"We're Not Commenting on Science, But..."
An SEC commissioner misrepresented climate science in public comments last week about the agency's new climate change risk guidance, which passed by a 3-2 vote. The measure was put forward to bring greater consistency to companies' risk disclosures about new legislation,regulations, treaties, and physical changes from global warming. [The SEC released the actual guidance [pdf] last night but I haven't had time to read it yet.]
The Commission took no official position on climate science. But Commissioner Kathleen Casey, who voted against measure, commented on science briefly before declining to comment on it. She said, in part, "The science surrounding global warming remains far from settled."
The last few months have brought a string of stories that make climate science seem far from settled. First, the tranche of 1,000e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia displayed cattiness and clique-iness on the part of some top climate scientists, and may result in greater openness in temperature data analysis and peer-reviewed journal practices. Investigations are ongoing into the matter. For now, nothing in the e-mails appears to have had much effect on our understanding of global change. Second, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change apologized for saying in its 2007 report, which runs to about 3,000 pages, that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035.Thankfully, the picture is more complicated. Finally, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri is fighting for his post, after the Himalayan error and revelations of questionable business relationships have raised conflict-of-interest questions. Science isn't an orthodoxy, ideology,or belief system. If something's wrong or missing, you acknowledge it and move on.
These three issues have had greater resonance politically than scientifically. That's because climate science is quite robust. We understand the world is warming. The 00's were the hottest decade on record, followed by the 90s and then the 80s. We understand that theCO2 increase comes mostly from human activity, that its atmospheric volume is higher than at any point in more than a million years, and that trapping more energy in the system melts ice, raises sea level,and gradually shifts the long-term patterns of weather that we call "climate." Imagine our knowledge as a tree. Even after some broken branches and a mussing in the wind, it's still sturdy.
Climatologists are not shy about what they don't know. And the things they have the most questions about tend not to be the issues that climate deniers attack. Regional climate projections are still difficult. Scientists would like to better understand how changes may affect the precipitation that refills watersheds. The cooling effects of aerosols are still a problem, and tree-ring studies of temperature for the last 1,000 years have been controversial for several years. The journal Nature recently picked out these four areas as "the real holes in climate science."
In science, there is philosophically no such thing as "settled,"but given the things that pass for settled in political speech ("Mr.President, it's a slam dunk"), it's not exactly a stretch to say that the manmade causes of global warming are accepted with confidence, and have been for a decade and a half. They are "robust," "compelling," and solely for the sake of political shorthand, "settled."
When it comes to disclosing material risks from physical change,businesses may have to understand the very things that scientists also want to know with greater confidence, like regional impacts. In her not-commenting-on-climate science, Casey could have made the case for voting down the measure rhetorically stronger by acknowledging what climate science is and is not telling us.
Casey could have asked that the executive branch gin up a National Climate Service, to bring practical information into the economy,before the SEC considers climate risk guidance. She could have said the regional impacts are too uncertain to predict. "The Commission takes no position on climate science," Casey could have said, "but clearly we are confronted with the concerning long-term risk of catastrophic change. I regret that we don't know enough about these localized physical risks to require further disclosure guidance at this time. The SEC has more pressing matters. Unfortunately, our institutions of governance are not equipped to cope with this problem."
The Commission took no official position on climate science. But Commissioner Kathleen Casey, who voted against measure, commented on science briefly before declining to comment on it. She said, in part, "The science surrounding global warming remains far from settled."
The last few months have brought a string of stories that make climate science seem far from settled. First, the tranche of 1,000e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia displayed cattiness and clique-iness on the part of some top climate scientists, and may result in greater openness in temperature data analysis and peer-reviewed journal practices. Investigations are ongoing into the matter. For now, nothing in the e-mails appears to have had much effect on our understanding of global change. Second, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change apologized for saying in its 2007 report, which runs to about 3,000 pages, that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035.Thankfully, the picture is more complicated. Finally, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri is fighting for his post, after the Himalayan error and revelations of questionable business relationships have raised conflict-of-interest questions. Science isn't an orthodoxy, ideology,or belief system. If something's wrong or missing, you acknowledge it and move on.
These three issues have had greater resonance politically than scientifically. That's because climate science is quite robust. We understand the world is warming. The 00's were the hottest decade on record, followed by the 90s and then the 80s. We understand that theCO2 increase comes mostly from human activity, that its atmospheric volume is higher than at any point in more than a million years, and that trapping more energy in the system melts ice, raises sea level,and gradually shifts the long-term patterns of weather that we call "climate." Imagine our knowledge as a tree. Even after some broken branches and a mussing in the wind, it's still sturdy.
Climatologists are not shy about what they don't know. And the things they have the most questions about tend not to be the issues that climate deniers attack. Regional climate projections are still difficult. Scientists would like to better understand how changes may affect the precipitation that refills watersheds. The cooling effects of aerosols are still a problem, and tree-ring studies of temperature for the last 1,000 years have been controversial for several years. The journal Nature recently picked out these four areas as "the real holes in climate science."
In science, there is philosophically no such thing as "settled,"but given the things that pass for settled in political speech ("Mr.President, it's a slam dunk"), it's not exactly a stretch to say that the manmade causes of global warming are accepted with confidence, and have been for a decade and a half. They are "robust," "compelling," and solely for the sake of political shorthand, "settled."
When it comes to disclosing material risks from physical change,businesses may have to understand the very things that scientists also want to know with greater confidence, like regional impacts. In her not-commenting-on-climate science, Casey could have made the case for voting down the measure rhetorically stronger by acknowledging what climate science is and is not telling us.
Casey could have asked that the executive branch gin up a National Climate Service, to bring practical information into the economy,before the SEC considers climate risk guidance. She could have said the regional impacts are too uncertain to predict. "The Commission takes no position on climate science," Casey could have said, "but clearly we are confronted with the concerning long-term risk of catastrophic change. I regret that we don't know enough about these localized physical risks to require further disclosure guidance at this time. The SEC has more pressing matters. Unfortunately, our institutions of governance are not equipped to cope with this problem."
Posted by Eric Roston at 2/3/2010 5:12 PM 
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: SEC climate kathleen casey guidance
Categories: uncategorized
Tags: SEC climate kathleen casey guidance
Eric,
I just got back from a year in Iraq. Great to see you still posting. I got back to America just in time to see the TEA Party movement have its first convention, bringing together deniers of Climate Change like Steve Milloy, who led the tobacco industry effort to deny the link between cancer and smoking, and anti-intellectual, anti-science people from all over the country. I hope you are doing well.
Neil
Reply to this