POWER June 2010 - 6

SPEAKING OF POWER
Scientific Calculator
C
arol Browner, director of the White
House Office of Energy and Climate
Change Policy, trusts the latest Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) report's conclusions that anthropogenic
carbon emissions are the primary
cause of climate change. When pressed, the
customary response of Browner and other
proponents has been to rely on that oftcited
list of 2,500 scientists said to have
given their full support of the report's conclusions.
Browner should check her facts.
Good science is not a democratic process
where the vote of the majority or a
consensus of scientists determines the
inner workings of nature. The scientific
method is a transparent process for acquiring
new knowledge, laid bare for constant
and withering critique, and may become
generally accepted but is never " settled. "
Some climate scientists, such as those exposed
in the Climategate emails, continue
to shortcut the scientific method while declaring
their views as absolute. Politicians
who shield themselves from criticism with
the cloak of scientific absolutism are dangerous
when contrary science is ignored
when formulating public policy.
Browner, when pressed about opposing
views of the state of climate science during
a November 25, 2009, press conference,
cited as her evidence the equivalent of a
scientist head count. " [W]e have 2,500
of the world's foremost scientists who are
in absolute agreement that this [humancaused
climate change] is a real problem
and that we need to do something and we
need to do something as soon as possible.
What am I going to do, side with the couple
of naysayers out there, or the 2,500
scientists? I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. "
Let's check Browner's arithmetic.
The New Math
The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
AR4 (AR4, www.ipcc.ch) was the result of
the work of the IPCC's three working groups
(WG), each with very specific responsibilities.
The 996-page WG I, particularly Chapter
9, is the lynchpin of the entire climate
debate because it reports the key finding
that anthropogenic emissions are " very likely "
causing climate change. Less interesting
6
in this discussion are the reports of WG II
(Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability)
and WG III (Mitigation of Climate Change).
The " very likely " conclusion is not a
statistical product but, as discussed in a
small report footnote, based on the " expert
opinions " of the report authors. I
liken this scientific shortcut to grading
your own homework-speedy but suspect.
editor responses online for the first time last
December. Combing through the comments
was quite revealing. A quick fact check
found that only 152 lead authors prepared
the entire WG I report and 600 " scientific
expert reviewers " checked their work. Approximately
308 reviewer comments were
submitted on the final WG I draft. The controversial
Chapter 9 unexpectedly cites a
After years of protests, the IPCC finally
completed placing all reviewer comments
and editor responses online.
Many statements, such as " Greenhouse gas
forcing has very likely caused most of the
observed global warming over the last 50
years " and " The primary source of the increased
atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide since the pre-industrial period
results from fossil fuel use " are found in
the critical Chapter 9, " Understanding and
Attributing Climate Change " of WG I.
Browner's comments are calculated to
leave the impression that the science is
unassailable because literally thousands
of eminent climate scientists have diligently
toiled over every word and phrase
in AR4, fully resolved data inconsistencies
and contrary opinion, and reached some
sort of scientific certainty on the subject.
The truth is far less pleasing.
The IPCC Fact Sheet on AR4 states that
" More than 800 contributing authors and
more than 450 lead authors (nominated and
elected by the IPCC member countries) were
involved in the writing of the AR4 " and later
notes that " More than 2,500 scientific expert
reviewers were involved in the . . . review
process of the AR4. " It's a fair assumption
that Browner is referring to the 2,500 reviewers
(not even lead authors), so let's begin examining
the number of authors and reviewers
of AR4 and determine how many are really
involved in the writing and reviewing of the
critical portions of AR4 that are in dispute.
Finally, Open and Transparent
After years of protests, the IPCC finally completed
placing all reviewer comments and
www.powermag.com
mere 10 lead authors and only 62 reviewers,
many non-scientists. My review found that
just five reviewers fully endorsed the entire
11-chapter WG I report in their comments.
My review also found a goodly number
of reviewer comments were submitted by
scientists who were critical of the WG I conclusions
and would certainly take issue with
being included in the 2,500 " in absolute
agreement " cited by Browner. No matter
how the numbers are massaged, the number
of scientists directly involved in writing or
reviewing the most critical conclusions of
the entire AR4 (Chapter 9) number only 72
(which includes many non-scientist reviewers)
falling far short of the 2,500 scientists
that Browner cites as her authority.
The concerns of those scientists who dissent
from AR4 is summed up rather well in
a recent open letter from 300 U.S. scientists
(with the number of signers increasing
every day) that includes many former AR4
reviewers. The March 13, 2010 letter (www.
openletterfromscientists.com) asks our
leaders to " bring the focus back to credible
science, rather than invented hyperbole. "
Then there is www.petitionproject.org that
lists 31,486 American scientists who dissent
from the conclusion of AR4.
Now is the time for the U.S. to take a
leadership role in returning policy-neutral
science to the forefront of the climate
change debate rather than picking policies
based on headcount or political agenda. ■
-Dr. Robert Peltier, PE, is POWER's
editor-in-chief.
POWER | June 2010
http://www.openletterfromscientists.com http://www.petitionproject.org http://www.ipcc.ch http://www.powermag.com
POWER June 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER June 2010
