EDITORIAL BIAS AND THE PREDICTION OF CLIMATE DISASTER
EDITORIAL BIAS AND THE PREDICTION OF CLIMATE DISASTER: THE
CRISIS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, Faculty of
Science, Liverpool L2 3ET, UK
Paper presented at the conference Climate Change: Evaluating
Appropriate Responses.
Brussels, European Parliament, 18 April 2007
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Editorial-bias.htm
Two weeks ago, climate experts and government officials from 130
countries released the latest IPCC Summary for Policy Makers on
the 'Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability of Climate Change'.
The IPCC's predictions of the future were carefully scrutinised
by governments and generally accepted. Despite attempts to tone
down some of the more alarming language, the latest IPCC report
predicts that unrestrained warming will cause mass extinctions,
devastating floods, heatwaves, storms and droughts that may
trigger economic disaster and social upheaval.
There can be little doubt that scientists, science organisations
and the dominant science media have been instrumental in turning
doom-laden computer models into an apocalyptic consensus. For the
last 10 years or so, there has been a relentless outpouring of
disaster predictions that have been published with little
hesitation and rising alarm by the world's leading science
journals. Any lingering reservation about looming catastrophe
has been silenced by science editors and environmental
journalists. Uncertainties have been conveniently disregarded and
highly unlikely worst case scenarios exaggerated.
Not since the apocalyptic consensus of the Middle Ages has the
prognostication of impending doom and global catastrophe on the
basis of mathematical modelling been as widely accepted as today.
No question about it: The IPCC's disaster predictions have been
converted into a general consensus among the world's political
and academic elites.
Ironically, these apocalyptic predictions of the future are
politically sanctioned at the same time as a growing number of
scientists are recognising that environmental and economic
computer modelling of an inherently unpredictable future is
illogical and futile (see, O.H. Pilkey and L Pilkey-Jarvis:
Uselsss Arithmetic: Why environmental scientists can't predict
the future, Columbia University Press, 2007).
As the eminent mathematician David Orrell has pointed out
persuasively: "The track record of any kind of long-distance
prediction is really bad, but everyone's still really interested
in it. It's sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can't
make long-term predictions of the economy, and we can't make
long-term predictions of the climate. Models will cheerfully boil
away all the water in the oceans or cover the world in ice, even
with pre-industrial levels of CO2 When models about the future
climate are in agreement, it says more about the self-regulating
group psychology of the modelling community than it does about
global warming and the economy." (David Orrell, Apollo's Arrow.
The Science of Prediction and the Future of Everything, 2007)
Be that as it may, the reality of the IPCC consensus should not
be underestimated. Its political weight and growing demands for
drastic economic intervention is posing a serious political
predicament for many governments, most of which find themselves
unable to control let alone reduce CO2 emissions that are rising
almost everywhere.
Paradigms, Consensus and Falsification
Science based on "consensus" is a tricky business. I am agnostic
about it because the history of science tells us that today's
consensus can, and quite frequently is, tomorrow's redundant
theory. There are certain types of general agreements in science
that are more compelling and more durable than others. In some
areas of empirical science, like solar system astronomy, there is
more agreement because the data is more robust and the methods
less complex. The more complex the science and the less reliable
the data, the more scientific controversy you should expect to
find.
On the other hand we also know that science tends to produce -
and in fact needs - scientific paradigms which is perhaps a
better word than consensus. So I have really no problem with the
fact of a majority consensus on climate change. But science would
quickly come to a dead end without the constant and necessary
attempts to falsify the leading paradigm of the day, particularly
those that are weak and based on contentious data, dodgy
methodologies and flawed computer models. Indeed, some critics
argue that climate science has almost reached such a cul-de-sac.
The scientific endeavour involves both the protectors and
challengers of each and every paradigm. Both are essential to the
health and dynamic of a highly competitive enterprise that is
science. No consensus is sacrosanct. And it is in the very nature
of science and science communication that all reasonable
positions and counter-arguments should be heard.
