Collide-a-scape

The headline says it all:

Democrats Abandon Sweeping Energy Plan

Let the recriminations begin. Reports the NYT:

At a news conference, the [Senate] majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, blamed Republicans for refusing to cooperate. “We don’t have a single Republican to work with us,” Mr. Reid said.

Which is true, but not the whole truth:

While Mr. Reid criticized Republicans, it is clear he did not have sufficient support in his own party for a broad energy bill. A number of Democratic lawmakers from manufacturing and coal-producing states were expected to oppose such a bill.

Joe Romm seems conflicted on whose hide to rip. In this post, he pretty much blames President Obama’s top advisers, but in the comments he falls back on his favorite whipping boys:

I’ve repeatedly made clear that most of the blame lies with anti-science, pro-pollution conservatives and the media.

Yep. Sounds about right to me, if you’re looking for some convenient scapegoats.

More interesting to me: where do we go from here? What’s the new playbook?

As usual, Andy Revkin beats everyone to the punch with this provocative idea, which is bound to infuriate progressives:

Could it be that the White House has concluded what some political analysts have quietly told me — that only a Republican president could muster the Senate votes to pass a meaningful climate bill?

Hooo boy. That sounds like Nixon going to China. And pretty wishful thinking when one considers the conservative mold of the Republican party today.

Of course it’s too early to say, but I’m predicting some deep soul searching by climate advocates after the blame game runs its course. Then an all out power struggle over who gets to set the course correction. Anyone else care to make a prediction?

UPDATE: Roger Pielke Jr. on the Congressional climate bill collapse:

The bottom line is that the dominant approach to climate change promoted by those calling for action the loudest has failed — yet again. Really, how much more evidence is needed to convince those calling for action on climate change that a radically new approach is needed.

David Roberts at Grist might be ready to let his beard grow out and shuffle around with a sign that reads The End is Near:

It’s a sad, corrupt state of affairs this country finds itself in. I wish I had some hopeful words to offer. But at this point, American government appears to be broken. And our children and grandchildren will suffer for it.

Michael Levi, an energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, says “the United States is in for a rocky time in international climate diplomacy.”

I’m always amazed at how climate bloggers blame the media every time the narrative isn’t to their liking. Joe Romm and Michael Tobis, on one side of the spectrum, are famous for this. They often complain of a press that gives too much credence to climate skeptics. Additionally, both have asserted that “climategate” was a non-story that became a media-manufactured controversy because of irresponsible journalists.

Now I see that Bishop Hill, on the other side of the spectrum, believes that media outlets have recently “coordinated” a wave of stories with “warmist themes.” Right. I’m sure the editors of BBC and The Times and Nature got together at a London pub and said, “Time to move the pendulum back to the pro-AGW angle.”

C’mon. Pack journalism ain’t pretty, that much we should agree on. And it can be tragic and shameful.

Unfortunately, it’s an entity of the profession that is hard to do away with. But it’s not coordinated.

An extraordinary op-ed by four climate scientists, headlined “The Science Behind Climate Science,” asserts:

The urgent need to act cannot be overstated. Climate change caused by humans is already affecting our lives and livelihoods — with extreme storms, unusual floods and droughts, intense heat waves, rising seas and many changes in biological systems — as climate scientists have projected.

This is nectar to Joe Romm, “problematic” to Roger Pielke, Jr., who has written an email to one of the op-ed authors, asking:

I am unaware of research that shows either detection or attribution of human-caused changes in extreme storms or floods, much less detection or attribution of such changes “affecting lives and livelihoods”. Can you point me to the scientific basis for such claims?

This is really the nub of the big debate over climate change, not whether the science is established, but what are the detectable impacts. I think if it was incontestable that man-made climate change is causing the kind of extreme climatic changes and weather disasters that the op-ed asserts, we would have had a global treaty on carbon emissions by now. But the present-day impacts are not at all clear, though I’m open to persuasion–I really am. Which is why I’m anxious to see the reply that Roger gets.

No one should mistake my skepticism on this matter as an argument for inaction on climate change. As long-time readers of this blog know, I tend to favor decoupling climate change from the larger energy debate. I recognize that to some, this dilutes the “urgency” for action; I just happen to think you can get broader buy-in for decarbonisation with the approach laid out by the Hartwell group.

But it seems that the climate debate will continue to pivot on the contention that man-made climate catastrophe is not only inevitable–if no serious action is taken–but that, in fact, such catastrophe is already upon us. At least that’s how I interpret the Politico op-ed. [Update: A commenter says that I've mischaracterized the views of the op-ed authors with my "catastrophe" connotation, and I agree.]

If this is where the policy debate is destined to be decided, then we should vigorously engage it. To that end, I’d like to see Real Climate take up the science behind the assertions made in the Politico op-ed. RC is where controversial matters of climate science are most comprehensively aired out.

Let’s air this one out.

UPDATE: In the comment thread, Judith Curry identifies what she considers to be “the big flaw” in the PNAS paper.

UPDATE: Over at Dot Earth, Eric Steig, a Real Climate contributor, said he agrees with Roger Pielke Jr. “that the ‘blacklist’ metaphor is appropriate.”

UPDATE: Real Climate officially weighs in.

There’s a new PNAS study out today called, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” that is sure to reverberate throughout the climate blogosphere. Over on the other thread, which had a relevant discussion, Judith Curry asked:

Does anyone find this a convincing analysis of credibility?

Let’s take her up and offer feedback. But do read the study first, which is freely available from that link above. (The PDF is on the right side of the abstract.) As Judith also pointed out, the data for the study can be found here.

It’ll be interesting to see mainstream media coverage and blogospheric reaction to the study. I’ll post the relevant links in an update at the bottom of the post as they come in.

UPDATE: 6/21, 11:15pm: Eli Kintisch at Science is among the first out of the box with this story earlier today. Unsurprisingly, Joe Romm lauds the results of what he calls an “important first-of-its-kind study.” (To fully appreciate how novel this “first-of-its kind” study is, you have to read the Science article.)

Meanwhile, Roger Pielke Jr. dissects the study’s methodology and adds some supplementary information on one of the authors.

