Journalistic standards

This article relates to another written by Nafeez, Nasa-funded study: Industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

Did Nasa fund 'civilisation 

collapse' study, or not?

Journalistic standards won't be upheld by attempting to discredit science we don't like

Nafeez Ahmed

the Guardian

21 March, 2014

Environmental journalism's watchdog strikes

Blogger Keith Kloor, who writes for Discover magazine, claims that my article on a Nasa-funded study modelling civilisational collapse scenarios is so inaccurate that it constitutes "a sad commentary on journalism today." The actual study, he claims, had no connection to Nasa whatsoever. Rather, I "disingenously hyped" the paper "as being 'Nasa-sponsored'", when in fact, it simply wasn't.

Thus, the story which I "thought of as a big scoop", scoffs Kloor, "wouldn't pass Journalism 101."

Kloor then goes on to take, essentially, the entire "herd-like media coverage" of the story to task for repeating the story in a "similarly sensationalist" fashion. The upshot is that Keith Kloor is the man to trust when it comes to environmental journalism, the veritable watchdog of the industry.

Sadly, Kloor's sloppiness - driven by his hostility toward what he calls 'misguided eco-doomers' (which apparently includes anyone who says that business-as-usual could have disastrous consequences for the environment) - causes him to produce a highly skewed response.

The Nasa deception that wasn't

At first glance, Kloor's evidence for insinuating that the study led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei had no connection to Nasa seems clear-cut. He cites an official statement put out earlier today by the space agency saying that the study "was not solicited, directed or reviewed by Nasa. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate Nasa activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. Nasa does not endorse the paper or its conclusions."

Clear-cut? Perhaps not.

Nasa's funding for the very research behind the study is explicitly acknowledged in the paper, which is now available online here (p. 23):

"This work was partially funded through NASA/GSFC [Goddard Space Flight Center] grant NNX12AD03A."

And the US National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (Sesync) where the lead author carried out his research for the project issued an official clarification about the study yesterday as follows, confirming the same:

"Motesharrei received minor support from NASA to develop a coupled earth system model. Some of this funding was spent on the mathematical development of the HANDY model."

Indeed, the authors of the paper fully agreed with the accuracy of my characterisation of the study as being "Nasa-funded" or "sponsored." It comes down to a simple question really. Was the HANDY model funded by NASA? The answer is yes, even if the conclusions of the study do not represent the views of the space agency.

So who is being "deceptive" here, to use Kloor's word?

To be fair, much of the media reporting following my story blurred simple nuances even further. "Nasa-funded study" became "Nasa study"; a mathematical model exploring a range of hypothetical scenarios was depicted as stating unequivocally that "society is doomed", "the end is nigh", and "western civilisation is heading for collapse."

But pretending that the Human and Nature DYnamical (HANDY) model was not funded by a Nasa grant to the lead author is hardly honest.

The 'collapse' that wasn't?

Kloor then follows up with a further post attempting to dissect the actual study. Now this section I don't have a particular problem with as such - nothing wrong with disagreeing with a study on the basis of reasonable contrary evidence.

The problem is that after making a big hullabaloo about my presentation of the arguments and findings of the study 'as is', Kloor proceeds to harness as many experts as he can to rubbish the study. Curiously, he can find not a single scientist or scholar who found the study useful, worthwhile, or bearing some validity worth further research.

He quotes, for instance, leading collapse anthropologist Prof Joseph Tainter, who critiques the HANDY model for a "flawed" understanding of the rise and fall of civilisations due to unsustainable levels of complexity. Some of Tainter's criticisms may well be correct - but Tainter is not always right.

Tainter's model of the collapse process of past civilisations in his landmark book, The Collapse of Complex Societies, is contradicted by the historical record on many of his own examples (a matter I've discussed more extensively elsewhere).

The process of collapse, he says, occurs on a timescale of "no more than a few decades," when the complex structures created to deal with increasing problems generated by growing complexity begin to crumble under their own weight (p. 4).

But this is incorrect. The collapse of the Western Roman empire, for instance - one of Tainter's prime examples - did not occur over decades through a single protracted collapse-process, but rather consisted of a series of crises over a period of centuries. Each crisis led to loss of social complexity and the establishment of temporary stability at a less complex level. Each such level then proved to be unsustainable in turn, and was followed by a further crisis and loss of complexity. The first major breakdown in the Roman imperial system came in 166 CE, and further crises followed until the Western empire ceased to exist in 476 CE. Collapse processes simply aren't as fast as Tainter thinks, and do not occur simply due to the dynamics of the resource issues surrounding his concept of 'complexity.' This doesn't mean Tainter is entirely wrong, just that his theorisation of what makes collapses take place, whether over shorter of longer periods of time, is open to question.

For instance, another anthropologist and complex society expert, Prof Adam T. Smith of Cornell University, said that the HANDY model's central thesis - that a collapse of industrial civilisation due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasing economic inequality - is perfectly plausible:

"The archaeological record is quite unambiguous: every prior society in every part of the world has ultimately been eclipsed. Human communities are kinds of machines – machines for social life – and just like any machine they fall apart and are discarded. However, civilisational collapse is actually quite rare.

