Magazine | June 12, 2017, Issue

Letters

What Counts as Climate Consensus?

Oren Cass’s article “Who’s the Denier Now?” (May 1) condemns the misuse of scientific data in climate-change policy debates, but to support his position Cass misrepresents the findings in our survey of economists and cherry-picks survey data to suggest that “economists hold widely varying views” on the costs of climate change. In fact, we found a high level of consensus on the same survey questions Cass discusses: Only 6 percent thought that more research was needed before action should be taken on climate change or that it is not a serious problem; 89 percent thought that climate change will be a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem for the U.S. if it is not addressed; and 89 percent thought that climate impacts will have a net negative effect on the global economy by 2050. Seventy-eight percent of the economists expect climate change to reduce the growth rate of the global economy, and 77 percent think the U.S. should commit to reducing emissions regardless of other countries’ actions.

As Cass notes, uncertainty is inherent in estimating climate impacts. But while damages might end up being less serious than anticipated, they also might be more severe.

Among the world’s foremost economists with expertise on these issues, there is consensus that climate change poses a major risk to our economy and should be addressed.

Derek Sylvan & Peter Howard

New York University

Oren Cass responds: It is difficult to “mispresent” a study by providing direct quotations from the relevant results. I took statements tested by Sylvan & Howard (S&H) that approximated overstated claims of “consensus” and then provided readers with the exact survey language and the percentage of economists agreeing with each.

For instance, I quoted Senator Bernie Sanders asserting a 97 percent consensus among scientists that climate change “is already causing devastating problems around the world” and explained that surveys of scientists do not even ask this, while economists hold widely varying views. S&H report that 41 percent say that “climate change is already having a negative effect on the global economy.”

S&H’s claim of consensus requires them to combine disparate answers. For instance, they describe an 89 percent “consensus” from adding together the responses that the negative economic effect of climate change has already begun (41 percent), will begin by 2025 (22 percent), or will begin by 2050 (26 percent). This is like asking people whether they prefer apples, bananas, oranges, or pears and then reporting a 90 percent “consensus” for “apples, bananas, or oranges.”

Presumably, they designed their survey specifically to distinguish between economists who believe a negative economic effect has begun, will begin soon, or will not begin for decades because they recognized that those are meaningfully distinct answers representing different views. They cannot trumpet the subsequent diversity of responses as consensus by recombining the categories into “now or soon or later.”

NR Editors — NR Editors includes members of the editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.

In This Issue

Articles

Features

Books, Arts & Manners

Sections

Letters

Letters

What Counts as Climate Consensus? Oren Cass’s article “Who’s the Denier Now?” (May 1) condemns the misuse of scientific data in climate-change policy debates, but to support his position Cass misrepresents ...
The Week

The Week

‐ Hostile congressmen vow to use any means available to block Trump’s outrageous budget plan. And the Democrats are pretty mad too. ‐ North Korea tested two missiles in a week, ...
Athwart

Foodie Feud

People of Portland: The Council of Making Every Damned Thing a Problem has come up with a list of restaurants to hate.
Poetry

Poetry

LAST BLOOMS A vantage point for any pot Of small, bronzed marigold Is next to a bare, molting tree, Where several pale green stems uphold Odd milkweed pods that fill the spot – They’re edible, I’m ...

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Strzok by a Farce

An investigation is one of two things: a search for the truth, or a farce. The House is conducting a farce. That fact was on full display during ten hours of testimony by Peter Strzok, the logorrheic lawman who steered the FBI’s Clinton-emails and Trump–Russia probes. The principal question before the ... Read More
World

EuroTrip

Dear Reader (Especially everyone who got ripped off ordering that giant blimp online), Imagine an alien race that built its civilization on the fact it literally defecated highly refined uranium, or super-intelligent and obedient nano-bots, or simply extremely useful Swiss Army knives. Now imagine one of ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Rise of the Abortion Cheerleaders

Is abortion a sad and unfortunate reality — regrettable, as we are sometimes told, but often necessary — or is it a breezy nothingburger, completely “normal,” and something to be giddily celebrated like a last-minute NFL touchdown?  For a long time, the abortion lobby has had difficulty deciding. This ... Read More
Film & TV

Stalin at the Movies

Toward the end of The Death of Stalin, two Communist Party bosses size up Joseph Stalin’s immediate successor, Georgy Malenkov. “Can we trust him?” one asks. “Can you ever really trust a weak man?” his comrade answers. Good question. Last week brought the news that the head of Shambhala ... Read More
World

‘The Warning Lights Are Blinking Red Again’

One of President Trump’s outstanding appointments has been Dan Coats, his director of national intelligence. Coats is a former House member, former senator, and former ambassador to Germany. He is a Hoosier (i.e., from Indiana). Whether he plays basketball, I don’t know. At Wheaton College, he played soccer. ... Read More