UPDATE: 6/22, 7:00am: Leo Hickman in the Guardian says the study “throws some new light on the ‘expertise gap’” between climate science factions.

10:30am: Justin Gillis, writing at the NYT Green blog: “The results are pretty conclusive.” Eh, maybe not, if you listen to Eric Steig (of Real Climate), who comments at Roger Pielke, Jr.’s blog:

Wow. Roger, you know I disagree with you on many things, but not on this. What the heck where they thinking? Even if the analysis had some validity — and from a first glance, I’m definitely not convinced it does — it’s not helpful, to put it mildly. I’m totally appalled.

12:30pm: On the study, Chris Mooney at his Discover blog writes, “that journalists who have given a lot of weight to climate ’skeptics’ have some ’splaining to do.”  Over at Time, Michael Lemonick writes that what constitutes a top climate researcher is “laid out in detail” in the paper.

The BBC has a story up that quotes Stanford’s William Anderegg, a lead author of the paper, on what motivated the study:

We really felt that the state of the scientific debate was so far removed from the state of the public discourse and we felt that a good quantitative, rigorous comparison of this would put to rest the notion that the scientists ‘disagree’ about global warming.

The tweety and bloggy opiners who care most about climate change and energy policy were mostly left cold by President Obama’s big speech last night. Here’s an arbitrary round-up that captures the varying reax:

MoJo’s Kevin Drum panned it. The Atlantic’s Joshua Green said it was a “decent speech, but he [Obama] wimped out on climate change.” Kate Shepard, also with MoJo, called it “disappointing” and said Obama “largely avoided the issue of climate change.” Indeed, said Bill McKibben:

I was struck by the fact that he didn’t mention climate change, except as a reference to the title of the house bill, and that he didn’t mention carbon prices.

Concludes Time’s Byran Walsh:

It may be time to bury cap-and-trade.

Yet Joe Romm gave Obama a B, and focused more on the White House talking points handed out afterward. The Oil Drum, meanwhile, played it down the middle.

So did Andy Revkin, it seems, who called the speech “workmanlike” and said:

Obama has left open the prospect of pivoting to energy and climate as a top priority in coming months, but chose (wisely) not to use a moment of national unease, built on a backdrop of unchecked pollution, as a launching pad.

That Obama did not seize this “moment,” though, is precisely what pissed off many progressive climate watchers, so it’ll be interesting to watch the reax to Revkin on that score.

I’ll update additional responses from other notable commentators throughout the day.

UPDATE: 6/16: 10:15am: Here’s the Yeglesias header on his post: “Obama Punts on Climate.” Grist’s David Roberts, echoing Romm, is determined to accentuate the positives.

11am: A quick and dirty scan of some mainstream media columnists also reveals an interesting spectrum. In the Washington Post, David Ignatius detected a”glimmer of leadership” in the speech, and said Obama got it just about right:

Call to arms. Three-point plan. End our energy addiction. God bless America.

That sort of facile nothingness frustrated both John Dickerson and Danial Gross at Slate, who wrote of Obama:

while he spoke eloquently and specifically of his faith in America’s ability to innovate in the long-term—a faith I share—he was vague when it came to the specific, short-term steps the organization he runs can take. As John Dickerson notes here, there was little mention of tough, controversial, but necessary initiatives such as placing a price on carbon, or sharply raising the tax on gasoline, or instituting a cap-and-trade regime. Obama’s speech was like a PowerPoint presentation with the last few slides missing.

For its part, The WSJ, in its lead editorial, wrote that Obama

naturally took the opportunity to put his moribund climate legislation back in play.

Based on the dominant assessment of most observations I’ve cited thus far, you have to wonder what speech the WSJ editorial writers were watching. Or are they just on automatic pilot over at the editorial page?

4.20:pm: Ezra Klein probably speaks for a lot of dispirited greens today, with this observation:

I’m just not sure how you do a response to climate change if you can’t really say the words “climate change.”

Brad Plumer over at TNR certainly agrees and adds, for good measure:

If the president can’t make that case in a major prime-time address in the midst of the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history, then who can?

But Roger Pielke Jr. argues that President Obama deserves credit for admitting he doesn’t have all the answers [when Obama asked for "other ideas" on how to tackle climate change and decarbonization]. Roger adds:

For too long “I don’t know” has been taboo in discussions of climate policy. But understanding the limits of our policy proposals is a first step toward wiser policies.

On this note, Roger’s take echoes Andy Revkin’s, whose post headline on the speech read:

Obama Seeking New Ideas on Climate and Energy

In stark contrast to the many climate watchers who have slammed the President’s speech for its timidity and half-measures on energy policy, Roger is laudatory:

Obama showed policy leadership in his speech, which will likely have partisans upset. Nonetheless, it is policy leadership that this issue needs, not political posturing.

4:45pm: And finally, Alexandra Fenwick at CJR has an excellent roundup of the national press coverage of Obama’s speech, which is carried under this clever headline:

All Talk and No Oil Cap Makes Barack a Dull Boy

Maybe I’m whistling Dixie with this modest attempt to bridge the climate divide. Consider what Nicholas Kristof wrote last year, in an op-ed column titled, The Daily Me:

there’s pretty good evidence that we generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices. We may believe intellectually in the clash of opinions, but in practice we like to embed ourselves in the reassuring womb of an echo chamber.

What greater proof than most climate blogs. And if you disagree, just spend a few moments reading the comment threads at WUWT and Climate Progress, two of the most popular blogs on opposite ends of the climate spectrum. The question I explored with Bart Verheggen and Lucia Liljegren in Part 2 of our conversation (here’s Part 1) was why their own blogs didn’t attract the same huge readership as WUWT and Climate Progress.

After all, if we want to ratchet down the hyperbole and partisanship in the climate debate, shouldn’t we be paying greater attention to bloggers like Lucia and Bart, both who write in a civil tone and often dive deep into the vexing subtleties of climate science issues? If we paid more attention to them, wouldn’t that help elevate the public discussion?

Here’s the second and final part of our conversation.

Keith: Why does the climate debate seem so antagonistic in the blogosphere? Why isn’t there more civil, nuanced dialogue?