The ongoing controversy about hurricanes and global warming is a
perfect example of the predicaments of consensus science. It also
demonstrates that advocates who exploit the consensus argument
against climate sceptics are more than happy to oppose the
consensus - if it helps to further an alarmist agenda.
For a long time, and until fairly recently, natural variability
was the lead paradigm underlying the dynamic changes in hurricane
frequency and intensity. In the last two years or so, a small
number of papers published in the world's leading academic
journals Science and Nature have cast doubt over this
long-established paradigm. Climate campaigners and science
journalists jumped to conclusions and claimed: "The old paradigm
is dead - long live the new paradigm!"
It is noteworthy, however, that both the recent consensus
statements by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) as well
as the latest IPCC statements on hurricanes and global warming
maintain rather than overturn the old paradigm. At the same time,
they caution about the weight of the new papers. I believe this
is an encouraging development because it would appear to raise
the requirements for overthrowing old paradigms.
Let me also remind you about the dodgy process that removed from
the old IPCC consensus the Medieval Warm Period and the Little
Ice Age and replaced it with the notorious Hockey Stick
consensus. A few enthusiastically received papers were able to
overturn the old consensus - mainly because they undermined the
important argument by climate sceptics about the degree of
Holocene climate variability. Science journalists bought into the
new Hockey Stick "consensus" sink line, and hooker. However,
their prejudice was evidently laid bare by the extraordinary
reluctance to report (or report impartially) about its flaws and
the controversy it generated.
Similar problems can be observed regarding the thorny issue of
sea level rise: is it more or less steady (as the IPCC claims) or
is it accelerating, as climate alarmists claim? The mainstream
science media have no qualms in hyping up new papers that go
against the IPCC consensus. At the same time, the same outlets
ignore other studies that confirm an inconvenient consensus that
climate alarmist regard as too conservative and thus pose an
impediment for political action.
I could go on and on: while alarmist claims and predictions are
routinely puffed up by the science media and environmental
journalists, studies that come to more moderate and less alarmist
conclusions are habitually ignored or discredited for being too
cautious.
From editorial bias to confirmation bias
Over the last 10 years, the editors of the world's leading
science journals such as Science and Nature as well as popular
science magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist
have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions.
At the same time, they have publicly attacked scientists
sceptical of the climate consensus. The key massage science
editors have thus been sending out is brazen and simple: "The
science of climate change is settled. The scientific debate is
over. It's time to take political action."
Instead of serving as an honest and open-minded broker of
scientific controversy, science editors have opted to take a
rigid stance on the science and politics of climate change. In so
doing, they have in effect sealed the doors for any critical
assessment of the prevailing consensus which their journals
officially sponsor. Consequently, their public endorsement
undoubtedly deters critics from submitting falsification attempts
for publication. Such critiques, not surprisingly, are simply
non-existing in the mainstream science media.
But there is more to the problem than just editorial promoting of
the scientific consensus. After all, such behaviour is not
restricted to the issue of climate change. Editorial bias is
often found among other science journals on many other
controversies.
Much more problematic is the reality of a strong confirmation
bias among science editors. While the phenomenon of confirmation
bias is an intensely researched and well established form of
selective thinking among medical and economic researchers, this
methodological impediment is completely ignored in climate
science.
Any careful examination of the publishing record of leading
science journals will show that science editors too tend to
favour the publication of papers that confirm their publicly
stated beliefs rather than question them. That is why science
editors habitually ignore or treat with contempt any evidence
that contradicts their core beliefs. Many critical scientists can
confirm that prominent science editors have turned down their
papers and have become reluctant to the point of refusal to
publish any evidence that attempts to refute their favoured
theory.
Of course, climate scientist themselves are routinely accused of
confirmation bias for running statistical models and framing
their data in such a way that it predictably confirms their
hypothesis. After all, research into confirmation and other
biases has shown that the scientific method incorporates an
inherent tension between hard data and their interpretation by
scientists with deeply held convictions.
