This is the first time I’ve really been to the American Association of Geographers meeting. Last year it was held in Chicago, which is really close to Madison, and I was invited to speak at a session called “The View from the Anthropocene” organized by two great Geographers from the University of Connecticut, Kate Johnson and Megan Hill, but I had the kids & really only spent the morning there. I’m pretty sure there was another reason as well, but I can’t remember what it was.
It was great to see Kate & Megan again this year, both of them are doing really cool stuff (check out their web pages), and it was really great to see that the momentum behind the original idea was enough to re-tool the session into the Symposium on Physical Geography at this year’s AAG meeting in San Francisco, with Anne Chin of UC-Denver on the organizing committee, and a host of fantastic speakers.
My own presentation in the session focused on the Anthropocene, and its role as both a boundary (whether you want to define it as an Epoch sensu stricto or as a philosophical concept – I think that Stanley Finney & Lucy Edward’s article in GSA Today nicely lays out the arguments) and a lens. The second part of that equation (the lens) is a more diffuse point, but my argument is that the major changes we see in the earth system can impact our ability to build models of the past using modern analogues, whether those be climatic, or biological. I show this using pollen and vegetation records from the Midwest, and make the connection to future projections with the example laid out in Matthes et al. (2015), where we show that the pre-industrial climate niche of plant functional types used in GCMs as part of the CMIP5 intercomparison are not better than random when compared to actual “pre-settlement” vegetation in the northeastern United States.
But I really want to talk about a single slide in my talk. In the early part of my talk I use this slide:
This is Margaret Davis, one of the most important paleoecologists in North America, past-president of the ESA [PDF], and, importantly, a scientists who thought deeply about our past, our present and our future. There’s no doubt she should be on the slide. She is a critical piece of our cultural heritage as scientists, an because of her research, is uniquely well suited to show up in a slide focusing on the Anthropocene.
But it’s political too. I put Margaret Davis up there because she’s an important scientist, but I also chose her because she’s an important female scientist. People specifically commented on the fact that I chose a female scientist, because it’s political. It shouldn’t be. There should be no need for me to pick someone because of their gender, and there should be no reason to comment on the fact that she was a female scientist. It should just “be”.
Personal actions should be the manifestation of one’s political beliefs, but so much of our day to day life passes by without contemplation. Susanne Moser, later in my session, talked about the psychological change necessary to bring society around to the task of reducing CO2, of turning around the Anthropocene, or surviving it, and I think that the un-examined life is a critical part of the problem. If we fail to take account of how our choices affect others, or affect society then we are going to confront an ugly future.
Everything is a choice, and the choices we make should reflect the world we want for ourselves and for the next generations. If our choices go un-examined then we wind up with the status quo. We wind up with unbalanced panels, continued declines in under-represented minority participation in the physical sciences, and an erosion of our public institutions.
The authors are in the Faculty of Economics and the Faculty of Forestry at the University of West-Hungary, in Sopron, about an hour directly south of Vienna, Austria. They take an interesting quantitative and human geographic perspective of the use of citations in understanding the physical science basis of climate change from both scientific and skeptical perspectives. A number of bloggers have taken on the science in the NIPCC (Richard Telford has several posts on his blog), but this paper provides interesting insight into the human aspects of scientific report writing. As such the paper falls much more easily into human geography than it does the physical sciences it seeks to understand.
The issue of climate change is as much part of the domain of human geography as it is physical geography. In particular the dynamic of ‘skeptical’ backlash against the consensus of anthropogenic climate change is well worth studying. Understanding resistance to scientific knowledge around climate change will be key to eventually moving forward with adaptation policies that can find broad acceptance. The public self-reports as being less knowledgeable about climate change than it was in 2007 (Stoutenborough et al., 2014), and multiple, competing narratives are likely to play a role in that dynamic.
Lahsen (2013) points out that without examining the differences in perception between climate groups we risk making the science behind our current understanding of anthropogenic climate change more vulnerable to public backlash, and we frequently see interaction between place and social change within the organizations (Jankó et al. mention the impact of the grossly unpopular Unabomber billboard in Chicago on the Heartland Institute’s network of funders and climate change affiliates).