Bart: I think the blogosphere is not made for nuance. It draws in people who are more opinionated, sometimes to the point of their opinions being set in stone. Of course the internet is very anonymous. The more extreme commentators are very anonymous. That’s another thing.

Lucia: Bart, what percentage of your commenters do you think are anonymous? I’m sure a lot of mine are.

Bart: Maybe a third are anonymous or pseudonymous. I’m not sure.

Lucia: I’m not sure either. Mine might be a third, too.

Keith: How can we then raise the level of debate, given that the extremes on both sides seem so strident, in part because of anonymity?

Bart: Yeah, that’s a tricky one.

Lucia: One of the problems with seeking a way to raise the debate is also the question of…if someone becomes more moderate and nuanced, will they just lose all their audience. It’s not as if I’m thinking, I want to have audience, so I’m going to write posts with titles like ‘Godwin’s Law Alert: Monckton cries “Goebbelian”‘ or “Joe Romm offers a (lame) bet!”. I write those because I think the titles are appropriate.

Bart: Exactly. And I’ve seen that with blogs—and I’ve noticed myself—that the things that get most viewers and most discussions are the posts that are a bit more polarizing and perhaps even playing a little on another person. Those are the posts that get the most exposure. I think it was some well known climate blogger who wrote once, what’s the point of a blog, if you don’t write in a little bit of a sharp tone, or something like that. Blogs are kind of made to put a sharp edge on your words. Like who’s going to read something with a lot of nuance?

Keith: But I think Andy Revkin is fairly nuanced at Dot Earth. He seems to be trying to facilitate serious discussion. And he’s got quite an audience. Of course he’s got the NY Times imprint, too. But even if you took Andy away from the Times, don’t you think he’d still have a good audience?

Lucia: Well, there is something in the blogoshphere, that once you have critical mass, you won’t lose your readership…but if Andy Revkin were reincarnated as somebody else,with no reputation, and he’s not from the NY times and started a blog like that, he might very well have great difficulty attracting a large audience. You’d like to think that that’s not true, but it is unfortunately the case that it is extremely difficult for people to start a blog, be nuanced, write long posts and get lots of people coming to the blog.

Keith: I wonder to what extent the blog format exacerbates ill will and misunderstanding between people. Because we process written communication differently than we do the kind of real-time conversation we’re having now.

Bart: I think that’s true, because I sometimes see examples [on blogs] where I see people reacting to someone else and I think to myself, hey, you’re reading something into it that the other person didn’t necessarily mean, or your’re prejudging. The blog format is definitely very conducive to blowing those things out of proportion and misunderstanding each other.

Keith: Recently Judith Curry suggested something that I found intriguing:

Maybe we should try a “blog of bloggers” whereby the blog owners from across the spectrum participate in a dialogue, perhaps with a few invited guests, and then the dialogue can be continued also at the individual blogs with the commenters. The polarization will be difficult to overcome, but I think with the waning of climategate that the blogging community is looking for something new, maybe this is a fertile time for cross-camp communications.

What do you both think of that?

Bart: I thought it was a great idea when I read it.

Lucia: I thought it was a great idea, too. Now we just have to figure out how to do it. (laughs). How would we implement it? That’s not to say it can’t be done. I think it would be a useful thing.

**ENDNOTE**

I’d like to hear from readers on Judith Curry’s “blog of bloggers” idea. Is such a thing even viable? Additionally, please offer suggestions on how to make the bloggy climate debate more civil and constructive.

One of my sources in the National Security Agency tipped me off to a call NSA intercepted earlier today between NYT columnist Thomas Friedman and the well-known climate blogger Joe Romm. Here’s the transcript:

Tom: Hello?

Joe: Tom, it’s me, Joe Romm. Am I catching you at a bad time?

Tom: Oh, hey Joe. No, it’s cool, I’m just getting off the plane in Shanghai. Did you see my column today?

Joe: Yeah, loved that small town letter by the Pentagon guy, saying we all need to do our part.

Tom: It’s true! The guy is right, we all “need to pony up: bike to work, plant a garden, do something.” That’s why I’ve recently instructed our housekeepers to stop using the washer and dryer. One of our eight bathtubs will now be used just for washing clothes and I’m installing a maze of clotheslines in the backyard of the guesthouse. Now those bastards that like to make fun of me will see that I’m walking the talk.

Joe: Excellent. If you saw my post today on your departing public editor, you know I’m doing my part.

Tom: Speaking truth to power, brother. As always. And I like how you’re keeping the pressure on Revkin, even though he’s ancient history.

Joe: He still has Dot Earth, though. That’s a powerful brand. I’ve got to break his hold on that last segment of influentials who listen to him more than me.

Tom: I hear you, brother. That’s why I’ve never quoted him. I know you’re the man on climate.

Joe: I appreciate that. But it’s been, like three months since you plugged me. It’s getting to be about that time, isn’t it? And why won’t any of those “dreadful” NYT reporters call me up for an interview?

Tom: Well, you are hitting them pretty hard.

Joe: Oh, please, they need to grow some spine. Besides, it’s like one of my fans said in a tweet last month, I’m just working the refs.

Tom: I know, I know. Listen, I’ll be here in Shanghai for a day, attending this green tech conference with my minder. I’m telling you, it’s like I said before, if only we could be more like China, we’d be able to kick our carbon habit once and for all.

Joe: And you can go back to using your washer and dryer.

Tom: (laughing). That’s a good one. Listen, I’ll be back in time for Obama’s big BP speech on Tuesday. Let’s talk right after that and I’ll squeeze you into the next column.

Joe: You’re the best.

Tom: Anything for America’s fiercest climate change blogger.

Climate bloggers belong to one of the more politically relevant subcultures in the blogosphere. It’s hard to quantify to what degree they influence the public discourse on climate science and policy. Suffice to say: they matter.

But I would argue that only the two opposite ends of the climate spectrum in the blogosphere are represented in the media and the public debate. That, in my view, has contributed to an oversimplification of climate issues and helped exacerbate polarization of the public dialogue. As a journalist who sometimes reports on climate change, I bear my share of responsibility.

