it takes a critic to handle the critics -- ross mckitrick
DESCRIPTION
An article about Ross McKitrick and his debunking of the hockey stick model of climate change.TRANSCRIPT
-
ITTAKESA I
TO I Economist ROSS MCKITRICK talks about why he ' dE
-
) HANDLE THE CRITICS he debunked the "HOCKEY STICK" graph
BY LORI BONA HUNT PHOTOS BY ROSS DAVIDSON-PILON
U 0 f G economics pro-fessor Ross McKitrick did not set out to be
the poster child for " the other side" of the
climate change debate. In fact, his initial
interest in the subj ect was casual.
A doctoral student at the Universi ty of
British Columbia in the 1990s, he was
studying an empirical tool called computable
general equilibriwn modelling - a technique
that uses actual economic data to estimate
how an economy might react to changes in
policy, technology or other external factors.
" I needed a topic to apply it to," he
explains.
"People were just starting to talk about
carbon tax and climate policy, and I was inter-
ested in environm.ental policy as a fi eld to
teach, so I picked climate change. That is how it got started."
" It" would be a nearly 20- year career
devoted to researching the economics of cli-
mate change and environmental policy, espe-
cially the models and statistical techniqu es
used to make dir redictions.And almost froni the start cKitrick 's ~esear ,h and namb have b en linked with contr versy.
He's know internationally for his s~eptical views of any aspects of the climare issue
everyt ng from rising temperatures to tHe
ben ts of green energy. I e's challenged high-pr6file ~erzlts and
/:
OliCies, including questionint~idence
/
~;~:;!:~:~~~:~;e~:~ u~ta~et~~: (!PCC) to justifY the Kyo Protocol.
/ McKitrick's controversial 2005 study
//I found fundamental laws in the so-called
"hockey stick" model of global warming,
which was ea by IPCC to argue that the 19905 were the warmest decade of the mil-
lennium. The analysis he conducted with
Canadian mineralogist and analyst Steven
McIntyre sent the world of climate change
science into a tailspin. Everything McKitrick
has written since has been heavily scruti-
nized, analyzed and challenged.
Then there was the study published last
spring that found global warming has been on hiatus for nearly 20 years. McKitri ck 's
research shows that model projections of a
globa l warming emergency have been
greatly exaggerated.
His critics continue to disagree - vehe-
mently and loudly - but he has grown to
expect that response and even to accept it.
Climate change is a contentious issue, he
says. " It 's extremely complicated and every-
thing that makes it complex is important."
Early in his career, McKitrick co-wrote
Taken by Stonn: 771e Troubled Science, Polic), and
Politics of Global Warming with Christopher
Essex, Wester n University. The book was
rUlmer-up for the 2002-2003 DOllller Prize.
AU ofG faculty member since 1996,
M cKitrick is also a senior fellow of Canada's
Fraser Institute. The independent public pol-
icy organization has released some of his lat-
est rese h,lncluding a study of Ontario's "'-
Gre Energy Act (.~). In that study, he 10 ked at the cost to
axpayers of wind an solar power ($20
billion and countiji, he says) and the
resulting skyrocke~.ing energy prices . His
report says more conventional pollution
control methods would have yielded the
same environmental benefits as the GEA, /
but at a tenth of the cost.
But 'it's his " hockey stick" research that
has reclaimed attention south of the border.
The American professor who wrote the
/ original study containing the hockey stick
graph continues to pursue defamation law-
suits against critics in the United States.
M cKitrick, while not part of the legal
actions, is getting queries from lawyers,jour-
nalists and academics.
The Portico sat down with McKitrick to
talk about his work and about coping with
controversy.
How would you describe your
research to someone you just met?
I study the economics of environmental
policy and the use of econometric methods
in climatology, including data quality evalu-
ation and model tes ting. When evaluating
environmental data, the answers that people
get depend heavily on subtle differences in
the techniques they are using. What looks like
an obscure change in the statistical method-
ology can lead to different conclusions on a
topic that is feeding directly into debates'
about legislation . So you cannot avoid the
complexities, even if you think you are just
going to work on some policy issue.
When did you first realize that your work was going to be controversial?
I knew pretty much from the beginning.
When I started, there were not many econ-
onlists writing about climate change, let alone
critical pieces related to the Kyoto Protocol.
Plus, when you go into som eone else's field,
you inunediately provoke a reaction. It 's also
a field where there is a very large activist
community, a huge environmental movement
that is heavily invested in a certain narrative.
So it didn't come as a surprise to me that, if
I was going to challenge that narrative, there
was going to be a lot of controversy. '
You are an economist, not a scien-
tist. Is that problematic in this field? Physical scientists have areas of expertise
that allow them to do a lot of data collection
and know what it is that they should be mea-
suring. Where I found an entry point was
when I started looking at what they were
doing with that data - at the statistical tech-
niques. Half of my publications in the past
decade have been in physical science journals.