Good science journals critically evaluate and peer review the
quality of data and the likelihood of error. This deceptively
reliable process of scrutiny and quality control, however, is
itself prone to confirmation bias: peer reviewers selected by
biased editors are more likely to accept evidence that supports
their own prior belief while rejecting arguments and data that
may challenge these convictions (Kaptchuk, 2003). Any science
media that ignores or fails to appreciate these inherent pitfalls
of climate science can no longer be regarded as trustworthy.
The end of fair and objective science journalism
For the last few years, a number of influential climate
scientists and science writers have conducted a campaign against
the principles of fair and balanced journalism that epitomize
open and pluralistic societies. The main accusation against
impartial reporting on climate change is quite simple. An article
in the Boston Globe on climate change journalism sums up the key
argument:
"More and more environmentalists and climate scientists have been
making the point that ''objective" journalists are doing as much
as anyone (except maybe Hummer enthusiasts) to forestall action
on global warming." (Christopher Shea, Boston Globe, 9 April
2006)
Or, in the words of media analysts Boykoff and Boykoff: "A more
subtle factor that helps explain US inaction (sic) also exists:
journalists' faithful adherence to their professional norms (like
objectivity, fairness, accuracy, balance). (Boykoff and Boykoff,
Geoforum 2007, in press)
In short, climate campaigners and science activists are concerned
that any doubts or uncertainties expressed in the media may
hinder the political objective for drastic action. No wonder then
that science editors and campaigners have employed strategies to
discourage or intimidate reporters from even asking climate
sceptics about their assessment.
Michael Mann (Penn State University), for instance, has warned
science writers that even to quote a climate sceptic would be
regarded as if they had granted ''the Flat Earth Society an equal
say with NASA in the design of a new space satellite." (Boston
Globe, 9 April 2006)
The editor of Scientific American, John Rennie, publicly refers
to dissenters as ''denialists" and said that "to give them even
one paragraph in a 10-paragraph article would be to exaggerate
their importance." (Boston Globe, 9 April 2006)
Occasionally, a probing science reporter dares to challenge these
forms of coercion despite the threats of mockery and
intimidation. In such cases, a whole army of climate campaigners
and bloggers will rush to assail the insubordinate journalist, as
science writers such as Bill Broad and John Tierney of the New
York Times can attest.
In Britain, it has become routine for leading science
organisations such as the Royal Society to press-gang the media
against publishing critical reporting on climate change. Lord
May, the former, president of the Royal Society publicly censured
newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail for
publishing sceptical articles and comments. May also tried to
silence respected writers such as David Bellamy, Melanie Philips
and Michael Hanlon by intimidating them personally.
In 2005, the then vice-president of the Royal Society, Sir David
Wallace, warned the British media not to publish anything that
distorted the official view of climate science: "We are appealing
to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against attempts to
present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate
change and its potential effects on people and their environments
around the world. I hope that we can count on your support." (The
Daily Telegraph, 16 May 2005)
The attacks by science editors and campaigners on critical
scientists are not only fuelled by political considerations.
Sometimes they are due to blind faith in an apocalyptic future,
as a recent editorial in New Scientist reveals:
"One of the most corrosive contributions of climate sceptics has
been to promote any uncertainty as an excuse for inaction. In
truth, the remaining uncertainties should be making us redouble
our efforts to mitigate climate change. It's a fair bet that much
of what we do not yet know for sure will turn out to be scarier
than most of us like to imagine."
In other words, the editors of New Scientist are certain that
what we do not know today will, upon knowing it in the future,
prove to be even worse than they fear. Evidently, such hyperbole
has nothing to do with science but belongs to the realm of
superstitious divination.
While climate campaigners are trying to frame even the political
and economic debate in the traditional fashion of a conflict
between consensus and dissent, the political debate is no longer
about action versus inaction. The real issue today is about the
most cost-effective ways of dealing with climate change:
revolutionary transformation of the global economy, as advocated
by climate alarmists, or gradual adaptation and adjustment as
proposed by climate moderates.
The role of the science media as the maid of government policy
Climate campaigners and environmental media analysts have become
convinced that their crusade against impartial science reporting
has been won comprehensively. According to this view, the
neo-catastrophist framing of climate change has been generally
accepted by most science journalists and is now consistently
communicated by most news media outlets.
