BBC Focus Magazine

[Flakkarin]

I hope this isn't too lengthy - I could have said a lot more! But here is a 'concise' review of:




In the great climate change debate, war can be waged on two main fronts: from the viewpoint purely of the science, or taking into consideration the influence of politics and psychology, fuelled by the media. In Science as a Contact Sport, IPCC heavyweight Stephen Schneider focuses primarily on the latter battle. There are a couple of examples of why current warming must be considered anthropogenic, such as the ‘smoking gun’ that if the sun were to blame (as many claim) both the troposphere and the stratosphere would warm, whereas now only the troposphere warms, as the stratosphere cools. Although the scientific arguments are few and far between, the aim of the book is clearly not to pick nits with sceptics, but to express the grievances dealt to the climate change community, and the persistent resistance to effective policy changes; and a book can be forgiven for only wanting to be about one or the other.

The book’s first chapters document Schneider’s personal journey through the beginning of climate change science and its dealings with politics, to the current state of play (current as in summer 2009; just before Copenhagen and Climategate, although I’m sure he would add many pages on those issues now) . This section certainly tells a lot of interesting tales, but the narrative jumps around a lot, mostly so that Schneider can give numerous examples of how he personally strives to uphold the integrity of science (including a lengthy sidetrack into the ‘nuclear winter’ question). This gives a very arrogant impression of the author that can make for irritating reading; but when you get the chapter 7, focusing on the role of the media, you can start to understand why Schneider has taken on this persona. He is the king of the misquoted, and aptly demonstrates with just one example how a misrepresentation in an article was carried throughout the sceptic and denialist media, until even his own peers questioned his motives.

His main grievance with the media though is the principle of ‘balance’, which disregards the degree of support for each viewpoint in the pursuit of giving both sides of the story. Even more galling than this is the tendency of the media to create two polar opposite standpoints: “There’s nothing to fear” vs. “We’re all doomed”, and placing it’s interviewees into one of these groups, ignoring the numerous shades of grey, and confusing the public into thinking that if the experts can’t agree, how are they supposed to know which is right?

This may be a fair appraisal of the state of mainstream media, but I find Schneider’s assessment of the role of political lobbyists in creating scepticism harder to swallow. Undoubtedly they have had a lot to do with the distortion of some of the important science, but to say that they are responsible for practically all of the anti-AGW science out there seems to be taking it too far for me. But maybe I am being naive. Schneider compares special-interest political groups tirelessly to the tobacco industry, and certainly there is as much at stake, but are all scientists that oppose the AGW concept paid to do so? I doubt it, but still, the huge weight of current evidence points to a human influence on current climate trends; and the main criticism remains the uncertainty in predictions.

But what does that really mean? Predictions could be better, and will get better as science progresses, but should we wait for the science to be ‘perfect’ before we act? This, for me, was the take home message of Science as a Contact Sport (and not, as I’m sure Schneider hoped, the message of the last chapter on ‘what we should do about it’). That it is futile to imagine the science will ever be ‘perfect’ enough to know exactly what will happen, but that at some point, we have to trust that the knowledge is ‘good enough’ to warrant action before it’s too late – because it’s better to regret taking action on something that wasn’t as bad as you thought, than to not take action on something that was much worse than you imagined: and is ultimately irreversible.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Sounds like a well reasoned argument to me.

Science (from my limited experience) is rarely ever a case of what is black or white, right or wrong, but more some fuzzily imprecise area between the two.

Indeed if some science, like the Big Bang theory (which has more holes in it than Lady Gaga's Brit's award dress) was presented to the world in its original form it would be all so vague and punctuated with if and maybes that it probably wouldn't really say very much at all. So funding for something as gargantuan as the LHC would never have been countenanced.

Climate science strikes me as just such an area where a good deal of doubt is still prevalent in the scientific community. I'm not suggesting they object to AGW as such (although some certainly do) but that they are unsure about some areas of the evidence surrounding it all but this is put to one side in the interests of the majority and doing the 'right' thing just in case it all turns out badly.

I'm not entirely convinced that the media is to blame for presenting all of this in terms of doomed or not, some responsibility has to rest with the PR people who present the scientific work to the media with claims that 'sea levels will rise 60metres' guaranteed to paint a less than rosy picture.

But I do get the point.

[Flakkarin]

Hm, I was tempted not to reply for fear of creating another topic that others were afraid to contribute to(!) but I think one thing at least should be clarified.
I think it's difficult not to fall into the trap of thinking that 'shades of grey' means equal standings of all theories in between the two most extreme. Although sea level rise may not be as drastic as all that (and that statement should of course, be followed by '...IF the entire Greenland ice sheets melts, which is highly unlikely in x time frame'), rising sea level itself is still better represented in the 'likely' side of the spectrum than the 'unlikely'.
Alright, maybe sea level isn't the best example, since I know you distrust it so strongly (although we never did settle where all that melted glacier goes ), but you can exchange for many other principles.

I'll admit the book didn't make my ideas of the IPCC completely de-fog, but I did jot down one number as an idea of just how many scientists are involved. For the working group II (there are four groups) in the fourth assessment there were 174 lead authors, 222 contributing authors and the participation of 1,183 experts as reviewers. When you get to the plenary sessions, sure, there are a load of 'delegates' who aren't necessarily scientists, but I think that makes it more amazing that they can reach a consensus. The idea of the plenary is to go over every sentence so that all 'countries' agree on the wording - nothing gets through until there is complete consensus, i.e. no more objections. And if you can get through sentences like '...the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate' without any further objection from Saudi Arabia etc speaks volumes!

[M Paul Lloyd]

Yes I agree my shades of grey comment was a bit..... er well vague I guess. And actually I think rising sea levels is still a good example as inundation of coastal regions is a cause for great concern right around the world from the poorest Bangladeshi farmer to the most wealthy Arab in Dubai. The problem arises when the '...IF the entire Greenland ice sheets melts, which is highly unlikely in x time frame' gets left off by whoever publishes said paper and that's when the panic sets in. And yes indeed we still haven't settled where all the glacial melting (and it is one hell of a lot) has actually gone too as sea levels have stubbornly refused to rise in line with this.

I'm not convinced however that the way a consensus is reached is done with the full agreement of the participating scientists, I have read in a previous IPCC report that 'Malaria will spread more widely in a warmer climate' when in fact there is very little evidence to support such an idea and the scientists involved seem to have just gone with the flow. I have had stuff published which was edited and in that process the emphasis of certain key points was greatly altered or even completely lost, but raising an objection wasn't going to keep you on the 'hot list' so I kept my peace. I just wonder how many IPCC report contributors are happy about how their work has been presented?

Equally the widely popularized idea that weather events will become more extreme in a warmer world seems at odds with the evidence and I can find no mention of extreme weather being recorded during the medieval warm period, indeed it seems to have been a rather more stable climate than we have today.

Anyway this is a book review after all.