Civilisational collapse typically involves the disappearance of entire ways of life, systems of thought, cultural values and worldviews. These generally do not disappear due to convulsive periods of collapse but rather fade over time as alternative systems of belief take their place.

However, although civilisational collapse is rare, political collapse is constant. Kingdoms, principalities, republics and states come and go and typically their downfall is violent and convulsive. The warnings in the recent study should carry significant warnings to current global political leaders: address the threats posed by climate change and economic inequality or face the rapid undoing of the current political order. The archaeological record suggests that while civilization will likely endure, politics as we know it, odds are, will not."

Number games

What about the HANDY model itself? Is it too simplistic? Kloor's modelling expert turns out to be an obscure student in Mathematical Ecology specialising in the modelling of Plankton, who pooh-poohs the study as oversimplistic as it has only four equations. But neither Kloor nor the student understand what they're talking about.

An academic conference paper on the HANDY model by a cross-disciplinary team of natural and social scientists led by Dr Rodrigo Castro of the Department of Environmental Systems Science at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, delivered earlier this month, explains in detail why the HANDY model is so useful:

"It is our predicament that we live in a finite world, and yet we behave as if it were infinite. Steady exponential material growth with no limits on resource consumption and population is the dominant conceptual model used by today's decision makers. This is an approximation of reality that is no longer accurate and started to break down. The World3 model, originally developed in the 1970s [aka the 'Limits to Growth' project which despite Kloor's dismissals has turned out quite accurate according to American Scientist], includes many rather detailed aspects of human society and its interaction with a resource limited planet. However, World3 is a rather complex model. Therefore it is valuable for pedagogical reasons to show how similar behavior can be also realized with models that are much simpler. This paper presents a series of world models, starting with very simple exponential growth and predator-prey systems, then investigates a minimal human-nature model, Handy, and ends with a brief account of the World3 model. For the first time, a simple human-nature interaction model is made available in Modelica that distinguishes between dynamics of Elite and Commoner social groups. It is shown that Handy can reproduce rather complex behavior with a very simple model structure, as compared to that of world models like World3."

The HANDY model's utility, in other words, is precisely its ability to reproduce complex behaviour despite a simple model structure. Its most unique feature is described as follows:

"An interesting feature of Handy is that it introduces the accumulation of economic wealth, and divides the human population into rich and poor according to their unequal access to available wealth...

Social inequality is not only explicitly considered but also plays a key role in the sustainability analyses of the model. This makes Handy the first model of its kind that studies the impacts of inequality on the fate of societies, a capability seldom found even in complex world models.

Handy establishes a useful general framework that allows carrying out 'thought experiments' about societal collapse scenarios and the changes that might avoid them.

The model is a very strong simplification of the human-nature system, which results in many limitations. Despite its simplicity, such a model is easy to understand and offers a more intuitive grasp of underlying dynamical phenomena compared to more complex and less aggregated models."

But, of course, a biased observer who has never really understood these other modelling efforts would never be capable of grasping this. It is precisely this unique feature which enabled the HANDY model to depart from the work of Tainter to explore the potential instabilities of the rampant inequality in today's global economy.

It's not particularly surprising that Kloor seeks to misrepresent the Nasa-funded study in this way. In 2011, Kloor said that the following comment from a climate denier "concisely expressed" his thinking on climate change:

"I categorise myself as somebody who recognises that additional CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of man's activities (fossil fuel burning and land use change) will have an effect on the balance of radiation coming into and leaving our atmosphere.

I do not have a confirmed view as to exactly what the impact of the CO2 will have (feedbacks etc being uncertain) but I know that it must have an effect – that's physics."

CO2 "must have an effect", but "exactly what" I can't say. Closet climate denial? 

You decide.

The Kloor effect

Kloor has also had curious run-ins with other journalists. Joe Romm, the physicist and founding editor of the renowned Climate Progress blog, didn't have much great to say about Kloor's brand of journalism - which Romm, rightly or wrongly, characterised as "trash." Harsh? For one thing, Kloor is a leading cheerleader for genetically modified (GM) foods, and routinely argues that the science on GM is firmly settled in its favour (while systematically ignoring credible scientists who disagree).

Kloor's concerns, it would seem, are less motivated by upholding journalistic standards, than muddying them to promote his happy vision of a world without 'eco-doom.' Hence his reasons for characterising me as a "doomsday prophet" in a post last year.

Sadly, Kloor's journalistic rigour somehow failed to involve bothering to read either my book or my numerous observations over the years on the grounds for long-term optimism.

Unfortunately for Kloor, a world without his dreaded 'eco doom' is unlikely to transpire without the sort of change of course that he finds so unpalatable.

I close with the conclusions of Dr Rodrigo Castro's paper on the HANDY model:

"Although models presented in this paper are from different classes (minimal Handy vs. more complex, realistic world model, World3), their conclusions are similar. In the long run, not so far into the future, humanity must change to living sustainably on planet Earth. This change can occur either as a planned gradual transition, preserving well-functioning societies, or as a more disruptive, unplanned transition resulting in a less pleasant society with a reduced ecological capacity."

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed