A Reader Writes. I respond

A reader from Florida sent me this letter. See my response below
________________________________
Yelling Fire on a Hot Planet makes a valid point concerning the need to focus on what we know vs. what we do not know. Overall, however, it sends the wrong message. As Peter H. Gleick of the Pacific Institute says of similar arguments, you emphasize the "hole in the donut" by placing the focus on the uncertainties, rather than the overwhelming evidence that the problem is becoming increasingly grave with every passing year. It is especially distressing that you once again give voice to the discredited Richard Lindzen. I have been a scholar of the climate literature and a professional ecologist for 25 years, and I have seen firsthand the changes ensuing from climate change. In my view, anthropogenic climate change is worthy of alarm and status as a genuine planetary crisis. Your article minimizes the gravity of our situation and does our children and grandchildren a disservice. True, it is "hard to find a scientist that says that all of the changes are our fault" (including me), but it is also hard to find a scientist who does not agree that the problem is real and serious. Your spin on this story is disingenuous. Pulling up headlines from 1956 and 1932 is gratuitous because we have always known that this problem will unfold over generations. While some of my colleagues have argued that we should emphasize our adaptation to these changes, I would suggest that adaptation is inevitable and that we will do so with varying degrees of effectiveness regardless of our efforts to control greenhouse gases. For me, the real issue is facing the truth about what we stand to lose in terms of biodiversity, quality of life, and ecosystem services as a consequence of long-term climate change. Sadly, your article is in keeping with the Times' apparent policy of denial, usually offered up in the name of "balanced" journalism. At what point does the scientific consensus become sufficiently overwhelming for you to agree that the problem is real and worthy of action.

Revkin responds:
Well, i actually think those who are crying 'realtime crisis' are the ones moving the issue back to where there are lots of uncertainties. this piece essentially posits that reality is bad enough -- the things we know clearly and without big error bars and with almost no serious scientific debate are already profound (more co2=more warming=less ice= higher seas, etc etc.

why not build public awareness of that first and THEN move into the dicier area of trying to sift for a human influence in current-tday trends? that is MUCH harder to do and just takes the issue back into the arena where there is lots of debate (and legitimate debate when it comes to hurricanes, disease patterns, etc). THAT is guaranteed to get the great mass of public that doesn't understand science well to fuzz out and turn away, not engage as everyone seems to hope.

as for your view on balance, i'll put my reporting (250 stories on climate just since 2000) ahead of just about anyone else's on this issue. I only cite people with agendas, whether from an industry group or environmental group, in policy stories -- not in science stories. and when i do quote someone of that sort, i always identify their affiliations to reveal some of the reasons why they say what they say.

as for Dr. Lindzen, anyone influential enough to reach millions of Americans in the Wall Street Journal is someone who, whatever your personal views, has to be considered. And certainly when he says that more co2= a warmer world, a confused public (half of which still sees global warming as natural) needs to know that.

I encourage you to read my chapter in the 2005 2nd edition of the Field Guide for Science Writers, available at nasw.org, for the long section on traps like the balance trap.

Reader responds:

Dear Andrew - I appreciate your response to my comments on your article "Yelling Fire on a Hot Planet." Now that I understand your point, I largely agree with you. Indeed, the situation is bad enough without stretching the science beyond the data, something that has repeatedly burned us in the past. For whatever it is worth, I simply did not get your point from the article or your video, and I see from your blog that I have some company in this regard. My sense of urgency is based on the effects of anthropogenic climate change in the here and now. We may disagree on this. From my study of the literature, I find compelling evidence that recent events are linked to climate change. The devastating 2003 heat wave in Europe is one example that has been partly ascribed to anthropogenic warming (Stott et al. Nature 2004). With respect to hurricane intensity, at least two factors are in place that link recent hurricanes to SST (RealClimate.org & recent articles in Science & Nature). Hansen et al's recent analysis of oceanic radiant energy balance is compelling. Through the years, I have been increasingly frustrated with the role of balanced journalism on this issue. It is clear to me that you have thought a great deal about this aspect of your profession, and I offer my sincere apology for making this statement. A recent article in Global Environmental Change (2005, Vol 15:338) by Liisa Antilla highlights this issue. Other writers on the Times Science page have frustrated me with their referencs to "some scientists" believing that climate change is real. While I think that Al Gore's recent cinematic enterprise is a useful tool for raising public awareness in the short run, I worry that it will come back to bite us when disaster does not unfold in a timely manner. I like Emanuel's metaphore of the climate behaving like progressively loaded dice. The challenge on this issue has always been finding a way to capture the public imaagination, while not sensationalizing the data. In the long run, nature will likely render this moot.