Some brief thoughts on climate change, prompted by the Economist

The following comments were in response to an Economist article, "Science behind closed doors", concerning climate change science. This is perhaps the first time I've publicly communicated my thoughts on the ongoing discussions of global warming and climate change. I would appreciate your input.

Vitriol surrounding climate change appears to conflate a few separate topics that have to be discussed in turn:

(1) The science of the greenhouse effect
(2) How much of it is caused by human activities (anthropogenic, in IPCC-speak)
(3) The effect of increased CO2 on temperatures, crop yields, disease, etc. on a regional basis
(4) Scientists’ roles as analysts/messengers/advocates
(5) How much governments, industry, and individuals should do to prevent it




(1) As a former (failed?) physicist, I picked up enough quantum to have a sense that the mechanism by which carbon dioxide is transparent to visible wavelengths of light from the sun but absorbs infrared wavelengths (heat) is a non-controversy. The "greenhouse" effect is solid science, and explains why we’ve got liquid oceans and California winters.

(2) This is less fundamental science than (1), but relatively easy to get a rough estimate. Identify the sources and sinks of carbon – volcanism, decomposition, combustion of fossil fuels, agricultural use (yes, including cow farts); and offset by oceanic absorption (forming calcium carbonate), vegetation growth, etc. (Climate scientists who read the Economist, please help me out here!) What I have read indicates that the sinks have not increased in step with the sources, and that yes, burning fossil fuels has increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by a significant amount.

(3) This is harder science. Climate is complicated, and this specific concern is far more interdisciplinary. Here is where there’s more room for legitimate criticism, and further research. For example, will Britain get warmer or cooler with rising CO2 levels? That depends upon the thermohaline circulation (THC) from the gulf and what might cause it to turn off. (Don’t worry – it’s not strong enough to bring oil to your shores…)

(4) Agree with an earlier commentator. Scientists have been pretty bad at this. I mean, professional crisis communicators have had problems, and I can assure you that there is no standard training for communication in grad studies. It doesn’t help when self-styled “politically astute” scientists decide to take it on themselves to push extra-hard on the alarmist bell. It’s another degree of naivete, if anything. Also bad – secular fundamentalism about climate change.

Part of this comes from the lack of non-industry voice that science feels it has in Congress and the White House. Under George W. Bush – and if you are a conservative, please keep listening; this isn’t a bash – the Science Advisor to the President lost power and access. Science has more advocates on the research end now, but it will (and perhaps ought) to remain a relatively small player in Beltway politics.*

Transparency is important. It just occurred to me that, as scientists, we need to stay away from anything that looks like Wall Street hubris regarding the complexity of our models. A wise mentor once said, "If you can't explain the fundamental scientific ideas in a way that an 8-year old would understand, you really don't understand it." If climate scientists hide behind the complexity of their models, then we look like Wall Street quants who excuse lack of regulation by saying that others are too stupid to really understand how CDOs work. Things like climate-gate undermine the trust that people have in science, in part because it is held to, and holds itself to, a higher standard than ordinary human activity.

(5) Focusing on actual solution strategies will help stem secular fundamentalism by scientists and information-less rhetoric by pundits. There will be hard choices between resourcing prevention and mitigation efforts. I worry that so much energy is focused on prevention that governments will be caught flat-footed if—surprise!—collective agency problems and political will aren’t sufficient to prevent CO2 levels from rising. And of course, here will take place arguments about how much the rich world should do to help the developing world. Here’s the space for the pundits and policymakers, and where I’d humbly recommend that the learned readers of the Economist focus their talents and energies.


*Why would a scientist argue that? Well, maybe it's because scientists aren't immune to disposition professionale (behavioral econ-speak), the tendency to depend overmuch on the lens provided by their professional training/culture to view the world. (Self-referential research!) As appealing as technocracy might be from time to time, I tend to believe that scientific evidence is and ought to be but one of many considerations in the policy process, and not obviously the primary one. Et tu, Brute?