You talk about challenging the
"doctrine of certainty" around climate
change. What d~ you mean?
Winter 2015 17
-
In fields where yo~ have incredibly com-
pli cated problem s, in most applications no
one would think to declare that they've got
the whole thing fi gured out. Yet in climate
modelling, the messaging is that the models
are accurate, that we can make these predic-
tions and we've got the theory all figured out.
O n the policy side, there is a background
to this narrative, which is: " the issue of cli-
mate change is settled, we know it's a big
hazard and we know that we have to ac t -
and we have to act now." So this idea, th e
doctrine of certainty, is used to shut down
debate before the debate even starts - to say
"why would we even question this?"
But on all of these topics that are
supposedly settled, w hen we look
U1idern eath the surface, we find th at
things are not settled and the things that
make them unsettled actually matter. It
might be a difficult debate, but it's one
that we actually need to have.
How do you respond to claims
that you are denying climate
change?
I publish heavily in the field , so I have to read and study it. Far from deny-
ing the science, I actually understand it
pretty well. The irony is that in our
hockey stick work we were arguing
against a study that we felt suppressed
evidence of climate change. In that case
it was historical variability present in the
underlying data that was downplayed in
the final graph, making modern trends
look larger by comparison .
I've also published studies showing
that climate models are diverging signi.fi cant-
Iy from observations, with a tendency to over-
state modern warming.You can read my arti-
cles about these issues at rossmckitrick.com.
That's not "denying climate change:' it's a ques-
tion of evaluating the tools we use to study it.
At tlus point the models and data are not say-
ing the sam e thing, so you have to choose
wluch to believe. I primarily believe the data.
What is the No.1 thing that people
misunderstand about your research?
When people are attempting to margin-
alize you from a debate, they paint you as
refusing to take th e issue seriously; so that
would be th e main misunderstanding. O f
co urse I ta ke the issue seriously, w hi ch is
18 TH E P ORTI CO
why I devoted so many years to studying it,
to working on it. W hat I don't always take
seriously is the alarmist rhetoric that peo-
ple use to try to get attention.
What else?
People often claim or assume that my
research is funded by the oil industry, which
has never been true. The fa lse claim carries
with it an implied attack on your in tegrity.
Any contrary opinions I formed over the
years came about beca use of studying the
data. What I say is based on the research I
publish and th e co nclusions that I form
based on the research.
U of G is known as an environmen-
talist institution. Have you found it dif-
ficult to work here, given the positions
that you tend to take on climate change?
Well, sometimes I feel like the diversity
candidate Oaughs). But, actually, I have fOUl1d
U of G to be extremely hospitable.Yes, there
are a lot of people who see tllemselves as part
of a progressive, green culture, and Guelph
as a progressive, green city.At the same time,
this is a curiosity-driven institution. If you
are expressing views that are based on
research that you've done carefu.lly and pub-
lished in legitimate j ournals, then whether
people like your conclusions or not doesn't
really figure in to how they react to yo ur
work.You're contributing to the fundamental
mission of the college and the University,
which is to do research on important topics
and engage in current debates .
What is the most frustrating p art of
your research?
My work overlapped with the rise of the
In tern et and social media, so suddenly it
became really hard to get away from the
rhetoric. As long as you have a phone or a
laptop, it is going to be in your face. Thirty
years ago, if you did or said somerhing con-troversial, th e next day there would be
peopl e ta lkin g around the \Yater cooler or
so m ew here, and someone might say
something disparaging or nasry ~bout
yo u, but they would be saying it to a
small gro up of people. O\Y they are
going to say it on Twitter and in blogs
and spread it everywhere. You have to
remind yourself that it's still the same
inconsequential , tossed-off opinion; ir
j ust happens to be broadcast widely.
It seems your latest research on
the climate change hiatus has been
received more favourably. What
has changed?
In tl1e case of the hockey stick graph,
we were criticizing a position that IPCC
had rea.lly staked its reputation on. But
in its last report, IPCC included a clear
acknowledgment that the hiatus in glob-
al warming is happening, tim the mod-
els and observations are bas ica Ll y on a
c1i fferent page at tills point. So this time
I am arti culating information that is
actually in an [PCC report but just not wide-
ly recognized, which is a big difference.
You play the Scottish smallpipes and
pennywhistle in a band, The Wild Oats. You 've released a couple of CDs to
raise money for charity and now you're
producing independent local artists.
How did this evolve?
It started as a hobby and ju t grew. I
found it rea lly fun to perform and later to
produce music and build up a record label.
Celtic music is a velY social tradition. A key part is listening to what others around you
are doing and playing in a group. Ir's relax-
ing; it 's sociable and a great \ya\ to put the
work week behind you .