Climate Expert Contends Public
Misled About "Global Warming"

Noted atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard S. Lindzen sees a considerable difference between what scientists are saying about "global warming" and what most of the public thinks they are saying.

Lindzen is one of the leading critics of the claim that increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases have "ominous implications" for mankind or the environment. He was the keynote speaker last fall at the Cooler Heads Coalition's congressional briefing on the warming issue.

In his presentation, Lindzen asserted that despite frequent claims that global warming is a scientifically contentious issue, there really is relatively little disagreement among scientists on a number of basic aspects of the issue. The real problem in public communication is that simple facts about the climate are often presented, and/or perceived, as having ominous implications — even when they don't. And though there is certainly room for skepticism, scientists who note the profound disconnect between the scientific meaning of common statements and the public interpretation are not being skeptical. They are nonetheless designated as skeptics by those who wish to marginalize their views.

Lindzen began the presentation with a quick climate history of the last one hundred years and what that history means within the context of this debate. The warming during this period, said Lindzen, is concentrated in two periods, 1919-1940 and 1976-1986. The earth cooled between these warming periods, and since 1986 there has been no significant warming.

A doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, according to model predictions, would increase the temperature by about 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. We are already more than halfway toward a doubling of carbon dioxide, which has increased from about 280 parts per million to about 370 ppm. If all the warming in the past century was due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said Lindzen, it would mean that the climate is not very sensitive to changes in greenhouse gases after all, and that pronounced warming is unlikely.

Lindzen argued that, "If most current climate models, which predict about four degrees Celsius warming for a doubling of CO2, are correct, then man has accounted for three to four times the observed warming over the past century with some unknown processes of unprecedented magnitude canceling the difference. Predictions for the future assume that these unknown processes will disappear."

The real problem in the global warming debate, Lindzen said, isn’t so much the disagreement between scientists. Indeed, "There really is relatively little disagreement among scientists on a number of basic aspects of this issue."

The problem instead has to do with how the basic facts are communicated to the public. Scientists who insist on pointing out the "profound disconnect between scientific meaning of common statements and the public interpretation," are marginalized as "skeptics." Rather than trying to solve this communication problem, many scientists, as well as environmental advocacy groups and politicians, have decided it would be easier to exploit it and have become quite adept at doing so.

Lindzen argued that probably the best example of how a statement can mean different things to scientists and the public is from the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s Second Assessment Report. It stated, "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."

To a scientist, he explained, this statement does not imply that there is a problem, yet it was the "smoking gun" for Kyoto. Lindzen also presented examples of situations in which the scientific consensus is actually the opposite of what is presented in public.

It has often been claimed, for instance, that global warming will lead to increased storminess in the extratropics, but in fact, theory and observational evidence do not support this claim and there is general agreement on this in the scientific community.

Finally, Lindzen noted that although many environmental advocates and politicians claim that Kyoto would "solve" global warming, scientists agree that, "Complete adherence to Kyoto will have no significant impact on climate, regardless of what one believes about climate sensitivity."

CEI interviewed Lindzen on the subject of how the findings of scientists are often poorly understood by policymakers and laymen:

CEI: Your thesis statement is that, "It is so far impossible to convincingly relate observed climate change to anthropogenic emissions because we do not fully understand its natural variability." Why is natural variability such a difficult factor for climate modelers to account for?

Lindzen: Natural variability is a statement that even if you don't have man, or sunspots or volcanoes, climate varies. Over the equator, the wind blows from east to west every two years or so. We sort of know why, but no model gets it. We know we have ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation), but there aren't very good theories about it. Models tend to do a very bad job of predicting it.

You have all sorts of variations that occur, and unless you are looking for a much bigger signal it will be buried in that noise. These are not easy questions. And this is what the science is about, figuring it out.

CEI: You were a lead author of the atmospheric physics section of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report and a peer-reviewer of many of its other sections. How did the version of the "Summary for Policymakers" that was attached to it end up misrepresenting many scientists' intentions?

Lindzen: There are two summaries to the report — the policymakers' summary and the executive summary. They're both in one volume. The executive summary is not terrible, but the policymakers' summary is not even written by the scientists. The first draft is done by the coordinating lead scientists — there are about 14. Then it is submitted to the IPCC, where the government representatives argue each point in its presentation and it is reduced from 1000 pages to roughly 13. It picks statements that it knows mean different things to scientists and to laymen.

That was the point of my talk. If you pick and choose selectively and you take advantage of the fact that the public doesn't know how to interpret it or misinterpret it, you don't have to do too much to make a mess.

CEI: Isn't it also the case that the summary itself cannot hope to contain everything that is written in the report?

Lindzen: I think it's fair to say you can't condense. It isn't that it is 1000 pages of sprawling stuff. It's already compacted. But the summary is also kind of random. For instance, the statement in 1995 that the balance of opinion is that there is a discernable impact of man on the climate record — if man had accounted for the entire climate record of the last century, it would mean we don't have a problem. Yet, the statement as phrased sounded ominous to people and they went forward with Kyoto.

CEI: You note that although there are many areas in which scientists working on climate change are in agreement — and the principles they agree upon may not be well-understood by the public — there are still significant areas of disagreement. Does the specific type of science that an individual researcher specializes in influence his or her view of the policy debate?

Lindzen: It's funding. Plus, in a deep sense, the environmental movement establishes the grounds for public virtue. If you don't agree with them, you're not virtuous.

CEI: The media made a big deal out of the Bush administration's statements when Dr. Robert Watson failed to obtain reelection as head of the IPCC. What did you think of the decision to replace Watson? Did he allow the mission of the body to be corrupted by politics?

Lindzen: He was politically chosen. He was a Gore choice, not on the basis of his contribution to climate science, which is zero. But because he engineered the ozone issue, his payoff was a job at the World Bank, which isn't exactly a scientific position, but not too many scientific positions pay that kind of salary.

CEI: You state that the most important step policymakers can take to help scientists is to design "A system of support for science that encourages problem resolution and does not encourage alarmism." Are there steps that Congress can take toward doing this?

Lindzen: There are some suggestions. For example, at present, grants are used to support students. I think students should be supported individually without reference to grants so they don't have to follow the money.

One of the reasons alarmism is so important is not that the agencies are so bad or nasty. But if you go before the Senate or the House to defend your program, you give either a complicated description or a simple picture of the science and they scratch their heads. Yet, if you say, "We sent a rocket into space" or "This will cure cancer" they understand it. They understand what they can tell their constituents.

The program managers at the agencies have taken their lead from this. They know that their own funds depend on it and they follow up on it. You have to start by realizing what you call accountability is leading to this problem. I don't think Congress wants to give up that.