Yet campaigners worry that the political battle is far from won.
Thus, in a recent article published by the British Journalism
Review, media researchers Eleni Andreadis and Joe Smith warn that
the next contest poses an ever greater challenge to science
journalism:
"We are entering a period when careful interpretation and
communication of the economic, political and social dimensions of
climate change will be vital. Failure to tell these aspects of
the story could be of even greater significance than the
painfully slow arrival at the basics of the science. The media
will offer the context within which we decide the If, How and
When of transforming energy-hungry lifestyles and economies. The
open terrain of these questions presents media decision-makers
with a new set of challenges, and the way they handle scepticism
will again be central to their performance." (British Journalism
Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2007).
Andreadis and Smith underscore the role of journalists in framing
the climate change debates and assisting governments to enforce
drastic policies: "Their principal question should be: Will this
help to reduce emissions dramatically, or is it a way of only
denting the status quo?".
Andreadis and Smith have delineated the science media's political
role in no uncertain terms. In an illuminating paragraph, they
outline a new programme of salvationist campaign journalism:
"In dealing with these [climate change] stories the media will
also need to marry their critical faculties to a commitment to
enable debate about action and change. You can barely fill a taxi
with senior mainstream politicians from Western Europe who do not
believe action to mitigate and adapt to climate change is
necessary. But most are frightened of sticking their necks out.
They need to be given the space to think and experiment and lead
public debate on action." (British Journalism Review, Vol. 18,
No. 1, 2007).
In other words, the role of science and environmental journalists
is to provide governments with media support that will enable
reluctant decision makers to enforce unpopular policies.
The crisis of science communication
Despite the majority consensus among climate scientists, science
organisations and governments, there is a sizeable minority of
researchers, economists and political observers who are concerned
about the apocalyptic nature of climate hype and the potential
risk it poses for political and economic stability. Sceptical
researchers have and will continue to publish critical papers
that question important parts of even some fundaments of the
current climate consensus. Will the science media provide a
platform for these critiques? Will they discuss the weight of
their evidence and the validity of their arguments? Or will the
science media continue to ignore challenges to the status quo?
The absurdity of the science media's handling of climate science
is well illuminated in this week's issue of New Scientist.
In an editorial, the editors try to square the principle of
falsification (which they claim is vital for science to progress)
with their belief that any such attempt would undermine political
attempts to mitigate climate disaster:
"Some scientists are challenging our ideas on climate change,
which is vital if we are to progress. But to overturn present
thinking will need very strong evidence because, as the IPCC
states, confidence in the idea that anthropogenic warming is
changing our world has never been higher." (New Scientist, 14
April 2007)
Yet, at the same time, the editor's zealous defence of the
apocalyptic climate consensus and their fierce resistance to
provide critical researchers a forum for rebuttals or
falsification attempts undermines their own integrity.
Let me conclude: The integrity of the science media will depend
on whether they will encourage critique and fault-finding
analysis by consensus sceptics - or whether they will continue
their course towards unbalanced campaign journalism. Given the
well-documented reluctance of mainstream science media to accept
submissions by critical scientists and the aversion to report on
critical papers published elsewhere, I remain unconvinced that
science journalism will moderate its blinkered attitudes in the
near future.
The diverse groups of critical analysts and researchers will need
to develop alternative infrastructures and media outlets if they
wish to provide open-minded science writers and policy makers
with judicious evaluations of disaster predictions and a
genuinely impartial assessment of evidence. Given the evident
biases mainstream science media and environmental journalism,
there is a growing demand for more balanced and even-handed
coverage of climate science and debates. Scientists and science
writers who are concerned about the integrity and openness of the
scientific process should turn the current crisis of science
communication into an opportunity by setting up more critical,
even-handed and reliable science media.
--
Regards
Bonzo
"Science based on "consensus" is a tricky business. I am agnostic
about it because the history of science tells us that today's
consensus can, and quite frequently is, tomorrow's redundant
theory." Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, Faculty
of Science
date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:53:35 +1000
author: Bonzo
|
