John sent me a pointer towards this editorial in Scientific American where Jeffrey Sachs challenges the Wall Street Journal Editorial writers to sit down with climate change scientists and learn the truth. While wondering why John would possibly think I needed to see this article, I have a couple of reactions.
First, I am on the record as believing that global warming is occurring, and that humans at least have some role in it--although that role is less certain than the warming itself.
Second, I am also on the record as believing that scientists, the media and policy makers are notoriously bad at communicating scientific findings to the public.
Allow me to elaborate, using Sachs' own words. From the article it is very clear that Sachs is making a case that global climate change exists and humans are a primary cause. What does Sachs use to defend his stance? The National Research Council's analysis of Mann's hockey stick data. Sachs chooses the following quotes as conclusive evidence of climate change and human involvement:
- "presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900."
- "the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium"
- "surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."
Here's my concern. Phrases such as "proxy evidence," "many, but not all," "finds it plausible" and "reconstructions" are not conclusive in the eyes of the general public. They leave the impression that there is some uncertainty.
- Proxy evidence--is that evidence that acts on behalf of other evidence?
- many, but not all--how many is enough?
- plausible--1: apparently reasonable and valid [ant: implausible] 2: likely but not certain to be or become true or real
- reconstructions--so you're making up the data?
I'm not saying that Sachs or the NRC are wrong. I know that scientific studies have to use qualifiers to warn the reader that the story is not simple. But the media and public work in absolutes. Either global warming exists and humans are the cause, or we don't care.
So what's the solution? Unfortunately I don't know. I'm not sure there is one. Global Climate can not be spoken of in absolutes. Until the evidence is so overwhelming that there is no way the public can deny it--notice the difference in the burden of proof between this and where we currently stand: human induced global warming is plausible--I'm afraid little will be done.
