Thank you Martin, and I note that Jennifer has not yet answered your questions from your first post.

Pending Ice Age? Yes Jennifer. And wouldn't that make the coal industry happy.

Neohuman,
I agree that there is a need for these important issues (bias in science, Murray River, global warming) to be properly debated. I would be keen to participate. What did you have in mind?
Cheers,
PS For those interested in my views on the Murray River and seeing some hard data on the issue see: http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?PubID=249 .

The global warming debate has indeed become a politically polarized argument, with advocates on both sides abusing science to score politcal points. The issue of whether "global warming" is occurring, and whether if it is occurring, it is attributable to human action, is a scientific question. What actions, if any, to take in response to the problem, if any, come down to political and economic considerations.

Critics of such scientific assessments as the IPCC report are presented as "skeptics" in the global warming debate. They are peforming a service on one hand by continuing to cast doubt on scientific conclusions. This is good and how science should work. But some of these critics are committing the very error they accuse IPCC scientists of, namely, taking a position as an article of faith. In this case, they assert that global warming predictions are wrong and/or exaggerated, that the consequences of global warming will not be deleterious, and that the costs of reducing fossil fuel emissions will be economically and socially harmful.

There is a gradient of "debatability" in the global warming issue:

* Not debatable: The carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere is rising, due to burning of fossil fuels and of living biospheric carbon reservoirs. This rise will continue through the coming century at at least its present rate. Not much debate about this.

* Still debatable, but becoming less so: Global warming has begun already. BUT, the "detection and attribution" problem remains: can a statistically significant trend be pulled out of the background variability, and if so, can its cause be pinned on human action? The IPCC scientists have said, cautiously, and with many caveats, yes. (The _spatial_ pattern of warming in the atmosphere is consistent with that expected from the enhanced greenhouse effect.) Are they correct? Well, time will tell.

* Debatable: What will the climate effects of this CO2 enrichment be? Most simulation studies yield a global temperature rise in response to the CO2 rise. Here there's large uncertainty as to how much warming will occur, and where, and how soon. The "skeptics" have really jumped on the model uncertainties, and pointed out, rightly, that the models used to forecast climate change have large errors in their estimates of the magnitude, distribution, and rate of future temperature change. (They'd do well to bear in mind that the uncertainties run in two directions.)

What about other climate effects? Rainfall (more important in many ways than temperature in itself)? Sea-level changes due to ocean warming and ice sheet melting? What about feedbacks, such as atmospheric clouds, soil moisture, vegetation? The models are notoriously bad at dealing with these. So the critics have a point - but again the uncertainty cuts both ways, and some feedbacks may just as well amplify the climate response as damp it.

* Debatable: What about the impact of the predicted climate changes? Isn't it possible they will benefit humanity (say, longer growing seasons in temperate latitudes)? Here again the critics have their point, but here again they're trapping themselves in their own logic: the effects of global warming may be beneficial (to some), but they may be even more harmful than even the most pessimistic forecasters anticipate. We just don't know.

* Debatable: If society decides that the risk of the harm due to possible global climate change is great enough to warrant action, the costs (of limiting fossil fuel combustion) will outweigh the benefits, say the "skeptics." Beyond a certain point, perhaps they will. But up to a certain point at least, there are clear benefits to following the so-called "no-regrets" policies (involving increased efficiency of energy use and conservation), in reduced energy costs and local pollution. Here again the economic models that many put so much faith in are even cruder than climate models in predicting the economic response to emission limitations. But the "skeptics" assert that emission limitations will impose an unbearable economic cost on both developed and developing countries. Again we just don't know.

These uncertainties make the global warming issue different from other environmental problems: though the uncertainties are large, so are the potential consequences. It's a kind of insurance question. Analogy: even if you're a good driver (say, a 35-year-old driving a Volvo wagon with anti-lock brakes, etc. The kind of statistic the insurance companies love), you carry insurance and pay your premium. Why? Because you recognize that even if the *probability* of your getting in a serious accident is low, the *consequences* are potentially great (e.g. catastrophic injury).

But I think there's another aspect of the fossil-fuel debate that's missed in the "Day After Tomorrow"-driven hysteria. My own view is that there's actually too much emphasis on the prospect of global warming as a rationale for reducing our use of (or at least dependence on) fossil fuels. I hear too little talk about the immediate and local environmental benefits of reducing tailpipe and smokestack emissions. Never mind global climate change over the next century - taking steps to limit fossil-fuel emissions would make every city a better and healthier place to live almost immediately.

Some of this could be done by energy efficiency measures that make economic sense regardless of environmental considerations. Large energy utilities in the US have already started spending money to get their consumers to use _less_ electricity. Why? Because they have a hard time keeping up with the expansion in energy demand that accompanies economic growth. It's expensive to build new generating plants, and proposals to build new capacity inevitably run up against the "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) principle, whatever the energy source. Up to a point, the most cost-effective source of "new" energy for them is the kilowatts they can get their customers _not_ to use. Similarly, such "no-regrets" energy-efficiency steps must be weighed against the costs of mitigation by disposal - geosequestration for example.

