In their NYTimes article, Material Shows Weakening Of Climate Change Reports, Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. Wald reported on recently released House committee (Oversight and Government Reform) documents that indicated that a White House official edited goverment climate reports to play up uncertainty of the human role in global warming. The key word here is “uncertainty,” and I want to show how one of the values underlying science is being used to undermine scientific thinking, and sway the public against the “near certainty” of sea level rise, shrinkage of the ice caps, thawing of permafrost, all caused by global warming.

I also want to link this to science teaching, and how the teaching of science might contribute to the problem.

How certain is scientific knowledge? I came across a very powerful statement by Joe Katzman in his blog in which he was discussing uncertainty as a value in science. He said and I quote, “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty – some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.”

Uncertainty in science is relativistic. Or we might say that scientific knowledge is relativistic. Scientific knowledge is embodied in theories that scientists develop to explain natural phenomena, and as such the door is always ajar to seek further answers to questions unknown. It is a fundamental value in science to have a degree of uncertainty in our understanding of nature. But that does not mean that a theory is wishy-washy, or lacks precision. Not at all.

One question to raise here, does secondary school science teaching reflect these principles, and are students helped to develop these ideas about uncertainty and theory? The short answer is probably not. This is not to say that science teachers do not involve their students in research and investigation, but it is to say that very few students are exposed to this kind of thinking, and many if not most of the courses that are taught use a direct or didactic method of teaching, rather than an inquiry approach.

Now, to the issue at hand.

Government officials (at the White House and at NASA), however, or as it seems have zeroed in on the word uncertainty and used it to cast doubt on scientific knowledge, at least as it relates to global warming. Two individuals in particular, according to Revkin and Wald’s article are responsible for making hundreds of editing changes on scientific papers on climate change, and in one case, telling scientists they should watch what they say about climate change.

The House committee held hearings to find out whether the nonpartisan work of climate change scientists was distorted by political interference from the Bush Administration. The chair of the Committee in his opening remarks, said “some of the information the Committee has already obtained is disturbing. It suggests there may have been a concerted effort directed by the White House to mislead the public about the dangers of global climate change.

He went on to say “The White House appointed an oil industry lobbyist – not a scientist or climate change expert – as chief of staff at the Council on Environmental Quality. We will hear from that former lobbyist, Phil Cooney, today. The documents we have received indicate he was able to exert tremendous influence on the direction of federal climate change policy and science. One of the key responsibilities given to Mr. Cooney and his staff at CEQ was the review of government publications about climate change. Mr. Cooney and his staff made hundreds of
separate edits to the govemment’s “strategic plan” for climate change research. These changes injected doubt in place of certainty, minimized the dangers of climate change, and diminished the human role in causing the planet to warm. Other key government reports – including an EPA report on the environment and an annual report to Congress on the changing planet – were subject to similar edits and distortions.

Then he went to add, “Another facet of the White House campaign involved controlling what federal scientists could say to the public and the media about their work. NASA scientist James Hansen is one of the nation’s most esteemed experts on climate change. George Deutsch is a young and inexperienced former NASA public affairs officer who was tasked with managing the public statements of Dr. Hansen and other NASA scientists.”

….more on this to follow.