[LINK] Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

[rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au]

Alan,
Alan L Tyree wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 08:58:54 +1100
>"rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au" <rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>...and I almost forgot. The other tactic, now being deployed by the 
>>Institute of Public Affairs, is to put forward an unknowable
>>proposition as a reason to do nothing. Hence: "We don't know that
>>climate change will be bad for [X], so we should not act until we
>>have measured its positive effects."
>>
>>Hence:
>>http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21144521-601,00.html
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Richard,
>If you are intending to imply that this is somehow dishonest
>manipulation, then I guess I must disagree with you. It is not news
>that warming will have some benefits, just as increased CO2 in the
>atmosphere does. It is certainly not dishonest to try to understand
>these.
>  
>
The dishonest manipulation is not in a valid scientific question, but 
the tactics from organisations like the IPA. It should be remebered that 
the IPA is, as it describes itself, a "Free Market Think Tank". This 
does not give it scientific standing. It also means that its scientific 
pronouncements do not start from a 'null hypothesis' - rather, it picks 
and chooses its science to align with its ideology.

[Under my signature I deconstruct some items from the article itself, in 
support of my opinion about the IPA's PR job]

In any case: it is reasonable to dissect the business of media 
manipulation, and having seen it first-hand over nearly 20 years of 
journalism, I am moderately adept at identifying tactics.

[snipping spots where there is no argument]

>Finally, when it comes to "unknowable propositions", I would like to
>see some validation of the computer models that are going to change our
>lives. 
>  
>
Well: I could suggest that "an awful lot of scientists endorse the 
models, and dissect their flaws, and work to improve them, and do not 
substantially reject the hypothoses which arise from the models." I 
doubt if you or I could assess the validity of the models to any great 
degree. Or to put it another way: I know (roughly) how science works, 
and I know how think tanks work. So I am more likely to trust the 
science than the think tank.

Or to put it another way: the science is probably good enough that the 
modelling is accurate in nature but still has scope for error in degree.

RC

An editor's examination of the IPA "Warming is Good for Coral"  article.

Contrast two statements from the article; in one, the author is discussing the science, in the other, putting a political position. First, from late in the article:

>There clearly are global threats to coral reefs, but reef ecosystems
>have historically been resilient to climate change, and global warming
>may bring more opportunities than threats.

Note the clear qualification: "may bring". But early in the article - ie, when the punters are paying attention, it's put differently:

>The idea that the Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed by global 
>warming is not new, but it is a myth. 
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So: in the second paragraph, all predictions of reef destruction are dismissed as myth.

Next, a bit of science:
>Corals predate dinosaurs and over the past couple of hundred million
>years have shown themselves to be remarkably resistant to climate
>change, surviving both hotter and colder periods.

This is true, in that coral is still with us. But the author is playing an old, old game: pretending to answer Question A, while actually answering Question B. 
Question A: Will climate change damage The Great Barrier Reef.
Answer B: Coral can survive climate change.

Question B is "will climate change send corals extinct?" and the author gives the correct answer. But what the IPCC is suggesting is that a particular reef in a particular place (and with a very great economic value) is endangered - not the entire species. These sorts of tactics are in Media 101 - well, perhaps Media 201. 

Next:
>There have also been periods of coral bleaching, but no conclusive
>evidence to suggest that either the frequency or severity has increased.

The weasel word here is "conclusive"; our knowledge of historical rates of bleaching is low, we have only been studying the reef for a relatively short time, and so the author is perfectly accurate. But what is 'conclusive' is that while coral is "globally resilient", particular colonies are not - which is what scientists are trying to say about the Great Barrier Reef. Sure, we may end up with a new-and-better version offshore from Coffs Harbour but that's not the GBF. 

Now; please note. I will discuss the accuracy of my media analysis. But I'm not going to try and roll around the environmental science. My point is that this sort of obfuscation is a particular expertise of think tanks (Gerard Henderson's work on David Hicks also comes to mind). Having experienced this at the receiving end (ie, being the journalist targeted with the snow-job), I am at least familiar with the techniques. And it is also legitimate to expose them, because they are inimical to truth.

RC