To study characteristics of resistance and acceptance of the science surrounding climate change, the authors review the citation lists of both the IPCC (AR4 – WG1, the Physical Science Basis) and the NIPCC ‘s Climate Change Reconsidered. By examining similarities and differences in citations and the use of citations we can understand how the rhetoric around climate change science changes the interpretation of the published literature. Jankó et al. use a great quote from Bruno Latour to help guide the discussion:
“Whatever the tactics, the general strategy is easy to grasp: do whatever you need to the former literature to render it as helpful as possible for the claims you are going to make. The rules are simple enough: weaken your enemies, paralyse those you cannot weaken […], help your allies if they are attacked, ensure safe communications with those who supply you with indisputable instruments […], oblige your enemies to fight one another […]; if you are not sure of winning, be humble and understated” (Latour, 1987, pp. 37–38).
I feel like this overstates the case for the IPCC a little bit (though I may be biased). The IPCC is not set up to directly combat ‘skeptical’ literature, as is the case of the NIPCC. The NIPCC is explicitly structured to mirror and refute the IPCC. Regardless, we often think that as researchers we use citations in a neutral manner, but I would argue that that’s rarely the case. Citations in the literature are selected to help bolster arguments, they’re selected because we know people, and they’re occasionally massaged to change the point of an argument in an effort to support our own.
So the question becomes, how is the literature used and modified in these summaries to help develop an agenda?
Interestingly Jankó et al. show that only 4.4% of total citations (IPCC + NIPCC) were used in both reports. This was surprising to me. I had expected that many of the primary sources to explain climate systems and their modern behaviour might have made up a much larger proportion of both reports. Jankó et al. include a table with analysis of many of the overlapping citations (Appendix B)and we see that most cases of duplicate citations show similar tone in the treatment of the citations. Differences do exist however. Where there is extensive overlap in citations Jankó et al. have some very insightful points to make here. One surprising point was that both reports use particular language around references they like (‘find’, ‘indicate’, ‘report’, ‘show’, ‘conclude’) and don’t like (‘claim’, and ‘contend’), although how the language is applied to individual citations varies between reports (the discussion of Tropical Cyclones is well worth a read). The other main difference in these overlapping citations is that key NIPCC citations, challenging climate change are often found in the IPCC to support understanding of uncertainties. Thus, what the IPCC sees as an uncertainty, the NIPCC sees as evidence against anthropogenic climate change.
The real issue that piqued my interest however was the much higher proportion of paleo-journals in the NIPCC literature. The Holocene is cited 12 times more frequently in the NIPCC than in the IPCC, Geology and Quaternary Research are both cited 10 times more often. Why would skeptics cite paleoecological literature at higher rates than the IPCC? In large part this is due to a key motivation for the NIPCC, and a particular focus in the paleoclimate sections.
The analytical goal of the NIPCC is to increase the perception of uncertainty, attempting to add more ‘non-supportive’ and ‘uncertain’ literature to the argument, and to use that increased uncertainty to take apart the arguments for anthropogenic climate change. In this way the paleo-literature becomes a tool for skeptics with which to attack our understanding of climate change science. Indeed, of the 18 references from the Holocene in the NIPCC, only one could be considered ‘Neutral’ while the other 17 were considered to be ‘Not Supporting’ of climate change science. For Quaternary Research 2 citations were ‘Neutral’ and ’12 were ‘Not Supporting’. Again, what might be considered uncertainty in the IPCC is considered evidence against in the NIPCC.
Jankó et al. explain this trend by showing that the NIPCC uses the past to explain the present in such a way as to downplay the unprecendented nature of modern climate change, while the IPCC uses the past to search for analogues of modern climate change. Effectively, the NIPCC view stops at the present: The past was warmer, therefore change is not unprecedented. The IPCC is searching for ways to explain the future: The past had warmer periods. What caused those changes, what happened during those periods, and how can we use the past to constrain models for the future?
This, to my mind, is the difference between the camps. The science marshaled in the IPCC is focused toward improving hypotheses and theoretical (and mechanistic) models. It is prescriptive science in that uncertainties are identified, and used to improve our understanding of modern and future change. In the ‘skeptical’ camp, science is marshaled to disprove anthropogenic causes, and when it does, the avenue of research is closed. It is effectively a descriptive model without an overarching theoretical framework. This allows it to attach the label ‘skeptical’ to disparate threads of knowledge across the literature, without having to concern itself with how those pieces join together. Jankó et al. point out that the narrative style of the NIPCC report is structured around an anecdotal style, summarizing each paper individually and often adding textual quotes, while the IPCC synthesizes knowledge from multiple sources and provides block references for statements. In one we see a descriptive format that highlights any contrary (or uncertain) position, in the other we see an effort to synthesize knowledge into a theoretical framework.
