How do we explain so-called ‘Glaciergate?’
Glaciergate refers to a claim made in the IPCC 4th assessment report (2007) that, at the present rate of warming, all the Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear by 2035. If these glaciers did all disappear, it would have devastating consequences for millions of people living downstream who rely on the glaciers for year-round supply of water. And so if this were likely to happen soon, then it would be the causes for some alarm for all these peoples and their governments. When a report submitted to the Indian government in 2009 brought this claim into question, the head of the IPCC called it ‘voodoo science.’ Only in January 2010, after it had scandalised the press, did the IPCC retract the claim.
How exactly the 2035 date made it into the IPCC report remains unclear, but we do know that the (non-peer review) WWF report cited for the claim was in turn based on information in a magazine article (New Scientist) which was based on a single interview with a single glaciologist who claims his speculation was never so precise as to propose a dated prediction.
What makes this so scandalous for science is that it seemed that anyone with any expertise would not support the claim — in fact it would be absurd to suggest that such large masses of ice could melt so fast. And many had already said so. Expert reviewers had queried the claim before the report was published, and others did so very publicly after it was published, and long before the scandal and the retraction.
As outrageous as the whole affair appears to outsiders, there are those who would say that we should not be surprised by the survival in scientific documents of such unsubstantiated claims as this. In fact, critics of such pseudo-science show how the persistence in scientific literature of such unsubstantiated and/or refuted claims is not at all unusual. And as Bjorn Lomborg (and also, more recently, Aynsley Kellow) has shown, such phoney science is most especially prevalent in the environmental sciences.
The Politicisation of Science
In a speech of 2003 the famous fiction writer, Michael Crichton, shows how there has been a creeping toleration of pseudo-science in government-funded science during the latter decades of the 20th century. This is where claims are upheld despite the fact that there is a lack of scientific evidence for them, or the apparent evidence has been show to be unsound. He cites recent climate science as constituting the most extreme example yet.
In the history of the movement to mitigate anthropogenic global warming (AGW) there has often been an implicitly or explicitly stated licence to exaggerate the negative impacts. This is so as to raise the alarm with frightening scenario in order to prompt people and governments into action. Here is one of the founders of the movement, Stephen Schneider, talking to Discover magazine in 1989:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
Given this licence to raise the alarm by bending the facts, we should therefore not be surprised that, after the Glaciergate scandal emerged, the author overseeing the chapter that included the 2035 melt claim would be reported defending the inclusion of this claim, despite knowing it came from outside the peer review process, because it related to several countries in this region and their water sources. Well, yes, that is a reason that it is important to get it right. But he goes on to say: we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. What he seems to be suggesting is that a claim that was not on good authority was included because it would cause alarm.
While exaggerated predictions of future doom is a big part of AGW alarmism, it is not the only problem. There is also the claims about the degenerate conditions of the world as it is. Lomborg’s book, The Sceptical Environmentalist is subtitled measuring the real state of the world as a challenge to the annual State of the World report and its ‘litany’ of environment ills, declining from bad to worse. On the evidence, as Lomborg sets forth, things are not so bad, and mostly seem to be getting better. How could it be that the accepted science could be so wrong?
Scientific Alarmism before AGW: Aliens, Nuclear Winter, Passive Smoking…
Michael Crichton attempts to explain this plague of false science from an historical perspective. This doom and gloom pseudo-science seems to have arisen with the public policy advocacy of a set of prominent scientists of the 1960s and 70s. This group includes Schneider, but more famously Paul Erlich and Carl Sagan. For Crichton this is not exclusively a problem for environmental science, and he finds an early and influential precedent in the USA government-funded SETI program, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. This program was in some ways legitimated by a grandiose but meaningless equation, the Drake equation. SETI had its critics but, Crichton says,
The fact that this equation was not met with screams of outrage similar to the screams of outrage that greet each Creationist new claim, for example – meant that now there was a crack in the door, a loosening of the definition of what constituted legitimate scientific procedure. And soon enough pernicious garbage began to squeeze through the cracks.
The next example Crichton gives is the pseudo-science of the Nuclear Winter, which, he says, included the claim that even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. Crichton shows how the Nuclear Winter scenario had begun to be widely promoted in the popular media (including talk-shows and films) by a group of scientist, including Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, even before in came out in a science journal. Again, the science was criticised, but the moral and political considerations expressed by Schnieder in 1988 (in the quote above) are already at play here in the Cold War 1970s, as Crichton explains:
Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, I really don’t think these guys know what they’re talking about, other prominent scientists were noticeably reticent. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying It’s an absolutely atrocious piece of science but…who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war? And Victor Weisskopf said, The science is terrible but—perhaps the psychology is good.
In another example – the refuted link between passive smoking and cancer — the USA EPA plays a role of a politicised government scientific organisation so as to foreshadow the more extremely politicised characteristics of the IPCC.
In most of Crichton’s examples, and in Lomborg’s environmentalist Litany, there is not only a strong and palpable political motive (sometimes explicitly licensed) to distort the science, but also a motive for others not to criticise it. Who wants to be seen to favour nuclear war? Who is for taking the side of Big Tobacco? or Big Oil? And who in the environmental sciences wants to be anti-environment? Aynsley Kellow in his Science and Public Policy calls the phenomenon so affected, ‘virtuous corruption.’ And this will be the subject of another post.