But one of the benefits of having my own blog is that I can do my (small) part to rectify this blind spot. So in the last year, as I’ve dived deeper into the climate blogosphere, I have discovered a rich array of thoughtful voices and perspectives that are located across the climate spectrum. They deserve greater appreciation and exposure.

So last week, I reached out to two climate bloggers I have come to admire for their nuanced views and the way they conduct themselves. They occupy a nebulous middle ground in the spectrum, and while their blogs defy simple labels, I would have to say that their peers in the climate blogosphere probably place them on opposite sides of the climate debate, based on where they think their sympathies lie.

My objective here was to push back against such one-dimensional categorization (including my own), which is often reflected in the impolite comment threads of any blogs that delve into climate science or climate policy. I figure that if there is common ground to be established in the climate debate, perhaps two climate bloggers who are known for their civility and who, perception-wise, are considered to be on opposite sides, can help pave the way.

Bart Verheggen is a Holland-based atmospheric scientist, who is unfailingly polite and often quite insightful. In addition to his own blog, Bart is a frequent commenter at many climate blogs, where he often raises the level of debate.

Chicago-based Lucia Liljegren is a mechanical engineer who has worked at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (on projects related to remediation and storage of radioactive nuclear waste) and as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at Iowa State University. Judith Curry, a climate researcher at Georgia Tech, calls Lucia “probably the least controversial person in the climate blogosphere, because of her cheerfulness and sense of humor, honesty, and open mindedness.”

Several days ago, I chatted with both Lucia and Bart via Skype. After editing the transcribed hour long conversation, I asked both of them to look over my edit of the transcript and make any necessary clarifications. They made minimal changes. Below is part one of the exchange.

Keith: Stanford University’s Jon Krosnick has a new poll out this week, which he says reaffirms that a “large majority of Americans” believe that man-made global warming is happening, and that something should be done about it. Taking note, Roger Pielke Jr. wrote:

As I have said for many years…the battle for public opinion on climate change has been won by those who argue that there is a profound human influence on climate and action is warranted. This has been the message of opinion polls for as long as 20 years.

Yet in the climate blogosphere, there continues to be this highly charged battle between two sides, the skeptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and those who belong to that “large majority.” So why is there this endless warring if the battle for public opinion has been won?

Bart: I think the [climate] blogosphere is dominated by the extremes of either side, of those who very much downplay the [climate change] problem and those who are very much convinced of the problem and indeed in some circumstances overplay the problem.

Lucia: Definitely in terms of composition, you get both of those groups.  My blog gets people who do think that there is either so little warming as to not matter at all, or that the warming we have is all natural. I don’t think they’re a majority on my blog, but there are some. And I know there are other blogs (such as wattsupwiththat) where there’s a lot of people who either think there is no warming or admit that there’s warming in the record but don’t believe it’s caused by people.

I think people on both ends just want to talk more.

Bart: Do you think so? I have the feeling that a lot of people on both ends are actually quite content talking to their own, because they each consider the other side—or at least the more extreme ones on either side—they feel that the more extreme ones on the other side are lunatics.

Keith: In a recent post, Andrew Freedman wrote that, “climategate”

helped foster the notion that climate science is controlled by a tight-knit cabal of experts determined to rig the science to suit their best interests.

Lucia, do you believe that?

Lucia: All of climate science, certainly not. The emails do show some people trying to control certain publications, and exerting a lot of influence in some of those discussions back and forth. There are many, many climate scientists doing research without regard to any sort of notion of what the right answer is. But I think there is some tendency for what Judy Curry called tribalism, and attempts to block certain types of information…maybe not block it, but at least make it very low visibility. So it can never be all of climate science, it just wouldn’t even happen. But things can happen that sort of make things lean in one way or the other and that’s kind of the way I see things. What do you think Bart?

Bart: I would express myself maybe slightly differently, but I don’t have a big issue with what you’re saying. I do think, indeed that climategate spread “the notion that climate science is controlled by a tight-knit cabal” who rig the science in a preconceived direction far and wide. And I do think that that notion is a very implausible conspiracy theory, which Lucia alluded to, and for which there is no evidence at all, neither in the emails or anywhere else.

That said, I do know there is a certain degree of defensiveness from the part of climate scientists and their supporters toward people who have criticism. (Just to also note: I have never been in any high profile climate research, and I have not been involved with the IPCC; I’m just on the sidelines here.) And that degree of defensiveness, that is what I agree with in Judith Curry’s analysis and I also feel kind of the same with what Lucia is saying here. To what extent that goes further into blocking other views, or diminishing their visibility on purpose, that’s something that I’m not so sure of and I would actually tend to think not. But to be honest, I don’t really know.

I do think that the defensive attitudes are basically the response of scientists being attacked by so many people. And a big portion of those people who have criticism—not everyone, I’d like to add—but a big portion of them do so with a totally incoherent set of arguments, like “oh, there’s no warming,” or “there’s a little warming and it’s good, and by the way, it’s due to the sun…”

Lucia: Well, you have to be a little bit careful when you put those all together, because there’s many different people.

Bart: Yes, true.

Lucia: Bart’s accusation is that one person individually holds many incoherent views all at the same time, and while there may be a few people out there like that, more often its one person has theory A, one person has theory B, one has theory C.

Bart: You are very right, and the criticism comes in many shades of gray. That’s absolutely correct. And I think that the climate scientific establishment and their supporters should indeed examine their sometimes overly defensive attitudes. To immediately ascribe any criticism to like, “oh, you’re a stupid skeptic or a denier,” or whatnot, well some of the criticism might actually have merit. (Even though on the internet, I think it’s a minority.)

Keith: Lucia, I know you see yourself in the middle of the climate spectrum. What blogs are closer to the far end of the skeptic spectrum?

Lucia: Obviously Anthony Watts runs posts that highlight the notion there are big gaps in the case for Anthropogenic global warming. And they’ll mostly be against the idea it’s anthropogenic. So that one is definitely more skeptical of warming than mine would be.

Keith: What blogger is on the far end of the AGW spectrum.

Lucia: I’d say Joe Romm. I would put him on the strongest AGW, advocacy/activist end of the spectrum. I do find his long, stream of consciousness screeds difficult to read.

