NASA: Earth Is Losing Half A Trillion Tons Of Ice A Year

[joshcryer]

5. Scientific reticence and sea level rise

Published 24 May 2007

Abstract. I suggest that a `scientific reticence' is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.

Scientific reticence may be a consequence of the scientific method. Success in science depends on objective skepticism. Caution, if not reticence, has its merits. However, in a case such as ice sheet instability and sea level rise, there is a danger in excessive caution. We may rue reticence, if it serves to lock in future disasters.

Barber (1961) describes a `resistance by scientists to scientific discovery', with a scholarly discussion of several sources of cultural resistance. There are aspects of the phenomenon that Barber discusses in the `scientific reticence' that I describe, but additional factors come into play in the case of global climate change and sea level rise.

Another relevant discussion is that of `behavioral discounting' (Hariri et al 2006), also called `delay discounting' (Axtell and McRae 2006). Concern about the danger of `crying wolf' is more immediate than concern about the danger of `fiddling while Rome burns'. It is argued in the referenced discussions that there is a preference for immediate over delayed rewards, which may contribute to irrational reticence even among rational scientists.

I wear my alarmist designation proudly.