The scientific basis for anthropogenic climate change is strongly grounded in a fairly simple physical model that finds broad based theoretical support across a range of physical sciences. The scientific community has shown that over time (since at least the 1970s), counter-examples and uncertainties found in the literature have been able to highlight weaknesses in our understanding, bu, rather than collapse the structure, these weaknesses have been marshaled to improve the science and to develop a much more robust scientific understanding of climate change.
Idso, Craig Douglas, & Siegfried Fred Singer. 2009. Climate change reconsidered: 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
Jankó, F., Móricz, N., & Papp Vancsó, J. (2014). Reviewing the climate change reviewers: Exploring controversy through report references and citations. Geoforum, 56, 17-34.
Jansen, E., J. Overpeck, K.R. Briffa, J.-C. Duplessy, F. Joos, V. Masson-Delmotte, D. Olago, B. Otto-Bliesner, W.R. Peltier, S. Rahmstorf, R. Ramesh, D. Raynaud, D. Rind, O. Solomina, R. Villalba and D. Zhang, 2007: Palaeoclimate. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard university press.
Stoutenborough, J. W., Liu, X., & Vedlitz, A. (2014). Trends in Public Attitudes Toward Climate Change: The Influence of the Economy and Climategate on Risk, Information, and Public Policy. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy,5(1), 22-37.
I’m not sure how widely read Valentí Rull’s blog Ecological Paleoecology is, he’s been writing it since 2009 when he started off with a brief discussion of the motivations and utility of biodiversity conservation approaches and has continued with discussions about his field work, the politics of science and, most recently, research funding. The political posts have much more import given Spain’s troubling economic picture, and the choices the government has made with regards to funding cuts.
EarlyToBed posted an interesting list breaking down the sex ratio for seminars at a number of Geosciences departments at Universities in the US today. This feeds into an ongoing dialogue about the representation of women in the sciences, and their lack of representation in higher profile sessions at meetings (see here for a great take by Jonathan Eisen, who includes a whole bunch of links at the end). When she tweeted the post I replied wondering how that relationship matches the departmental sex ratio. I posted that with the belief that higher ratios of women in a department would mean a higher ratio of seminars presented by women. To wit:
H0: There is no relationship between the number of women in a department and the number of seminars presented by women in the departmental seminar series
H1: Higher numbers of women in a department will mean more seminars presented by women.
Why do I believe that? I made a few assumptions to get to this idea. I assume that women in the geosciences likely have a higher number of women in their scientific social networks, and that departmental seminars often draw on members of the department to fill vacant spaces, so a department with more women should, presumably, have a higher chance of drawing women from the department to fill empty spaces.
A quick post today to keep the posting flowing. I’m currently working on a number of papers that are really interesting and <sarcasm>sure to be the most highly cited papers ever in the history of science</sarcasm>. In particular the group of authors who met at the NSF Macrosystems meeting in Boulder in March (Dave Schimel has some great thoughts here on the NEON website) have been working on a set of papers discussing what exactly ‘Macrosystems Ecology’ is, how it is undertaken and what it might tell us. The collaborators include some great researchers at all stages of their careers including Pat Soranno, Andrew Finley, Jim Heffernan and others. Continue reading Criticism when warranted, praise when deserved.
UPDATE: If you are interested in efforts to save the Experimental Lakes Research Station please visit this site. Part II of this post is here.
There has been coverage lately about the elimination of many government supported research programs in Canada. The Experimental Lakes Research Area (coverage here, here, here and here) is the latest in a string of cuts aimed at reducing the federal deficit. Much of the decision rests on the idea that scientific work can be outsourced from government to Universities (as it already is through funding arrangements between researchers and NSERC) or to private contractors. Much of this discussion will focus on ecology and ecological research since that is my field of interest. I will expand a bit and discuss the state of affairs in biomedical research, a field where there is considerable privatization of research in Part II (link to come).