Of Environmental Science and Credibility

A while back, cranky Czech physicist Luboš Motl played a little joke on the proponents of global warming with a back-of-the-envelope calculation on his blog purporting to show that there was no statistically significant global warming during the period 1995 to 2010.  Apparently Roger Harrabin of the BBC saw the post, and he brought it up a couple of months later in an interview with Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) that has been at the center of the “Climategate” affair, about the matter.  Jones agreed that warming during the period did not quite rise to the level of statistical significance, correctly pointing out at the same time that this did not rule out the possibility that real warming exists.  Motl would certainly agree, but that didn’t prevent Foxnews from claiming that Jones had “dropped a bombshell” by “admitting” that “global warming in the last 15 years was insignicant.”  At this, ideologues on the left cried foul, claiming that Motl had cherrypicked the year 1995 as his starting point, and that if the period were extended a year by including 1994, voila!, statistical significance was back.  At this point, Motl reacted in a way that is starkly atypical of environmental scientists in general.  He admitted he had cherrypicked the year 1995, and explained the reasons why.  Quoting Motl,

So was it cherry-picking when we chose 1995? Of course that in some sense, it was. The goal was to find the maximum period of time for which even the 95% statistical significance test fails. For the UAH data, the answer turns out to be 15 years. For periods longer than 15 years, we can see some glimpses of statistically significant trends. We can show that the white noise doesn’t explain the data well if the intervals are longer than 15 years.

and later in his post,

After periods longer than 15 years, it’s conceivable that the annual global mean temperatures will deviate in one way or another in such a way that can’t be explained as a “white noise” deviation from the conditions that exist today. But even if that’s the case, it is still very far from having a dangerous change. A change that you can barely observe – with the best thermometers and the most accurate methods how to calculate the global averages – is usually not yet dangerous.

And of course, none of these changes – even if you picked longer intervals where trends could be seen – would include evidence that there is an important man-made component of the “trends”. In fact, we have seen lots of data from Central England, Central Prague, and others that make it completely clear that the rate of warming or cooling has been matched or surpassed many times in the last 360 years.

The difference between Motl’s reaction and that of any number of so-called environmental scientists will become immediately evident to anyone who takes the trouble to read Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”  Lomborg documented numerous instances of similar cherrypicking, all purporting to confirm what he called the “litany”; the alarmist message that, whether one is speaking of air pollution, soil erosion, polar melting, or whatever, we are faced with imminent environmental disaster.  Apparently, Lomborg’s claims were true.  If not, the “scientists” he referred to were singularly inept at pointing out his errors.  Instead, a board of worthies who should be ashamed to claim the name of “scientists” convened in Denmark and “convicted” Lomborg of “scientific dishonesty.” 

The degree to which Lomborg was “dishonest” can be inferred by anyone who takes the trouble to look at the source data relating to the claims in his book.  The fact that his opponents failed to find any substantial discrepancies is amply demonstrated by their blustering attempts to villify him.  By their clumsy attempts to silence and demonize an opponent, the self-appointed guardians of environmental orthodoxy only succeeded in destroying their own credibility.  They continue to do so today.   Instead of simply refuting the claims of critics like Motl, they attempt to villify them, pretending that, for some strange reason apparent only to them, their opponents are all deliberate evildoers bent on destroying the planet.  Unfortunately, their opponents are credible, and they are well able to push back.

In fact, with a population approaching 7 billion and counting, our planet faces any number of environmental threats, including the very real one of global warming.  We may soon find to our cost that the best way to deal with those threats is not to invent new ideological orthodoxies and launch a holy war against “heretics.”  The world does not need environmental scientists who strike mighty blows against global warming deniers, or who exchange insult for insult with climate change truthers.  It needs environmental scientists who act like scientists.