Journalism Award to Michael Crichton
AGU has deliberately made the pages of Eos open to differing views. Two authors recently questioned whether AGU went too far in publishing a criticism by the Council of American Quaternary Society of the actions of another society. Should AGU have published the AMQUA criticism and the responses to it? What is your opinion?
November 1st, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Yes, AGU did the right thing here.
It would have been even better if they had insisted that Corbett get a couple of really basic things straight. Specifically, in trying to make the point that the “anthropogenic hypothesis” (that humans are influencing climate) is controversial, Corbett cites a recent article by Wally Broecker and Tom Stocker. In that article, Broecker and Stocker contest the idea that humans began significantly influencing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations thousands of years ago. But nowhere do Broecker and Stocker ever question that humans are the chief cause of rising CO2 since the industrial era began (i.e. around 1850).
Wally Broecker is one of the best known climate scientists in the world. Citing one of his papers as if it made a point that it most certainly did not — and with which Broecker would disagree completely — is is not acceptable practice in scientific communication and is very very misleading, at best.
November 1st, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Dear Steig,
Read the title of the Broeker and Stoeker article, “The Holocene CO2 Rise: Anthropogenic or Natural?” If that still leaves you confused try the last sentence, “Hence, the cause for the CO2 rise during the last 8000 years was ‘natural’ and not ‘anthropogenic’.
Obviously, you do not speak for Walter Broeker and Tom Stockman, and it appears you did not bother to read the article. So, we’ll chalk you up as another academic pseudo-scientist leading with a weak political argument and lazy and confused at best and dishonest at worst approach to citing the literature.
Yours truly,
Kevin Corbett
November 3rd, 2006 at 4:02 am
Could Corbett be right? The Broecker and Stocker abstract reads:
“In view of the wide attention received by the suggestion that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over the last 8000 years is anthropogenic rather than natural in origin [Ruddiman, 2003], this claim should be carefully examined. The basis for the claim is that following each of the three preceding glacial terminations, the CO2 content of the atmosphere peaked early on and then underwent a steady decline. By contrast, following the end of the last glacial period, while it also peaked early, the decline bottomed out around 8000 years ago, and since then the atmospheric CO2 content has steadily risen. By analogy with previous interglaciations, Ruddiman estimates that in the absence of human activity, the CO2 content of the atmosphere would have dropped to 240 ppm. *Instead it has risen to 280 ppm.*In a recent article, Ruddiman [2005] proposes that this 40 ppm human-induced rise prevented the onset of another ice age.” (Emphasis added.)
As I recall, 280 ppm was the CO2 level before industrial burning of fossil fuels raised it to the present +-380 ppm. Does Corbett believe that Broecker and Stocker think the *current* level of CO2 is 280 ppm? Unless he does, it is clear that the article limits its discussion to CO2 levels prior to the industrial age. The authors’ failure to make any reference to the recent anthropogenic increase is explained by the fact that it is not a point in dispute between them and Ruddiman.
November 3rd, 2006 at 8:46 am
I think the operative words here are “a preponderance of evidence”, which means you will always find detractors on both sides of the debate. While there is IPCC, a properly instituted body sanctioned by UN to suggest the anthropogenic origin of the recent global warming trend, the detractors are individuals or entities , some with vested interests, which to me lack the collective voice of the former.
Say Lee
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Two observations:
1. There seem to be very few anthropogenic climate change skeptics among those who actually develop peer-reviewed climatic trend data and/or global climate models.
2. There seems to be some confusion about the exact time scales addressed by the Broeker and Stoeker article, “The Holocene CO2 Rise: Anthropogenic or Natural?” Did they indeed mean to include the industrial era CO2 rise in their assessment? The answer probably needs to come from them.
Rob Quayle
November 6th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
My main beef with the AMQUA article is that they have not read (or understood) the CCSP report. Yet they reference it to support their critique of the AAPG Award to Crichton. No one seems to have commented on this fact. Pls read my Letter.
I take no position on the Corbett letter nor have I questioned the propriety of the AGU in publishing the AMQUA critique. But I think it reflects poorly on them.
S. Fred Singer, SEPP, 11/6/06
November 6th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Kevin Corbett’s letter and his response above are really rather shameful in how misleading they are.
The Broecker and Stocker Eos article is clearly addressing the theory advanced by William Ruddiman that human activities influenced the pre-industrial climate. Pre-industrial, i.e., before 1850. It is right in the first sentence of their article. Ruddiman’s work does not in any way address the recent industrial climate change. Thus one can not infer anything about Broecker and Stocker’s views on attribution of industrial climate change in this Eos article.
If he had taken the few seconds to simply google Wallace Broecker, he would’ve discovered that Dr. Broecker does indeed agree with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists that recent climate change is indeed anthropogenic in origin.
It appears that Kevin Corbett needs to join Michael Crichton in a class on how to read and cite scientific journal articles.
Walt Meier
November 11th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Walt Meier says that “the overwhelming majority of climate scientists [agree] that recent climate change is indeed anthropogenic in origin.” Possibly so; I guess he includes himself.
He also suggests that “Kevin Corbett needs to join Michael Crichton in a class on how to read and cite scientific journal articles.”
There now… Could I ask Walt to read (and cite) the authoritative CCSP report SAP-1.1 and explain to us why observed patterns of warming disagree with patterns calculated from GH models (see Fig. 5.4G on p.111)?
November 28th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
The AGU made the correct decision in publishing the AMQUA critique, which rightly takes the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) to task for awarding their 2006 Journalism Award to Michael Crichton for “State of Fear” (and “Jurassic Park”). Had AAPG’s award been given to an individual who most promoted the association’s interests, their recognition of Crichton might have been met with only minimal criticism. But the author not only distorted the facts with his book, he followed it up with expert testimony to Congress which he no doubt knew was faulty.
