church, when asked what barriers they experience to being better stewards, parishioners expressed frustration that environmental problems are driven by media hype. They were concerned that they were unable to discern hype from truth. Here Ill describe how you can read the landscape of an environmental claim without necessarily understanding the science. I will use global warming as an example and compare it to other contentious environmental issues from the recent past. This article will be limited to how you can know what most scientists think, even when one side claims general consensus and the other claims dissension. I will also provide some general advice on understanding science in the media. READING THE LANDSCAPE In my observation, most scientists are convinced that A) global climate change is real B) that it is at least signicantly human-caused, C) that it will result in signicant negative consequences for much of the globe. However, some people in the scientic community are still skeptical of global warming. The names of these science skeptics come up repeatedly on the Internet and in the media. In spite of these dissenters, you can understand the general opinion of scientists by listening to premier scientic groups, reading key documents by professional and scientic groups, and considering the trajectory of the discussion. PREMIER SCIENTIFIC GROUPS The evidence for global warming is best summarized in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001a,b,c,d, 2007). The IPCC represents the research of thousands of scientists around the world. They concluded that other, natural factors like solar cycles, volcanoes, and changes in the earths orbit do affect climate, but are not likely to fully account for the variability we are currently seeing. In the United States, The National Academy of Sciences represents the top scientists in the country. In the last 15 years the NAS has had panels of experts (called National Research Council panels) produce at least fteen reports on global climate change, many trying to solve some of the scientic questions raised by climate skeptics, and to reconcile different analyses of scientic data in order to detect a trend or anticipate the results of climate change. In the earliest studies, the NAS/NRC reports (NAS 1975) concluded that we did not know enough to conclude anything. Later reports have revised our certainty upward as climate models have gotten better and as we have gotten more data. Now, in spite of some limited dissension, the majority of these top scientists believe that the evidence for human-induced climate change is compelling. The conclusions of these top scientists are that global warming is real and that a signicant amount of it is human-caused (NAS 2001a). National Research Council Reports are available on the web and are written for an educated layperson, not a scientist in a particular eld. KEY DOCUMENTS On June 7, 2005, The National Academies of eleven countries (the G8 countries as well as Brazil, China, and India) issued a joint statement that climate change is real and human-caused, and that it should be the subject of efforts at a solution (NAS 2005). Most recently, in Europe on Feb 2, 2007, the IPCC released its newest report on climate change (IPCC 2007). It was the executive summary of a longer, more detailed report that came out in stages throughout the rest of the year. It states the current scientic consensus: that global warming is more than 90% likely to be happening and to be human-caused. Other scientic groups, including the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have also issued statements arguing that human-caused global climate change is real. These statements have to be voted on by their organizations membership, and consequently represent the opinions of large groups of scientists. These scientists recognize that there are other, natural factors that may account for some amount of climate change. Nonetheless, the human-induced effects are added on top of natural forces, and may increase the rate of adaptation required by natural systems. THE TRAJECTORY OF THE DISCUSSION Dissenting voicessuch as that of Richard Lindzen, a scientist at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences (Lindzen 2006)exist even among the premier IPCC working groups. However in the last several decades, as more work has been done, the data has become more, not less, clear. More scientists have become convinced of human-made global climate change, and fewer remain skeptics. This is what you expect to happen with new scientic information. While mistaken or even bogus science (like cold fusion) can sometimes be published, the peer-review process causes such science to be heavily criticized. In the case of global warming, there is increasing certainty in climate reports, an increasing number of lines of evidence, and a decreasing number of people who disagree. For example, a recent paper in Science (Rahmstorf et al 2007) suggested that the climate models used to make projections are more accurate than skeptics claimed and in fact have underestimated climate change. The paper revealed new ndings that temperatures are rising more rapidly and sea level changes are more rapid than climate models had predicted, laying to rest criticisms that earlier IPCC models had overblown risks. HOW DOES THIS COMPARE? Compare this to other environmental controversies. If you hear, for example, that global warming seems unlikely because scientists in the 1970s thought an ice age was coming and they were wrong, this is a misrepresentation of history. There were two main papers in which scientists either a) predicted an ice age in 20,000 years (Hays et al 1976) or b) discussed the impact of aerosols and carbon dioxide on climate change without making a prediction about the future climate (Rasool and Schneider 1975). There were only a few other papers on cooling in the scientic literature, but several predicting anthropogenic warming (Connelly 2005). A popular book was published on the subject (Ponte 1975), and the topic was picked up by the media. But the authors of the scientic papers did not make claims of imminent global change, and in 1975 a National Research Council report said there was not enough information to conclude anything on the future of the worlds climate (NRC 1975). The 1970s ice age scare was a short-term phenomenon in the popular L, Lcrch, Lccrsc CONFLlCTlNG CLAlMS aLco LnVircnncna rcLcns ~ vv&rv rcv cscr:s:s C L / C C / L L L 2 O O 8 press, hyped by non-scientists, that went away quickly and did not involve the majority opinion of climate scientists. In contrast, the global warming discussion has had a similar trajectory to the discussions over three signicant environmental problems of the past: the dangers of tobacco smoke, the pollution of lakes resulting from phosphates, and the depletion of the ozone layer by CFC pollution (Masters 2007). In each case, we had a vigorous scientic and public debate. In each case there was increasing evidence of a problem, early media hype that exaggerated the known science, skeptics who reacted against that hype, new science, a gradual agreement in the scientic community, strong business pressure not to nd a problem, and hold-out skeptics. But in each case eventually nearly everyone agreed that the problem was real and warranted