February 2012
“No Need to Panic About Global Warming”:
Context for Considering the Ongoing Debate Over
Climate Change
Jeff Kueter
President, George C. Marshall Institute
The Wall Street Journal opinion piece (see “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod
=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#mjQuickSave, January 27, 2012) co-authored by the Chairman of the
Marshall Institute’s Board of Directors, Dr. William Happer, and another member of the Board,
Rodney Nichols, has attracted enormous attention and, not surprisingly, considerable
criticism. Because Happer and his co-authors challenge the prevailing orthodoxy – that
human activities are the principal drivers of observed and expected changes in Earth’s
temperature – and so criticism is expected. One would hope the tone and tenor of the
discussion that followed the publication of the piece would have been civil and focused on the
facts. But, as frequently happens, hope rarely meets reality.
Instead, the blogosphere, comment pages, and even the letter to the editor published in reply
(see “Check with Climate Scientists for Views on Climate,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?KEY
WORDS=trenberth, February 1, 2012) disappointingly focus more on ad hominem attacks than
they do on exploring the facts behind the statements.
Take, as an example, the six paragraph letter published in reply. The letter asserts the 16
authors of the original opinion piece are unqualified to comment on climate science or “are
known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.”
Further, “more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change
is real and human caused.” Taking each in turn, first, do these individuals lack the expertise to
comment on climate science?
The letter deigns with faint praise that the 16 authors of the original piece are “accomplished
in their own fields,” but they are not sufficiently educated enough to have a grasp of the
complexity that is – climate science. In other words, 16 individuals educated in the sciences
and accomplished in their own fields of science are incapable of (1) reading and (2)
comprehending what they have read. It goes without saying that (3) anyone with an opinion
contrary to the 97% is wrong, but more on that to come. The assertion that the 16 authors
are incapable of educating themselves about climate science is preposterous. The debate
over global warming has dragged on for decades and been central to debates over energy
The Marshall Institute — Science for Better Public Policy
1601 North Kent Street, Suite 802 • Arlington, VA 22209
Phone (571) 970-3180 • Email: [email protected] • Website: www.marshall.org
Global Warming Policy
George C. Marshall Institute – February 2012
and environmental policy for just as long. Decisions made to curtail energy use or impose emissions controls will
impact each and every American. That these individuals decided to learn more about the issue and the underlying
proofs behind the drive to cap greenhouse gas emissions should come as no surprise. Indeed, it is commendable.
Furthermore, these individuals had the scientific and technical training needed to understand and interpret the
scientific case for greenhouse gas controls. Joe and Jane Public are not going to pick up an issue of Science or
Nature at the local pharmacy or bookstore. But, these individuals, and others like them, are in professions where
reading such journals is part of the job. Physical scientists are trained to unravel complicated problems by
designing experiments, producing and analyzing data, and testing hypotheses to reveal relationships and causality.
Their academic careers and training provide the skill set required to understand the methods and mathematics
used in this literature.
Some of the authors have held professional appointments where they were responsible for the management of
diverse research portfolios and activities. Such responsibility, by necessity, requires the manager to grasp scientific
and technical details outside their academic field in order to do the job effectively and to make judgments about
those activities to support and which to terminate.
Finally, several authors, in fact, are practicing in the field, a fact largely overlooked by the critics.
When Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues use the “why would you visit a dentist for a heart problem” line of
argument, their intention is to undermine the qualifications of critics and encourage readers to ignore what they
say. The analogy is flawed in this respect. In this case, some of the so-called dentists are cardiologists and the
remainder are educated on the subject sufficiently to converse about it. The tactic is tried and true – denigrate the
messenger rather than focus on the message.
Trenberth et al. claim the op-ed should be ignored because the authors are “out of step” with the mainstream
climate science community. Fair enough, but why does that matter? Is it not possible to view the same evidence
and circumstances and reach different conclusions? That is certainly the case in other fields. Why not also in
climate science? Further, if the views are so extreme, then Trenberth et al. would better serve the public by
arguing the merits of the op-ed and the implications of one line of thinking over another rather than denigrating
the professional character of their critics.