Keith: Bart, how would you define the spectrum?

Bart: I have a different view of the spectrum than Lucia has. I remember Michal Tobis on his blog had a good characterization of the spectrum. I would say that mainstream science is in the ‘middle’, which in the blogosphere is represented by sites like Real Climate, and other scientists like James Annan, William Connolley, Michael Tobis, Robert Grumbine, SkepticalScience and others.  That’s what I would characterize as the middle ground. Because it’s really a fairly good representation of what you also read in the literature.

The IPCC position is kind of the middle ground there. And then you have people who critique it with varying levels of intensity and with varying levels of evidence based, as Lucia is doing. And you have more paranoia-based ones, such as Marc Morano. That’s someone who I would put on the lunatic fringe on the skeptic side. And there’s definitely a broad range in between—including both paranoid and (more or less) valid criticisms. Of course, there is also a critique that the IPCC position is too conservative, which I discussed on my blog.

Then you have someone like Steve McIntyre, who sometimes has valid criticisms, but he packages it in such a way, that it goes against all my… [searching for the right words]

Keith: Is it his tone?

Bart: It’s the hidden insinuations and accusations that he’s always putting down there. And the way he slams the climate scientists and put motives there…I don’t like it at all. It takes away from some things he might have a valid point in. Now I’m not actually interested at all in the hockey stick debate. So I’m not following things [at Climate Audit] in detail, but he might actually have some points there. I’m not saying he doesn’t.

And then you have on the other side [of the spectrum], you have…yeah Joe Romm, goes sometimes…he’s a tricky case to characterize. I don’t like his style of communication. I think he’s a little bit too strong with language. By and large, though, he doesn’t stray far away from the science. He doesn’t often say things that are wrong. He does, however, put out a one-sided view. If you say, he emphasizes worst cases and de-emphasizes others, yes, that is something he does sometimes.

On the lunatic fringe of the alarmist side—and I don’t like that word, alarmist, at all—there are people who claim that the world is going to end in 20 years and humanity will go extinct if we don’t put down 100,000 windmills tomorrow. For me, they would be the equivalent of Marc Morano. Joe Romm doesn’t come even close to being such an equivalent.

Keith: Lucia, what about Bart’s contention that Steve McIntyre undermines his legitimate criticism with his insinuations or the way he goes about communicating them?

Lucia: Well, I’m not sure Steve does that. I can understand why Bart thinks it’s that way. It’s difficult to judge it without looking at some of the history. It’s not at all clear to me what the cause and effect of that is. It’s not clear to me because I didn’t start reading Climate Audit when the first hockey stick wars all started. But there’s a point of view out there that when Steve was presenting these things in the tone that Bart would think is the more appropriate one, he was still getting shot down and treated badly and was on the receiving end of the snide remarks and a lot of other things. So I don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg.

Bart: I don’t know either. I haven’t followed that from the start either. I have my suspicions, but I don’t really know, I haven’t checked it out.

Keith: Bart, on your blog you once wrote:

The more relevant discussion for society is about how to deal with climate change (rather than about Siberian tree rings or other scientific details). How do we act in the face of uncertainty, but with real risks of problematic consequences?

What do you make of that Lucia?

Lucia: Actually, Bart and I interact most often at Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog. That’s the kind of topic that Roger often brings up.  I don’t even bring them up, because I don’t have as many ideas as to what we can actually get through in the political process.

But it’s absolutely true that the real questions are, what sorts of actions are we going to take? I tend to take the view that, people need to talk about actions we can take that would be beneficial whether or not someone believes climate change is happening and whether or not it was caused by humans. Because sometimes the whole debate about that discussion gets in the way of some issues that have to do with energy sources we need to access that we can resolve without learning whether or not climate change is true. Or at least you can get some line of agreement. You’ll never get 100 percent.

Keith: Along those lines, there’s a new paper out from Roger and other scholars–known as the the Hartwell Paper–that argues we should decouple climate change from energy policy. And then we can move on from this war over climate science, which I’m sure both of you would agree is, to a large degree, a proxy war over policy. Should we do that, should we just get past the climate science war and stop pretending what the real fight is about?

Bart: Not entirely. First of all,  I don’t think we should decouple the climate change issue from energy policy, but I do agree that we should stop pretending what the real fight is about, which is: How to respond to climate change?

Secondly, If we leave the question totally aside of whether there is climate change and whether it was caused by humans, and only do what we would otherwise also do because of declining fossil fuel reserves and other concerns (geopolitical, environmental, health), I think in a way, then, we would be giving in to the people that don’t believe there is such a thing as anthropogenic global warming.

I think on the other hand, the more rational approach—how I see it—would be to take the broad scientific view of the [climate change] problem, with associated uncertainties and risks, and out of that view, then say, well, given what we know of the uncertainties and risks, what is the prudent action to do. I sometimes characterize this situation at my blog, as if it’s bad, it’s really bad, and if it’s good, it’s still pretty bad. In other words, our current actions are actually still too little in a way, even if climate change is less of a problem than we think it is, even if climate sensitivity is 1.5 or 2 degrees rather than 3 degrees per doubling of CO2, which is deemed the most likely value. Of course, things could also turn out worse than expected.

Lucia: But the question is, what if there is a way to make decisions where we reduce the amount of reliance on carbon types of fuel without necessarily resolving the issue of climate change. The issue of climate change can still continue to be discussed. But if we’re trying to decide whether we’re gonna encourage nuclear power, whether we’re going to encourage alternate energy methods, there are other good reasons that have to do that, which have to do with energy security, peak oil and other types of reasons. Is it necessary that we must have everybody on board, agreeing with the IPCC’s view of climate change?

Bart: I’m not saying that we shouldn’t discuss climate science anymore. If people who are so inclined, like you and I, who want to discuss those kinds of details, then sure, go ahead.

But the thing is, right now, a lot of the discussion that is purportedly about climate science, is actually much more about the different ideas people have on how to respond to an issue like this: those who want to do something about the problem, and those who don’t want to do something. That’s what the disagreement is really about, I think. In a way, the debate about climate proxies is just a proxy for the debate on how to respond to the [climate change] issue.

