The Collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science
February 7th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this fact you will be very soon. The collapse is not due to the cold winter in places you may live or see on the news. It is not due to years without an increase in global temperature. It is not due to the overturning of the scientific consensus on the role of human activity in the global climate system.
It is due to the fact that policy makers and their political advisors (some trained as scientists) can no longer avoid the reality that targets for stabilization such as 450 ppm (or even less realistic targets) are simply not achievable with the approach to climate change that has been at the focus of policy for over a decade. Policies that are obviously fictional and fantasy are frequently subject to a rapid collapse.
The current shrillness that has been put on display by many politically-active climate scientists and the feeding-frenzy among their skeptical political opposition can be explained as a result of this looming collapse, though many will confuse the shrillness and feeding-frenzy as a cause of the collapse. Let me explain.
If you think that the current consensus on climate politics rests on a foundation called the scientific consensus, you might see signs of weakening in the political consensus as prima facie evidence that the scientific consensus must be itself weakening, or if you’d prefer, that people are making it look to be weakening, regardless of the reality. Thus, like the apocryphal boy from the Hans Brinker story (pictured above), the politically active climate scientists are actively trying to plug holes in the dike, as the skeptics try to poke more holes. The climate scientists (and their willing allies) have taken their battle to the arenas of politics, waging a scorched earth campaign of bullying, name calling, threats, and obnoxiously absurd appeals to authority. The skeptics participate in similar fashion, and the result is an all out brawl that we see escalating still before our eyes. The skeptics think they are unraveling a mythical scientific consensus imposed by an evil elite, while the climate scientists think they are waging an all out battle of righteousness against know-nothing hordes. They are both wrong.
Has climate science changed since the publication of the IPCC AR4? Not appreciably. Has the acceptance of the IPCC consensus changed among those who make decisions and advise them? Not at all. Does it matter for current commitments among policy makers whether or not, for example, Antarctica has been warming or cooling? Not at all. Or if, to pick another example, whether the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse might be 4, 5, or 10 meters in Washington, DC in hundreds of years? Not in the least. Battles over climate science are a side show, increasingly looking like a freak show, observed simply for the spectacle.
Climate politics is collapsing because of political realities, and not real or perceived changes in how people see the science. As I have often argued, in the ongoing battle between climate scientists and skeptics there will be disproportionate carnage, because the climate scientists have so much more to lose, and not just as individuals, but also for the broader field, which includes many people simply on the sidelines.
The collapse of the political consensus surrounding climate could well be an opportunity to recast decarbonization of the global economy and adaptation to climate impacts in a manner that is much more consistent with progress toward policy goals. If climate science can be saved from itself, that would be a bonus. However, for climate science I fully expect things to get worse before they get better, simply because the most vocal, politically active climate scientists have shown no skill at operating in the political arena. The skeptics could not wish for a more convenient set of opponents.
I don’t expect everyone reading this to accept my assertion that the political consensus surrounding climate is in collapse. So I’ll spend some time in the coming weeks making this case. At the same time, I will spend very little additional time on the self-destruction of the politically active subset of the climate science community, even though I know that many won’t accept my assertion that debates putatively about climate science are largely irrelevant to the current state of climate politics. And for those fighting to address the sustainability of climate science in this mess, good luck, you will need it to avoid getting pushed onto one side of the Manichean battle and becoming part of the carnage. However, if you really do want to learn more about my views on scientists in politicized debates, pick up a copy of The Honest Broker and then send me an email.
[2/8 Updated to clarify the role of the boy in the Hans Brinker story. Thanks to AR and LM.
February 7th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“the ongoing battle between climate scientists and skeptics ”
I disagree Roger, it is an
ongoing battle between climate alarmist scientists and climate skeptic scientists.
and a parallel battle between alarmist politicians and skeptic politicians.
Surely Roger Pielke Sr is a climate scientist disagreeing with the IPCC?
February 7th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
To be perfectly honest, given that one group of people or another have been saying that the end is nigh for thousands of years and have never been right once in all that time, the instant they do that they’ve already lost all credibility in my eyes. Obviously my pathetic little opinion doesn’t count for very much at all, but judging by the way the wind is blowing among the rest of the public, it seems like I’m extremely far from being alone, and in the end it takes the will of the masses to drive any significant change. The only massive man made disasters I see clear evidence of after two decades of panic are the food shortages and energy costs skyrocketing even while people are already struggling to survive, none of it due to climate change, but most of it from trying to prevent it. Yet for all that suffering so far, supposedly almost nothing at all has been done to address the issue, so at this rate I’m rightfully terrified of what’s going to happen once we start! So yes, if I read something about cosmic rays or the PDO and similar phenomena I’m going to believe those hold the answer, not only because it’s want I want to hear to begin with, but also because if it’s not one of the alternatives then the world really has been doomed ever since a few people assumed that mass hysteria can actually solve problems.
