Opinion Piece Attacks Climate Change Science/Climate Models

[donsutherland1]

An opinion piece in the February 25, 2015 edition of the Financial Post takes a definitive approach that climate change is little more than a product of a giant “PR” movement. Before I comment on the piece, I fully recognize that uncertainties exist with regard to the state of present knowledge (especially in areas of attribution) and computer modeling. There are also people who are sincere in their differing levels of confidence in the science.

 

Now, on to the piece: First, the author uses definitive terms in characterizing the issue of climate change as little more than a “great cultural climate PR machine.” However, he lacks any climate-related or other relevant credentials to critique the scientific work or the climate-related models in any kind of authoritative fashion.

 

Second, he attempts to divert focus from the merits of the issue by invoking various mathematical problems that have yet to be resolved. For example, he argues that effective climate modeling requires “solving the Navier Stokes equations that govern the movements of air and water.” If one were chasing a holy grail of perfection, his argument would have some merit. But models seek to provide reasonable approximations of complex phenomena. Solving the N-S equation would be nice, but it is not necessary. Simplifying assumptions are available and robust.

 

How does one know? One need only look to the meteorological models for evidence. Those models seek to provide information related to temperatures, precipitation, precipitation type, etc., along with fairly precise timing to an extent that is far more specific than the issues the climate models seek to address. If the author’s argument were correct, the use of weather models would be a futile exercise. Instead, such models as the ECMWF, GFS, GGEM, and UKMET do a remarkable job, on average.

 

Of course, they are not fully accurate, but their accuracy is something that vastly exceeds climatology or random chance. In other words, the models demonstrate “skill.” Moreover, model skill scores continue to improve. Therefore, the fact that the N-S equation hasn’t been solved to date, does not provide reasonable basis to doubt modeling, as it relates to the climate and meteorology.

 

Third, taking a shot at the lower resolution of climate models, he asserts that thunderstorms don’t show up on model resolutions of “hundreds of kilometers.” Either the author has no understanding of the difference between climate and weather, or he is deliberately seeking to induce doubt from incorrect analogies. Climate science does not seek to forecast thunderstorms at a given location at a specific point in time. Instead, the relevant climate question concerns, among other things whether thunderstorms might increase/decrease in frequency. That is an entirely different issue from the one that weather models address.

 

Finally, he calls on “intelligent laymen” to “take back the debate” and to “stop letting ‘experts’ do their thinking for them.” As noted previously, the author has no background in climate science or climate modeling. He really is not in a qualitatively stronger position to address the merits of the climate change issue or climate modeling than the average member of the public. Furthermore, as he advised that one essentially stop listening to climate scientists on such matters (the “experts,” as he denigrates them), should one also urge that the public and policy makers stop listening to people like him on mathematics (he’s a professor of applied mathematics)? Such advice is anti-intellectual and, quite frankly, childish. It serves no meaningful purpose.

 

In the end, if one slices through the opinion piece and peels away the exaggerated references to unsolved math problems, one finds no real substance to sustain the author’s position that climate models today are essentially useless. There clearly is room for fairly substantial improvement given existing knowledge limitations, among other factors, but the author’s position is extreme and largely unsubstantiated. His calling attention to unsolved mathematical problems does not materially change the nature of his position.

[ORH_wxman]

I've said for a long time that if the media and politicians kept their distance from climate science, it would be a lot better.

 

The media has done more to distort climate science than any other entity. It's really too bad. You have people such as the author above who doesn't understand how far the field has advanced...even if there is a long way to go...preferring to call it a hoax or PR movement. You have others on the flip side who overstate the confidence in climate science or exaggerate the potential consequences. Unfortunately, they don't have any incentive to be accurate on their reporting of climate science.

[AvantHiatus]

I've always reached the conclusion that it is more tolerable to hype up a problem than downplay it, assuming the cost of adaptation and/or corrective action is a non-issue, which appears to be the reality in regards to climate change regardless of what right-wing economics will say.

 

Unfortunately, there is a shade of dishonesty in this approach but that is the nature of the world and society we live in. You have to play their 'game' in order to win the battle. Some day hopefully we can live in a society that embraces integrity and good living.

[chrisf97212]

I've always reached the conclusion that it is more tolerable to hype up a problem than downplay it, assuming the cost of adaptation and/or corrective action is a non-issue, which appears to be the reality in regards to climate change regardless of what right-wing economics will say.

 

Unfortunately, there is a shade of dishonesty in this approach but that is the nature of the world and society we live in. You have to play their 'game' in order to win the battle. Some day hopefully we can live in a society that embraces integrity and good living.

 

I totally disagree with that approach.   Along Will's lines, the sensationalized predicitions that failed to materialize have destroyed the credibility of climate scientists in the eyes of the uninformed public.  Chances of meaningful policy change at this point are abyssmal.

[AvantHiatus]

I totally disagree with that approach.   Along Will's lines, the sensationalized predicitions that failed to materialize have destroyed the credibility of climate scientists in the eyes of the uninformed public.  Chances of meaningful policy change at this point are abyssmal.

I strongly agree. Thus the only course of action is forced policy or a systematic evaluation of what regions are worth saving. Extreme times call for extreme measures. Those in denial must be held responsible for themselves, why should we help them? (perhaps as much as 30% of the world's population?)

 

Everyone else is an innocent bystander (those under 25) or aware of the problem and attempting to adapt, a large chunk are also trying to 'fix the system', which is probably a waste of resources.

 

Both hyping and downplaying are not really preferred, just it seems people cannot see the middle road ever. They seem to have a sportsman mindset of 'rooting' for ideas and groups.