But I think you’re right. There’s a lot of other reasons to reduce our reliance on carbon-based fuels. But a lot of those reasons don’t have the same urgency, because fossil fuel reserves are declining slowly…and if it’s just about fossil fuels, then people will say, “we can do a bit more innovation of new technology, and that’s really it, there’s no reason to put solar panels anywhere.” I think climate change is still an important factor besides the other factors that make decarbonization a very important issue.

Keith: Well, we should talk about this, because that sense of urgency is something that is hotly debated across the climate spectrum. Here’s the thing: there seems to be wide agreement by scientists that the worst of potential consequences won’t be felt until later in this century, decades down the road. So if the average person looks out his window and doesn’t see any urgency, and he doesn’t feel personally affected by climate change, it seems a little problematic to have a policy debate on climate change hinge on the urgency argument.

Lucia: As a practical matter, if you’re going to persuade people about the urgency of climate change, that is problematic. When you have a democracy and you have to get people to make collective decisions, the fact that on a day to day basis, especially when you live in, say, Illinois or Minnesota, it’s hard to look out there and say, gosh, this looks urgent. Without doing extensive reading, it makes that a very hard sell.

So some of the other things would be easier sells to get things changed. People don’t like to see their energy prices going up. The notion that you could have more sustained progress and keep your energy bills down by trying to invest in alternative energy might be more attractive to some people. Of course, you’re still going to have arguments about whether or not it’s true. But urgency is a hard sell.

Keith: Leaving aside the practical hurdles that makes climate change a hard sell, what about the case for scientific urgency, which Bart was alluding to? I think what he was saying is that all these other reasons for decarbonization are important but they don’t come with that same sense of urgency as anthropogenic global warming. Do you agree with that Lucia?

Lucia: [A long pause] You see, on a blog I can just like, not answer that. I’m finding myself…I mean, I know the urgency argument is a very hard sell. There’s certainly the case, that if there is uncertainty, and the reality of AGW falls on the high side, combined with an uncertainty on the high side is correct, and heat capacity– the planet is big and responds slowly – then, if things are worse than we think, then there’s definitely a huge urgency and we would need to be doing stuff.

But the problem is that you have the urgency argument coupled with the uncertainty argument. [Note: In a follow-up email exchange, Lucia wrote: "I was thinking about the counter argument of what if the truth is on the low side of the uncertainty spread-- well, what then?"]  I think we need to do something now, and I would really like to see us going towards more nuclear options and I like alternative energy, if we can get people to put them in [KK: Lucia is referring to NIMBYISM.]  As I said, I usually avoid blogging about this, because there’s a lot of hard questions that I just don’t have very good answers for.

Bart: I don’t have real answers to that either. But I think it’s true what you say, that the urgency is a very hard sell, because it’s kind of counterintuitive to the nature of the problem. [Global warming] is pretty much a problem in slow motion. In that sense, the word urgency is very counterintitutive. And I don’t actually know if those other reasons for decarbonization, like energy independence, declining fossil fuel reserves, safety, health… I say they’re not very urgent but I don’t claim to know very much about any of those other aspects. So I’m not actually so sure about that part of my statement.

But the reason why I think climate science tells us climate change is more urgent than it seems at first sight is exactly those time scales you allude to. In order to change the energy system, that takes a tremendous amount of time. David Keith made an argument along these lines in some presentations.

There’s a big inertia in the energy system, there’s also a big inertia in the carbon cycle. If you reduce your emissions, it takes a long time for the concentration to actually go down, because it’s a long lifetime for Co2. The climate system has a lot of inertia as well: It takes time for the temperature to respond to a change in concentration.

So you have a large amount of inertia in the energy system, in the carbon cycle and in the climate system, which means if you start taking actions, it’s decades into the future until they start taking effect.

If you combine that inertia in those different systems, with uncertainty of the precise effect, and with some knowledge that it could go pretty wrong with a business as usual scenario, then you have to take proactive steps, and that’s where the urgency comes from.

In my view, it’s similar to a chainsmoker who gets told by a physician, “hey, you should really be careful, you should stop smoking if you care about your heath.” And the person says, “hey I can still bike to the town and I feel fine and my grandmother lived until she was 96 and died in a car accident.”

You can postpone dealing with smoking until you’re in the intensive care unit. But that’s a little late. That’s the line of argument in which I see the urgency of climate global warming.

Lucia: But whenever you have uncertainties in that chain of ifs, that’s where it’s extremely difficult to assess how urgent is it. It’s certainly urgent enough that we should be doing something. What exactly we should be doing, I’m not sure. I’m puzzled to figure out what would actually work.

**Postscript**

On Monday, I’ll post the second and final part of our conversation, which features an exchange on why the blogosphere is not conducive to nuanced debate on climate change.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out Lucia’s comment thread. Lots of good comments there, plus a visit from Steve McIntyre (Comment#45729), who slyly moves the pea under the thimble:

I’m puzzled as to Bart’s apparent antipathy for Climate Audit. I try to write accurately and to correct errors if they are brought to my attention. If I’ve made errors in any posts, I’d appreciate it if Bart would identify them for me so that I can make an appropriate correction.

In response, Bart lifted the pea (Comment#45749):

My issues with your writing is not in alleged errors you do or don’t make, but rather in how you package your message. It often reads as the noble detective trying to unravel some massive fraud, insinuating all kinds of things, mostly subtle (but apparently very clear to your followers nevertheless), sometimes less subtle (“try not to puke”).

UPDATE: Do check out the dynamic comment thread, where Andy Revkin makes a confession (and also a tart observation on journalistic peer review); John Fleck calls out a frequent critic of the science press; and Judith Curry corrects some blogospheric “misconceptions” of the media’s coverage of climate issues.

Let me make this quick, because according to Joe Romm, your eyeballs are already starting to wander:

As I’ve noted many times, a lot of people don’t actually get far past the headline and subhed.

So, are you ignoramuses still with me? Now a common refrain on Romm’s blog is that the mainstream media is just drop-dead dumber than dumb when it comes to reporting and writing on climate change.  At least once a week he calls attention to another supposed foul-smelling abomination (in a subhead, of course):

Worst News Article Ever Published on Global Warming?