A final critique advanced is the appeal to consensus thinking. Ninety-seven percent of scientists active in the field
agree, the letter proclaims, almost as if it were a commercial for toothpaste or vitamins. Why should that matter?
What is the appropriate threshold for approvable skepticism? What if the 3% are right? For all we know, these
appeals to consensus authority reflect the views of those whose self interest is advanced through the promotion of
the consensus position. Global warming is big business, politically, economically, and scientifically. But, science is
not about poll results. Fundamentally, science is the antithesis of consensus thinking, as the scientific method is
built on the notion of falsification. A hypothesis lacks validity if it can be falsified. A theory does not hold unless
the hypotheses proving it are true. And, if anything, the history of science reveals many occasions when the
prevailing wisdom was overturned.
If it lacks a role in science, the appeal to consensus thinking carries important political and policy overtones. Just
like a survey showing large support for a policy action can provide the impetus or cover for politicians to act, so too
is this polling number of scientists an effort to offer support to greenhouse gas controls. Seen as such, the number
should be treated with the skepticism that follows any other survey. It certainly should not be endowed with
meaning beyond the expression of opinion that it is.
www.marshall.org
2
Global Warming Policy
George C. Marshall Institute – February 2012
And what do the 97% actually agree on? Is it the simple statement that the climate is changing, implying that
temperature is rising? The climate always changes; nothing too controversial there. Is the temperature rising? A
point of the op-ed, and related criticism of the global warming orthodoxy, is to question the strength of that
finding along with the methods and data used to reach that conclusion. The vast majority of the 97% are not
involved in the calculation or analysis of that temperature trend or theorizing on the underlying relationships
required for the greenhouse hypothesis to hold true. Instead, they have read the literature and conversed with
knowledgeable colleagues and reached the conclusion that they believe this to be true; replace true with false and
you have exactly what Happer and his colleagues did. The major difference being that Happer et al. have not tied
their subsequent research and careers to that stated relationship continuing to be seen as true. No wonder the
support for that conclusion is so strong.
Other critics attack Happer et al. because of their association with organizations like the Marshall Institute. The
argument goes something like this – the Institute accepted support from a petroleum company and therefore
anyone associated with the Institute has a financial motive to carry the company’s water. This line of thinking fails
at every level. First, the Institute’s “skepticism” of global warming science and argumentation against radical
policy change predated any support from any corporate entity and has continued even as that support has
declined. The proffered causal linkage is backwards. The Institute staked out positions on this issue based on
study and principle. Those agreeing with that view sought association with us.
The second flaw in the association argument is the presumption that those individuals associated with us gain
financially. Service on our board of directors is voluntary without compensation. Even more absurd is the notion
that those who spoken at our public events somehow financially prosper from that modest association. Travel
expenses are covered, if necessary, but rarely is there additional compensation. Our website labels every speaker
at every one of our public events “an expert,” which leads many critics to conclude that the nature of the affiliation
is more than it is.
The techniques employed are not new. Al Gore in the early 1990s tried to get Ted Koppel to use Nightline to
discredit climate skeptics. At the end of the program, Koppel made a very insightful observation:
“The issues of global warming and ozone depletion are undeniably important. The future of
mankind may depend on how this generation deals with them. But the issues have to be debated
and settled on scientific grounds, not politics. There is nothing new about major institutions
seeking to influence science to their own ends. The church did it, ruling families have done it, the
communists did it, and so have others, in the name of anti-communism. But it has always been a
corrupting influence, and it always will be. The measure of good science is neither the politics of
the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses
into the acid of truth. That's the hard way to do it, but it's the only way that works.”
Judge the opinions expressed by Happer and his colleagues on their own merits. That should be the only standard
that is relevant.
www.marshall.org
3