action. Seeing the trajectory of the discussion and key documents from scientic groups and premier statements gives us an idea of how to read this new environmental problem. The big environmental problemsacid rain, lead and mercury, PCBs, dioxin pollution, ozone depletion, and tobacco smokehave staying power and have remained concerns for decades. Global warming is in this group. GENERAL ADVICE ON SORTING THROUGH COMPETING CLAIMS Avoid extremists Two U.K. scientists, Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, recently chided other scientists for making what they felt were exaggerated claims about global warmings effects (Ghosh 2007). Hardaker and Collier believe that global warming is real and that exaggerating its effects will cause people to disbelieve the whole thing. I agree that that is a likely result of exaggeration. Exaggeration is sometimes promoted by the non-scientic media. To avoid exaggerated claims, avoid getting information from the most polarized groups, the least scientic groups, or those with a clear ideological bent. Look for people expressing levels of scientic uncertainty and moderate positions. The best thing to do is look at the mainstream science, including group statements by professional societies, and not at popular books, television shows, newspaper editorials, or web sites. If you do use web sites, look for those associated with reputable professional societies and avoid those run by private individuals or groups with an obvious bias. Remember that when there is a scientic question with two sides, there are likely to be people on BOTH sides who exaggerate. Even if one side is actually correct, some people on that side are likely to be extremists. To sort out the truth, gather your information from those who are the least over-simplifying and the most willing to explain their reasoning. Avoid conspiracy theorists. For example, climate change skeptic Arthur Robinson claims: The human-caused global warming myth is not only ridiculously bad science; It is basically a pagan, New Age effort to reduce world population by withdrawal of technologyan activity that no Christian should associate himself with. (Robinson 2000) On the other hand, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe says, Lets just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers (Goodman 2007). The strong language used by both of these individuals will not help anyone gure out whether climate change is actually occurring; instead they will further polarize the debate. Get more information Sometimes, even if you are an expert, you have to get more information. For example, in 1988 NASA scientist James Hansen testied before Congress about climate change. (Hansen et al 1988, Hansen 2004). Hansen showed a graph of three possible climate change scenarios calculated using then-current models. This graph was criticized by a number of skeptics, particularly Patrick Michaels, who claimed that Hansens numbers were wrong (Michaels 1998, Pease 2005). But Michaels had removed two of the lines on the graph and left only the most extreme values on the third line. The actual observed trend in the intervening years had tracked well with the second of the lines on the original graph. This misrepresentation of Hansens work was repeated in Michael Crichtons popular novel, State of Fear (Crichton 2004). Hansen wrote a rebuttal, describing the graph and how it was misrepresented (Hansen 2004), but the popularity of the novel and claims on the web left many people wondering about the graphs accuracy. Another example was that of the famous hockey stick graph created by Mann et al. (1998) and used in an IPCC report. This graph was criticized for smoothing out past variations in temperature (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005). However, subsequent analysis of the graph statistics by the National Research Council (NRC) showed that while there were errors in the original statistical techniques, the results were robust. Thus even when the statistics were recalculated with modications, the ndings were upheld (Brumel 2006, NRC 2006). It may be difcult to follow all of the threads in such a he said/ she said debate. But the point is that some scientists do not present the actual work of other scientists who may have been very careful not to avoid extremism. Often the original scientists will speak out about it. Dont confuse the science of the problem with concerns about proposed solutions There is a great deal of disagreement over the magnitude of the effects of global warming and what solutions should be attempted. Scientists estimate that climate change will help some sectors of the economy, such as shipping in the far north, and some northern places where agriculture may increase. But most scientists believe that it will harm even larger numbers of people than it benets (IPCC 2001 b, NAS 2007). Global climate change will likely increase severe events such as storms, droughts and oods. It has already begun to affect organisms and weather patterns. A warmer-than-usual winter in China in 2006-2007 left 300,000 people short of water (AFP 2007). Whether this particular event is due to global climate change or not, climate change would certainly be expected to bring that type of outcome in the future. At this point, moderate positions include concerns about signicant impacts on precipitation patterns, crop yields, ice, biodiversity, and El Nino events. Some climate skeptics claim to be skeptics of the whole phenomenon because they do not think it will be worth the billions of dollars that will be required to stop it. This reluctance to accept a problem because of the cost of solutions has been expressed with regard to previous environmental issues, including when environmentalists suggested lowering CFC use or removing phosphates from detergents. Today, while there is a robust debate about how much money is needed to stop global warming, here are some things we know: Ve will not develo solutions to a roblen until we recognize that the problem is real. Ve do not address only one roblen at a tine. Some of the possible solutions to global warming involve changes that would also lower local air pollution or improve distributive justice. Sone actions, sucl as generating less waste, nay save money Thus it is disingenuous to be skeptical of climate change itself because one has already decided the costs of solutions are too high. We must do what we can, and advocate for what is most easily done rst, but we need to at least agree on the science of the problem and then address the issue of its solutions. Empowered with this information and the capacity for discerning truth in controversial environmental debates, Christians with a lay understanding of scientic issueslike the members in my Sunday schoolwill be better equipped to take an educated approach to stewardship over Gods creation. A longer version of this article, with full references for this article are available at Creation Cares online community, deepgreenconversation.org. Search for Dorothy Boorse. Dr. Dorothy Boorse is an aquatic ecologist and Biology Department faculty member at Gordon College in Wenham, MA. She is one voice in the christian environmental stewardship movement and lives with her husband and two sons in Beverly, MA. CLCL/L CL/L C/CL VLL LLL` CL/L L L`L` C L`L LC / C, LCLC, /L LCCL.