Many climate advocates and climate scientists couldn’t agree more with Romm. One climate blogger, who is starting to sound like Howard Beale, thinks the press is easily manipulated. An environmental ethics philosopher is sympathetic to “Hide the Decline” climate scientists because…well, you read (emphasis added):

More likely to me, and more defensible in many ways, is that Mann and others were fudging the findings in order to “smooth them out” so that they were easier to read, so that their findings would not be misinterpreted by a lazy and apathetic press, so that an anomalous line wouldn’t distract from the overarching observation, which is that there is persistent change.

What ungrateful bastards we are!

At this point, you might be tempted to conclude that journalists are screwing up the biggest story of the century, that the world is on a collision course with climate doomsday because a bunch of hacks are falling down on the job. Or rather, is it because we’re not imploring everyone to stick their heads out the window every night and scream:

I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!

But wait, the Air Vent’s Jeff Id, no doubt speaking for many climate skeptics, says we are doing exactly this. And by god, it’s costing us our jobs, too! Here he is, explaining:

Perhaps if reporters stopped turning out a constant stream of alarmist, envirowhacko drivel like this link, they and the NY Times, LA Times, MSNBC, CNN, ABC and every other politically left media outlet wouldn’t have such financial difficulty.

Yeah, I guess the internet has nothing to do with that, after all. Whew. What a relief. All we have to do is stop spitting out “alarmist, envirowhacko drivel” and funders will magically reappear! Yay.

So there you have it. I now hope you understand, courtesy of Joe Romm and Jeff Id, why climate journalism is a rotting carcass.

[UPDATE: Jeff Id is pissed that I'm equating him with Romm. We've had a spirited exchange over at his site.]

UPDATE: After further reflection, Judith Curry lays out a way forward in comment 51 that I encourage people to read and discuss.

And you thought it was over. Ha.

Admit it. You thought Judith Curry had finally collapsed at the finish line, that after one week of taking on all comers, she was spent. Wrung out to dry. Kaput.

Have you learned nothing? I think this woman can chew bullets.

Did you think I was going to let her go without surveying the wreckage, without participating in a postmortem? (Okay, I’m done with the mixed metaphors.) Let’s get down to it, in which I ask Curry to respond to the main criticisms hurled back at her this past week:

Q: In the exchange, you’ve spoken highly of some well-known climate skeptic blogs, such as Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. That seems to be one of the things that has most infuriated the AGW wing. There’s this growing perception, fed, for example, by Joe Romm, that you’re now siding with anti-science forces. Given that you are a research scientist, how does that make you feel?

JC: Joe Romm is bearing the fruits of tribalism, and reminds us of why this is such a bad thing.  With regards to my engagement with skeptics, I need to clarify a few things. I am listening to what the skeptics have to say; this does not mean that I agree with anything (let alone everything) that they have to say. I am trying to be open-minded and am considering their arguments. This is not the same as endorsing their arguments. If McIntyre (or another blogger, or someone from a libertarian think tank) has said incorrect or otherwise inappropriate things at one point, this does not imply that everything they have said or will say is incorrect or inappropriate.

But unless we listen and engage across “tribes”, we will continue to fight these silly wars, particularly the war with McIntyre that ended up getting Jones and Mann in such hot water.

With regards to what is anti-science, here is a quiz.  Read blog thread A and blog thread B.  Which thread is anti-science?

In the climateaudit thread,  I learned a lot not only from the diverse knowledge base of the participants, but also by having to dig into some literature that I wasn’t too familiar with, and to work hard to make strong arguments in the face of some sophisticated challenges.  In a follow up email some months later from Dan Hughes (he has a blog link at climateaudit), he suggested that I read the following book:  “Fundamentals of Verification and Validation” by Patrick Roache.  I ordered the book, it sits on my desk, I pick it up periodically to glance through, I hope to have more time this summer to go through it (it is heavy going, but it is already influencing some of my thinking).

I do not side with skeptical bloggers (I don’t side with anybody, rather I support or disagree with arguments), but I will absolutely defend them against any disrespect or personal attacks they receive that is unwarranted in my opinion.  McIntyre has made important contributions in terms of pushing for transparency in science and public availability of data (a battle cry that is being taken up by almost everybody), pointing out that there are deficiencies in statistical analysis in the climate field (a point made by the North NRC Report and even the Oxburgh report), concerns about using tree rings in paleo temperature reconstructions (a concern that many paleoclimatologists now share), and raising concerns about inappropriate behavior by some climate scientists (well, the CRU emails speak for themselves).  Watts’ surface stations.org deserves credit.  Credit where it is due, anyone?

Let’s make our discussion about the scientific arguments, not about the individuals.

Q: You say you want to help restore trust in climate science. But even before Climategate, people like Senator James Inhofe, Marc Morano, and Rush Limbaugh were ridiculing climate scientists and calling global warming a scientific hoax. I don’t see them changing their tune anytime soon. Nor can their rhetoric be helpful to your  bridge-building efforts. Shouldn’t someone in the skeptic community emulate you and denounce the distortions of climate science and the badmouthing of climate scientists by Inhofe et al?

JC: Senator Inhofe, Marc Morano, and Rush Limbaugh are politically motivated. Their rhetoric doesn’t help at all, and I think pretty much everyone badmouths what they have to say. My point is that it is incorrect to lump the skeptical bloggers with Limbaugh etc., and their rhetoric detracts from the case that the scientific skeptics (including the bloggers are trying to make).

Q: You’ve also taken a lot of flak this week for saying nice things about a few think tanks that seem to approach the climate change issue from an ideological bent. Yesterday, science journalist James Hrynyshyn wrote:

If Curry is implying that CATO and CEI are sincere, intellectually honest skeptics who understand and respect the scientific process instead of disingenuous propaganda machines, then I beg to differ. And I question whether she has bothered to examine their positions all that well.

Do you maintain that these institutions are acting in good faith when discussing climate science? Isn’t there a big difference between a Steve McIntyre and CEI, and if you agree, what would that difference be?

