The CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences” by Thomas R. Karl, Susan J. Hassol, Christopher D. Miller, and William L. Murray, editors was published May 2 2006. This is a report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC.
As discussed several times on the Climate Science weblog and in my Public Comment, this Report is not a balanced presentation of the issue of recent surface and tropospheric temperature trends. The weblogs on this Report which report on its obvious conflict of interest include;
A Further Discussion of the Conflict of Interest on the CCSP Committee
My Public Comment is available from
Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. 88 pp including appendices.
As another example of the advocacy character of the Report, one of the Editors, Ms. Susan Hassol, was also the writer of the recent HBO Special “To Hot Not to Handle”. This show clearly has a specific perspective on the climate change issue, and lacks a balanced perspective. The Executive Producer was Ms. Laurie David.
The synopsis of the show from the HBO web site states,
“Over the past century, consumption of carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) has risen to staggering levels, especially in the United States, where five percent of the world’s population is responsible for 25 percent of the world’scarbon dioxide emissions. TOO HOT NOT TO HANDLE offers a wealth of chilling evidence that the greenhouse effect is intensifying and the Earth is warming faster than at any other time in human history.
Among the startling facts revealed are:
Deadly heat waves in the U.S. have increased threefold since 1950 and today kill more people than hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning and blizzards combined.
The average temperature in Alaska has already risen five degrees, causing 99 percent of its glaciers to be melting, retreating and shrinking.
Rising sea levels are eroding our shoreline and may eventually displace large numbers of Americans.
The intensity of catastrophic storms, such as 2005’s devastating hurricanes Katrina and Rita, , has increased dramatically in the last half-century, as hurricanes draw their strength from warm ocean water.
Deadly viruses like West Nile, aided by higher air temperatures, are spreading to new parts of the globe, including the entire continental U.S.
‘My personal hope is that every viewer will be inspired to become part of the solution to reducing our carbon emissions,” says executive producer Laurie David. “As the film shows, everything we need to address this pressing problem already exists, and the time to act is now.’ ”
The advocacy that is obvious in this HBO show is that these problems are due to the increased radiative forcing of added anthropogenic CO2. As readers of this weblog know, the climate system, including the human influence, is much more complex than presented on the HBO show.
That one of the Editors of the CCSP Report also wrote the HBO special should be of concern regarding the objectivity of that Report. Ms. Hassol’s role as an advocate is clearly exemplified by her Nature correspondence in 1998 entitled “Clear need to act on global warming”.
Her role as advocate is, of course, appropriate, in other venues outside of the CCSP process. Her position at the Aspen Global Change Institute provides her with a platform to promote her views.
However, to serve as an Editor on the CCSP Report that was just published, with a documented active role in what text was to be included on the issue of ‘Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”, further compromised the Report. Since the goal was to provide policymakers with an objective understanding of this issue in climate science, her involvement with the CCSP Report is yet another example to show that the Report was intended to promote a particular, narrow perspective on the issue of recent surface and tropospheric temperature trends.
A reasonably balanced news item on the CCSP report from the BBC which highlights the problem of poor data, and Fred Singer has his say:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm
Comment by Paul Biggs — May 4, 2006 @ 1:58 am
[...] oncerns were being handled. For more on Dr. Pielke’s perspective, please visit his blog (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/05/02/ccsp-report-published/). [...]
Pingback by World Climate Report » Old News is Big News — May 4, 2006 @ 9:28 am
Roger, shame on you. I suspect you are well aware that Susan Hassol is a non-scientist who was hired for her professional writing skills, and did not exercise any degree of final editorial control. Was she in a position to *suggest* content? I’m sure she was. Did she have any binding control over the contents? Absolutely not. Kindly amend your post to make that distinction. If you don’t want to take my word for it, email Tom Karl and I’m sure he’ll be happy to set you straight.
Comment by Steve Bloom — May 4, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Steve-Please read the e-mails which involve Susan Hassol and Tom Karl in the Appendix to my Public Comment on the CCSP Report.
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf
I also have more. In the editorial pressure that contributed to my decision to resign from the Report in August, and which resulted in the scrapping of the version of Chapter 6 that I was the Convening Lead Author on, she had a significant role.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 4, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
Steve B., if “Susan Hassol is a non-scientist who was hired for her professional writing skills, and did not exercise any degree of final editorial control.”, you seem to imply that she shouldn’t be taken seriously -she’s just an editor. Why was she paid (let’s not even mention qualified) to edit an important scientific paper of potentially great financial burden to the US taxpayer? Her name appears as the second editor. Should all the editors be placed in the same category? ignore them all ? Seems only reasonable to ignore the report too! By the way, since you you post to many forums, could you enlighten us regarding your scientific qualifications to critique global climate change? -and Dr. Pielke? “Roger, shame on you.”
