[Vision2020] Public Disconnect From Science: Consensus, Physics & Numerous National Science Academies Statement On Anthropogenic Climate Change

[Ted Moffett]

At the web links below are an article from the American Institute of Physics
on the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, tracing the
history of the science on this subject dating from 1896, a statement from
numerous national academies of science around the world who signed the
document at the pdf link (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy,
India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, South Africa),
and the results of a survey of scientists on their professional evaluation
of the claim that human activity is altering climate, compared to public
opinion on this issue, followed by an earlier survey of the science on this
issue:

Paper from the American Institute of Physics on climate science at URL
below:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
----------------
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf

---------- This article from EOS ('*Examining the Scientific consensus on
Climate Change*', *Volume 90*, Number 3, 2009, available to American
Geophysical Union members) which is quoted by Realclimate.org lower down and
is available to the public at the website first below, claims that only 58
percent of the public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to
97% of specialists surveyed.  This is a very recent effort to quantify the
scientific consensus on the validity of anthropogenic climate change and
contrast this consensus with public opinion:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

----------------------
Below is another earlier effort to quantify the scientific consensus on
climate change, that is mentioned in the survey results from the Peter Doran
et. al. effort above, as perhaps not being comprehensive enough:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

*BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:*
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes*<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#affiliation>
*
P*olicy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently
assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an
argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA
administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through
review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate
change" ( 1 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref1>).
Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on
carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the
science (2 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref2>).
Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the
scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This
is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental
Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a
basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed
and published scientific literature
(3<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref3>
). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the
consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by
human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of
atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ...
[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in
(4<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref4>
)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific
bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the
matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of
Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions,
begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result
of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (
5<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref5>
)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary
of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion
that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have
been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p.
3 in (5 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref5>)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society
(6<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref6>
), the American Geophysical Union
(7<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref7>
), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all
have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for
human modification of climate is compelling
(8<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref8>
).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for
comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would
diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless,
they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was
tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals
between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
"climate change" ( 9<http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/#ref9>
).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the
consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods,
paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the
papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or
implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or
paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.
Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying
paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.
However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed
literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public
statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists,
journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement,
or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of
science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for
failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame
us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate
change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there
are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for
understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate
change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the
reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly
tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

*References and Notes*

1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.

2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate
Policy *2*(1), 3 (2003).

3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.

4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy
Press, Washington, DC, 2001).

6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. *84*, 508
(2003).

7. American Geophysical Union, Eos *84 *(51), 574 (2003).

8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.

9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts
was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although
the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not
about climate change.

10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture,
"Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the
AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of
Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research
assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming,
M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

10.1126/science.1103618
------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091014/47612da3/attachment.html