JC: The difference between Steve McIntyre and CEI is that McIntyre is interested in auditing the science, whereas CEI is interested in policy. I have examined CEI positions in some detail and I am aware of their history with regards to the climate issue.  Just because I am listening to what they have to say does not imply any agreement on my part.

CEI is concerned about bad policies that will damage economic development. They are particularly skeptical of the catastrophic impacts of climate change, and believe that economic development will make everyone more resilient to adverse impacts.  I have exchanged 30 long emails with Fred Smith, President of CEI.  I have hammered him over the behavior of Myron Ebell.  I have told him that his harassment of Gavin Schmidt re his blogging is inappropriate.  I have listened to what he has to say.  He has listened to what I have to say.  I even visited CEI the last time I was in D.C. We have settled into a civil dialogue.  He is prepared to listen to me if I think they are committing a “foul” in any of their actions. Fred Smith has proven his good faith to me by his willingness to participate in a civil dialogue on this subject.

Q: When I posted the initial Q & A last Friday, I had no idea that you were going to be so engaged with readers. Since then, Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth has called the ongoing exchange “remarkable.” (There are two threads, both still active, which have combined for over 700 comments.) Much of this owes to your frank and frequent responses to readers. This is a rather unconventional means of communication for a scientist. Why did you participate in this way? And did you learn anything from it?

JC: I’ve honed my blogging skills over at climateaudit, off and on since 2006, in a very challenging and often hostile environment (hostile particularly in the earlier days). I’ve learned a lot from this experience, not only in terms of sharpening my communication and rhetorical skills, but also in terms of what people care regarding trying to understand climate science and what their concerns are.  There has been a growing distrust of climate science (which became acute following November 19).  I am trying to help restore public credibility in climate science and of climate scientists, by answering questions about the scientific process, scientific institutions, and engaging with the public. I wrote about my ideas on this in my “building trust” essay.

I’ve learned a lot from my latest two blogospheric experiments (this one plus the “building trust” experiment where I issued a blogospheric press release). First and foremost, I’ve received a lot of “evidence” to support my tribalism hypothesis.  I was hoping to breach some of these barriers with my previous strategy of submitting the blogospheric press release to a broad range of blogs; this didn’t work too well.  I am delighted (and surprised really) that at collide-a-scape we had an actual “cross tribe” dialogue. We attracted  some “big guns” in the climate blogosphere (e.g. Connolley, Eschenbach, Mosher). And I became acquainted with some interesting new voices that I hadn’t previously encountered. This blogosheric engagement across the climate spectrum is unique in some ways. As to the effectiveness of the actual exchange in developing and refining arguments, well there were too many topics on the table to have a truly productive discussion given that there were so many diverse viewpoints present.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in this exchange of ideas.

Q: There were many times this past week when you were responding almost in rapid-fire fashion, while fielding multiple queries. Is there anything you said that you wish you could take back?

JC: My personal rules for blogging are: respond to the argument not the person, don’t take criticisms personally, use the questions as a springboard to make a point that I want to make, don’t get distracted from my main points, don’t rise to “bait” and be careful of getting my “buttons” pushed, don’t talk on subjects where I am inadequately informed, if I make a mistake quickly acknowledge it, keep my responses measured and calm and proportional and polite.

In the rapid responses, I was attempting to be responsive to the unexpected deluge of comments. I was grabbing short blocks of time in the midst of my “day job” responsibilities this week, which included annual faculty evaluations, hiring of two new faculty large number of letters of recommendation for graduating student job seekers.

In the midst of the rapid replies, I didn’t take time to go through my blogging rules checklist on each reply. The one response that I wish I could push the “do over” button on is the response related to Edward Wegman. Wegman’s name came up in the context of alleged process violations of the IPCC.  I should have left it at that. But I rose to the bait provided, regarding plagiarism accusations of Wegman.  This pushed one of my “buttons”, which is the relentless attacks on persons that are in any way favorable to the skeptics, rather than on the arguments they are making.  So I rose to Wegman’s defense, without being anywhere near adequately informed to get involved in a discussion on this.  It proved to be a big red herring in the discussion, I admitted my inadequate knowledge on this, and people eventually moved on.

Looking back, given the number of replies I made on such a diverse range of issues over a short time period, I guess I feel ok that I have only one “do over” wish.  There were a lot of potential landmines that I think I mostly navigated through.

Q: So where do you go from here? Will you continue raising the issue of climate science integrity? It seems many of your peers are reluctant to have this discussion, for whatever reason. [RealClimate, for example, has not mentioned Curry's name in any post since she published her first critical essay on climate science on November 22, 2009.]

JC: I will continue my attempts to open up the dialogue and challenge people to think about some of these issues that I think are important for the future of climate research and the assessment processes.  I continue to worry that we are not learning the lessons we need to from Climategate.

However,  I vow to stay away from the blogosphere for at least a week. There were many unfinished interesting discussions that were started here. I hope we can pursue some of these collectively in the coming weeks.

I don’t blame my peers at all for staying out of the public discussion on this issue (particularly in the blogosphere, it is pretty rough sport), but I hope they are at least thinking about some of these issues. Even if individual scientists don’t want to deal with these issues, the institutions that support science in U.S. are grappling with them.

***ENDNOTE***

Sometime over the weekend, I will put up a short post on the blogosphere’s varied reaction to the extended dialogue Curry engaged in at this site. More than a dozen blogs took note; many of these posts also triggered their own lively comment threads, which I enjoyed reading and which informed my questions in this last Q & A.

Once again, special thanks to Judith Curry for her full participation here this past week.

UPDATE: As of 5/2, here are the blogs that joined the fray:

Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre); Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford); Stoat (William Connolley, who also wrote a second and third and fourth post); Dot Earth (Andrew Revkin); The Blackboard (Lucia Liljegrin); The Island of Doubt (James Hrynshyn, who also wrote a second and third post; Roger Pielke, Jr.; A Few Things Illconsidered (Coby Beck); Ourchangingclimate (Bart Verheggen); Climate Progress (Joe Romm, who also wrote a second post); James Annan; Only In It For The Gold (Michael Tobis)