely) or they simply hoped nobody would notice.
The very notion that in order to address one impact from climate change, Lomborg must address all potential climate impacts in a 943-word article is simply an effort in misdirection.
A Scientific Masquerade
While I worked at the Department of Natural Resources in Washington state on issues ranging from protecting the spotted owl to preserving old growth timber, scientists would often weigh in, sometimes offering different perspectives on the same issue.
When asking about protecting a sea bird called the marbled murrelet, a biologist suggested to me that we require large buffer zones around timber harvests. A forester, on the other hand, suggested leaving no buffers, but harvesting trees based on the traditional pattern of forest fire in these ecosystems that created the bird’s habitat in the first place. Both experts claimed scientific backing for their respective positions, and both had good scientific credentials and evidence on their side. It was clear, however, their assessment also included their own personal risk tolerance and pre-existing values.
Quoting people with scientific credentials can be a powerful rhetorical tactic (in logic it is called the “argument from authority”). Often, however, it is little more than a tactic, with the claims being offered amounting to little more than snark or selective argument. Indeed, the fact that they do not apply the same intellectual rigor to the Obama Administration’s climate report as they do to Lomborg’s commentary is further evidence of that smug attitude.
If the authors at the Climate Feedback website are going to live up to their promises, they have a long way to go, and they need to become more open and honest about the basis of the feedback they are providing.
