EDITORIAL BIAS AND THE PREDICTION OF CLIMATE DISASTER: THE CRISIS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Paper presented at the
conference Climate Change: Evaluating Appropriate Responses.
Benny Peiser,
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,
Or, in the words of media analysts Boykoff and Boykoff: “A
more subtle factor that helps explain
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.” (
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.” (
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
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
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.