 

Even everyone being selfish and individualistic is more preferred than locking the system up as a war between 2 big factions. This will not leave any doors open.

 

I can't help it if people realize they messed up and become butthurt about it. It's supposed to be constructive criticism that allows you to get up and dust off your clothes.

 

Conservatives and old world dinosaur people will never admit they were wrong, but deep down it is self-evident. This is why they are so adamantly againist addressing AGW and will not even recognize that it is a problem. They prefer to make up reasons or use selective reasoning to convince themselves that everything is okay in order to preserve ego and societal stability. 

 

At best case they are victims of confirmation bias and at worst they are willingly continuing the status quo knowing they are irreversibly damaging the Earth.

[MD-Dave]

I've always reached the conclusion that it is more tolerable to hype up a problem than downplay it, assuming the cost of adaptation and/or corrective action is a non-issue, which appears to be the reality in regards to climate change regardless of what right-wing economics will say.

 

Unfortunately, there is a shade of dishonesty in this approach but that is the nature of the world and society we live in. You have to play their 'game' in order to win the battle. Some day hopefully we can live in a society that embraces integrity and good living.

 

I am not a climate scientist, or meteorologist, I just come to these forums to feed my interests in weather and the science surrounding it.  So, I will not argue any ‘scientific’ statements made but, I do have to comment on the statement about it being more tolerable to hype up a problem than downplay it.  When doing that, you do yourself a great disservice.  There have been many studies done on the effects of the appearance of exaggeration on people’s acceptance of a position.  When one exaggerates, or hypes, a position or outcome it creates psychological reactance.  Psychological reactance leads to skepticism and an innate desire to discredit the producer of the information.  Further, when the impression of losing a freedom enters into the equation, the Self-determination Theory describes how reactance emerges and creates a tendency for counter-arguments.  Bottom line, if you want someone to change their behaviors, you need to be subtle and basically make small statements over time that gradually move them in your desired direction, without them realizing it. J

[FreeRain]

I've said for a long time that if the media and politicians kept their distance from climate science, it would be a lot better.

 

 

 

I would add that federal government money and leftist foundations are the ones who supply funds for climate research. Their money goes toward research that favors the warming regulatory agenda. 

[AvantHiatus]

I am not a climate scientist, or meteorologist, I just come to these forums to feed my interests in weather and the science surrounding it.  So, I will not argue any ‘scientific’ statements made but, I do have to comment on the statement about it being more tolerable to hype up a problem than downplay it.  When doing that, you do yourself a great disservice.  There have been many studies done on the effects of the appearance of exaggeration on people’s acceptance of a position.  When one exaggerates, or hypes, a position or outcome it creates psychological reactance.  Psychological reactance leads to skepticism and an innate desire to discredit the producer of the information.  Further, when the impression of losing a freedom enters into the equation, the Self-determination Theory describes how reactance emerges and creates a tendency for counter-arguments.  Bottom line, if you want someone to change their behaviors, you need to be subtle and basically make small statements over time that gradually move them in your desired direction, without them realizing it. J

Sounds like propaganda. Would prefer to be upfront and honest. Nice post tho Dave.

 

Meanwhile, FreeRain is stuck in 2008. The climate denier movement is provided with multitudes greater funding than advocacy groups. Mostly from the GOP lobbyists.

 

Now that the public has access to so much information, it should be easy to draw conclusions on climate without the approval of the media. This is not the same as going on WUWT or Realscience. Its more less looking at the pieces individually and forming your own picture. Starting from basic maths of radiative forcing and the paleorecord.

 

I'm in this because I know for 100% certain that sea levels will wash away vast portions of coastline inevitably. I don't care when it happens. The problem we have is people being flat-out selfish and lazy. Calling them deniers is a complement.

 

Unlike most, I care about my postmortem reputation and don't want to be seen as another useless eater who pumped out a bunch of CO2 and took a **** on the planet. Besides that, I have better reasons to live in equilibrium.

 

I have appreciated nature since I was a kid and I think most other children would if they grew up in a peaceful home like I did. Humans and nature are one and are supposed to co-exist like any other species.

[MD-Dave]

Not propaganda, persuasion. You can be upfront and honest without appearing to be exaggerating.

ETA: The only reason I posted at all is because the 'scare' tactics that are prevalent in the media immediately turned me against them, and in turn their position. I have always tried to keep an open mind on things and research them on my own, but a lot of people don't.

[ORH_wxman]

Not propaganda, persuasion. You can be upfront and honest without appearing to be exaggerating.

ETA: The only reason I posted at all is because the 'scare' tactics that are prevalent in the media immediately turned me against them, and in turn their position. I have always tried to keep an open mind on things and research them on my own, but a lot of people don't.

 

 

The scare-tactics have done far more to hurt climate science than help it. That is for sure. It created way more skepticism than was necessary or typical for science.

 

Now that it has become a political football of sorts, there is little hope to restore an objective view on it from the media standpoint. The internet is even worse with the blogs that often have a large political slant to them and not just purely science.

 

 

Thankfully, the literature keeps chugging along in the backround and if you can dig past the media hyperbole and misinformation, there's some great work to be read. The casual climate science follower probably gets most of their information from second-hand sources like blogs that put a spin on the work, so I always find it really important to read the literature itself.

[WXheights]

The scare-tactics have done far more to hurt climate science than help it. That is for sure. It created way more skepticism than was necessary or typical for science. 

 

All to the exclusion of million dollar propaganda machine with several media outlets with paid trolls from institutes C'mon. It would be very hard to quantify disbelief from exaggeration vs. proactive campaigns invented to muddy up scientific content