Giving a promotional award to someone who helps your cause is one thing; giving a journalism award to someone who purposefully spreads mistruths about a problem as grave as global warming is another.
Journalists are suppose to be truthful, at all times. They are not suppose to pedal their fiction as the truth. This one did.
AGU appropriately corrected the public record on the AAPG’s mistake. AAPG should be appreciative and thank them for doing that, in my opinion.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Now that some time has passed since my letter to AGU concerning AMQUA’s up-braiding of AAPG for their award to Michael Crichton, perhaps a few more comments from me are warranted.
First, AGU is no less biased in their awards than AAPG. The last AGU journalism awards (The Sullivan and Perlman Awards) were given to Michelle Nijhuis for a series in the High Country News and to Dan Vergano for an article in USA Today. In case AGU missed the viewpoint of the High Country News, they bill themselves as, “the environmental newspaper of the West,” in their own promotional subscription materials, which ironically enough I received the week my note to EOS was published. Not a ringing endorsement for unbiased journalism. Ms. Nijhuis in her acceptance speech for the Sullivan Award states, “human-caused climate change is the biggest environmental challenge the world has ever faced,” and specifically notes their has been, “very little political action”. If the challenge is so great and indeed human induced, pray-tell please point to specific instances of harm done. Also, she evidently missed those environmental problems the world has when a big bollide hits! The call to political action speaks for itself. AGU commended Mr. Vergano in its press release announcing the award, for not rehashing the accuracy of Ocean-Atmosphere General Circulation Models (OAGCM). I specifically referenced the report by Phillips et al (2006) because they establish for the first time a benchmark of how unstable OAGCM are, “In most of the coupled runs, various ad hoc surface flux adjustments also were applied so as to minimize a problematic model behavior known as ‘climate drift’, where aspects of the evolving coupled simulation (e.g., sea surface temperatures) diverge increasingly from a realistic equilibrium state.” Obviously, the results of OAGCM are neither reliable nor unbiased. Indeed, if Mr. Vergano were reporting absent an agenda and AGU were seeking unvarnished answers, they would indeed be worried about basing predictions and making claims of causality using models where Ad-Hoc adjustment is needed to achieve realistic results. Other aspects of OAGCM are too numerous and troubling to here address in full but include failure to address variability in the rate of bicarbonate delivery to the oceans, variability in oceanic algal flux “blooms” and there effect on CO2 consumption, modeling with any degree of accuracy changes in water vapor in the atmosphere (a hugely more significant greenhouse gas), and volcanic delivery of CO2 to the oceans from the mid-ocean ridges. The OAGCM are numerically elegant and vastly over simplistic. Rather than seeking to understand fully how CO2 is buffered and removed from the atmosphere they instead seek to identify select sources and predict predetermined consequences. Frankly, I wish the modelers would take a field trip to see some limestones in outcrop and then go back and ponder how they’d explain these huge CO2 sinks with their models. It would hopefully be a humbling experience in viewing their own naivety.
Second, comments concerning the vested interest of petroleum geologists or others engaged in natural resource development are valid. Equally valid are claims of the vested interest of those funded to conduct climate research. I remember all too well the funding crisis in academic and government earth and atmosphereic research in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, when I too was an academic. To no small degree, climate research funding saved many soft money supported scientists from seeking other lines of work. So, if resource scientists in industry have a vested interest, soft-money climate researchers have an even more vested one. Claims of peer review to those outside the grant money research club have a hollow ring. Simply put, when everbody thinks alike, nobody thinks very much. Because a self-selected group engages in mutual reinforcement is hardly indicative of accuracy in analysis and interpretation. There are too many instances where peer review has proved demonstrably incorrect to give it the level of validity those in the publish or perish game imply. As an example, take a look at the evolution in thinking on dark matter in the universe as it evolved from intellectual paria in the 1950’s to saviour of the expanding universe in the 2000’s.
Third, for those of us in earth science with a view substantially longer than the Holocene or even the Quarternary, we note that the general state of planet Earth through Phanerozoic time was to be far warmer than the present and with much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Obviously, these warm times and CO2 rich atmosphere were completely unrelated to any anthropogenic effect, either pre- or post-industrial. As a consequence, it strikes me the climate scientists of today have much in common with Don Quixote, they tilt at windmills while the real battle and truer understanding are to be found elsewhere.
Finally, the most troubling aspect of the “over-heated” climate debate is, as I implied in my letter, the stridency of those who interpret an anthropogenically driven warming. It bears noting that neither AAPG nor any other industry related scientific organization came forward as AGU did with a politically charged position statement. Undoubtedly, many members in AGU support the position statement of the society, but certainly AGU leadership made no attempt to determine the degree of agreement or support for the position statement amongst the membership prior to its adoption. Likewise, neither AAPG nor any other industry society assailed the position statement by AGU, and not because of its inherent validity, or for lack of scientific grounds and means on which to challenge the claims therein made. The AMQUA letter and many of the comments in response to my own letter fortify my concern that AGU, AMQUA and many of their members have crossed inexorably from scientific inquiry to political advocacy. I trust all are prepared for the full spectrum of political engagement.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I commend AGU for publishing the AMQUA piece and the subsequent comments.
AMQUA’s statement that “…it was misleading for Crichton to present himself to the U.S. Senate as an
expert witness.” is exactly correct. That is the same as having Mary Shelley appearing as
an expert witness on organ transplants. It seems clear that the AAPG position on global
warming is to promote the current oil-based world economy. Daniel Yergin’s book The Prize
should be required reading for anyone wishing to understand the oil industry. Hopefully
there are AGU Congressional fellows available to help legislators distinguish science from fiction.