Comment by Frank H. Scammell — May 4, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
Roger, I read all the emails. Obviously you won’t be writing Tom Karl for clarification! Frankly, I don’t see any evidence that Susan Hassol played the role you impute to her. Although there’s no direct evidence for it in what you provided, I don’t doubt that she agreed with the chapter substitution. The question is whether she had any actual control over the decision, and the answer seems to be no. Do you have information to the contrary?
Comment by Steve Bloom — May 4, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
Frank-if your are requesting documentation of my credentials in climate science, please see http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 5, 2006 @ 5:39 am
Steve-I have additional substantive documentation on the role that Ms. Hassol had in the Report with respect to Chapter 6, that I resigned from. She clearly had an influential role. I chose to not include that documentation in the Public Comment that I prepared since the issue of her conflict was not evident at that time. When appropriate, I will make this documentation available.
To emphasize, however, she has every right to express her views, as given on the HBO Special, and at the Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI). She has coordinated several very valuable workshops at the AGCI, two of which I participated in. Nonetheless, by writing the text for the HBO Special, which is clearly an advocacy presentation, while at the same time having a significant role in the CCSP Report process, is a clear conflict.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 5, 2006 @ 5:51 am
May I?
I read Scammel’s words as he had written:” …could you enlighten us regarding your scientific qualifications to critique global climate change and Dr. Pielke, since you (Steve) wrote…?”
So, in this point of view, Scammel’s question is a question of mine, too.
Comment by Paolo M — May 5, 2006 @ 6:07 am
Dr. Pielke- Please except my apologies ! My sentence was unintentially ambiguous. I do not question your qualifications, only those of Steve B. (a clear cut advocate of GW being anthropogenic, and thus showing a strong personal bias). I applaud your rather incredible patience regarding some of the attacks/attackers you have encountered in this blog and in your professional life regarding what the provable science is. This blog is a gold mine of valuable information. Please keep up the great work.
Comment by Frank H. Scammell — May 5, 2006 @ 8:45 am
Frank - Thank you for your comment!
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 5, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Roger, it’s only a conflict of interest if she had authority over the contents. Saying that she had an “influentiual role” is skating around the issue.
Comment by Steve Bloom — May 5, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Steve-when I release the additional information, perhaps then you will have enough information to convince you. I will do this at an appropriate time.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 5, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
Roger, you say “significant role.” Sure, but did that role involve actual decision-making authority over the contents of the report? My impression is not. It’s misleading to imply that she is somehow on anything like the same level of authority as, e.g., Tom Karl.
Comment by Steve Bloom — May 5, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
Sorry for the partially duplicative comments. It’s been a busy afternoon.
Comment by Steve Bloom — May 5, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
Steve-
Thanks for your further follow up.
With regard to your question, Ms. Hassol was not at the same level of authority as the Lead Editor of the Report. She did significantly involve herself in the issue of Chapter 6, however, beyond technical editing.
With respect to such reports, using my son’s terminology, policymakers need “honest brokers”, not “advocates”. In the CCSP Report that was just released, there were quite few advocates, unfortunately, which compromised the objectivity in the Report, and resulted in the exclusion of the diversity of peer reviewed research on the issue of recent surface and tropospheric temperature change.
I have a challenge for you on this subject. Please let me know what you disagree with in the science issues that I present in my Public Comment or inform me where another CCSP Report will address the issues that I raised.
Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. — May 5, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Steve -
Correct me if I am wrong, but have you not implied that certain skeptics should not be taken seriously because they have been ‘influenced’ by oil corporations?
How is it that a skeptical scientist can be so easily dismissed because he has been alledgedly influenced by an executive with an agenda, but CCSP authors must be considered ‘unaffected’ even when collaborating with a contributing editor with an agenda, until proven otherwise?
I don’t recall you ever demanding proof that an oil exec had ‘authority over the contents’ of a skeptical scientists work before making implications.
The standard for avoiding conflicts of interest should be higher in government funded work than in the private sector, not he other way around!
Comment by Jim Clarke — May 5, 2006 @ 5:42 pm