Finally, let's not forget the geopolitical benefits for Western societies of reducing our dependency on imported fossil fuels. Whatever one thinks of the US-British-Australian intervention in Iraq, we can certainly make ourselves less vulnerable to political instability in the Middle East by reducing our need for imported crude oil. And although we are not running out of oil, new finds are increasingly of reserves that are expensive to extract, transport, and refine. All in the face of growing demand from the huge and fast-growing economies of China and India. These factors will also drive our economies toward alternative energy sources and efficiency measures. (What was that saying - something about how the Stone Age didn't end because mankind ran out of stones?)

Frankly, I think those who oppose reducing fossil-fuel emissions just love global warming. The uncertainties of impacts, and long time frames, make global warming an easy target for economic rationalist arguments for doing nothing.

(Disclosure - I am a climate scientist myself.)

Martin,

I agree that having credentials and peer review is incredibly important. However, it is also important to not simply believe what is written because it has been published by a 'celebrity scientist'. It is important that the evidence is presented and/or a logical argument sustained. Your argument seems to appeal to 'academic fundamentalism'i.e. they are more expert they must be right.

It has been my experience that in the environment area a lot of good work is excluded from the best journals because it would bring the 'house of cards' tumbling down. Then again the scientific establishment has a bad track record when it comes to tolerating alternative view points when they may seriously threaten the status quo.

Why do you think Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC process? How is it that everyone is saying there has been an increase in the incidence of extreme weather events when the data just does not support this position?

Please read my work on the Murray and then tell me we should simply believe the establishment when it comes to some of the most important environmental issues (http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?PubID=249).

You may also be interested in the Great Barrier Reef and the extent to which Queensland's Chief Scientist was prepared to go with the flow (http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=191).

Cheers,

BTW The onset of the next iceage may be very dramatic/very rapid given evidence from natural history

Jennifer First here is an edited background piece that I posted on John Quiggins Blog.

I’ve developed an interest in cognitive biases and especially confirmation bias and it makes me wonder how does one know when one is under such a bias?
In the global warming debate I see one side the human induced global warming advocates backing the mainstream scientific community both the majority of the worlds climatologists and most of the leading scientific associations like the Royal Society and their equivalents, on the other, a minority of climatologists, or fringe science, and those outside the field either lay, academic or with science backgrounds who feel they are justified in dismissing the work of these scientists.
Some do so on technical grounds others that there is some sort of ulterior motive either ideological, they are anti-capitalist or with self-interest to promote their careers.

One could counter the same of these individuals and groups with many linked with industry lobby groups or with groups with similar ideological positions like the Libertarians or economic rationalists. But not only do these individuals question the climatologists but also the work by environmental scientists whenever they claim that humans are adversely impacting on the worlds ecosystems and environment.
Can a scientific consensus position be questioned by those without the necessary qualifications and how likely could it be that they are right and the leading scientists in that field are wrong?

Being a lay individual on this matter I go with the mainstream. This because of their authority and the years I’ve spent reading and watching respected reputable science journalism and journals which have consistently given a picture of the cross disciplinary nature of science and that humans are in fact having and adverse impact on the planet.

The problem is that I could as easily question or dismiss the work of a scientific field under certain circumstances. I noticed that in the field of psychiatry that there has been an explosion of what is considered child mental disorders of what seems really mundane instances like a child’s tantrum. I also came across a community mental health webpage that stated what I would consider ordinary sexual fetishes like foot or bondage were mental disorders. Some psychologists still think homosexuality is a metal disease.

Now if these positions became mainstream I would as a unqualified outsider dismiss their work as some sort of social/institutional bias along the lines that happened in Victorian England with the non-sexual female and masturbation as a symptom of mental disease, or in the 1920’s with race and eugenics.

Now and again you will hear the issue raised that there is a definite left leaning in to days academia, so it wouldn’t be far of a stretch for those who want to do so to say that this ‘left’ bias leads to flawed science, especially in the environmental sciences. Aren’t they all just anti-capitalist closet greenies?

So how different am I to those on global warming skeptics when I would do the same under different circumstances, since we do know that there have been times that the scientific mainstream have arguably been under some sort of social/institutional bias?

On the other hand if you take something like the Creation Science vs Evolution debate, which even for many of the Global warming skeptics would appear a simple case of confirmation bias on the CS side, shows how easily it is to misrepresent, pick and choose and twist the data to make the argument appear plausible to lay people, especially when those making the claims have science backgrounds or backup their arguments with scientific looking papers and references.

So with Global Warming will it take time and hindsight like in the case of eugenics and the Victorian non-sexual female that we will see that our academic institutions were in fact under some sort of institutional bias or are the GW skeptics endangering our and our children’s future because of a confirmation bias they are many are not even aware they hold?

Jennifer, as far as a debate maybe we should correspond via email to set out the guidelines, format etc. but I would like it to be a on air discussion then an extended blog chat.

I’ve already asked Michael Duffy on numerous occasions for a show along these lines, Robin Williams on the Science Show may be interested, Earthbeat is no longer with us and I’m not sure about Phillip Adams and LateLine.

I’m open to suggestions :)