February 7th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Hans, you’re right, but Roger is more right. If that sounds like total gibberish, welcome to This Modern World.
But the tide will turn on political realities, just as Roger predicts. Anyone who doubts this should subscribe to Benny Peiser’s e-newsletter and be a first-hand witness to the collapse of climate treaties & programs all over Europe (which is/was way ahead of the US, if “ahead” is the word) in the face of harsh political/economic reality.
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to listserver@ljmu.ac.uk (“subscribe
cambridge-conference”)
February 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Parse Error – see Gross & Leavitt’s “Higher Superstition”. Mostly a smackdown of academic Post Modernism, but they also have some interesting thoughts on Western culture’s millennial tendencies.
February 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Hi Roger. I am a longtime reader who has finally registered to comment.
Your blog and your father’s blog are daily must read to stay informed on climate science and politics. Both of you are neither alarmist or skeptics which makes you “Honest Brokers”.
I agree with Hans Erren that the battle is between alarmists and skeptics and I am clearly a skeptic and have been since 1991. It was then that I realized that you can’t forecast climate on a multi-decadal basis with any skill. Chaos theory as Lorenz made clear in the early 1960’s makes that impossible.
De-carbonization cannot succeed since no viable alternative energy exists. Replacing low-cost high quality carbon based energy with high-cost low-quality alternative energy is a formula for economic implosion. Any politician associated with economic implosion will soon be out of power at best or will be killed in a revolution at worst. Hence we will live with carbon based energy until the alternative is also low-cost and high-quality.
February 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
PaddikJ– I suspect you are focusing on the correct issue. The consensus is collapsing on policy.
Some of the science debate at climate is, and always was a proxy debate. Some want to pretend, and other really think, answers to the science questions can, and and of themselves, dictate policy decisions. That is not so.
We know about climate to recognize that something ought to be done. But what? I think what little consensus we had on what is collapsing.
February 7th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
What Parse Error says!
And Roger:
“I fully expect things to get worse before they get better, simply because the most vocal, politically active climate scientists have shown no skill at operating in the political arena. The skeptics could not wish for a more convenient set of opponents.”
Yes and rightfully so. They have not even shown skill in the SCIENTIFIC arena, let alone the political one! Just a 15-minute read at RealClimate.org proves this!
The scare is over, no matter how shrill the doomsdayers get (and the more shrill they get now, the more humorous they get). And I think the reason is much simpler than you think: the public is not nearly as dumb as the politicians and “elitists” think. If you could really keep knowledge from them, as Hitler could, then it might work. But those days are long gone.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“the politically active climate scientists are actively trying to plug holes in the dike, as the skeptics try to poke more holes”
It seems to me that the striking trend among “politically active climate scientists” is that they are increasingly calling for long-range targets which involve a return to preindustrial levels of CO2. I expect something like the emissions pathway espoused by the Worldwatch Institute–
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=1038
–to become the new consensus, i.e. global carbon neutrality by mid-century.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Roger:
“The skeptics think they are unraveling a mythical scientific consensus imposed by an evil elite, while the climate scientists think they are waging an all out battle of righteousness against know-nothing hordes. They are both wrong.”
Are you sure? Because the level of discord from the alarmist camp sounds just like that.
I’m sure your just trying to be even handed here, but its pretty much misplaced. Take note that skeptics haven’t gone around calling for criminal trails or the imprisonment of climate alarmists.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
discourse, not discord…sorry
February 7th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
[...] LINK (No Ratings Yet) Loading … [...]
February 7th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
The divorce between politics and science is therefore hereby announced.
I think it will become very messy.
I await your further postings on this topic with eager anticipation.
Please see mickysmuses.blogspot.com
February 7th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
harry9000,
I think the discourse from the alarmist camp demonstrates a high level of discord.
The effort to impose policies with draconian costs on economic progress, especially in the developing world is imploding. The public was never going to stand for it. That’s just political reality.
Why else is it collapsing? All of the above reasons. The “consensus” of scientists regarding their beliefs on the science isn’t relevant. What matters is that skeptics have succeeded, slowly but surely, to show the public how little clothing the emporer really had. Millions of people are now aware of the siting disasters and the general sloppiness underlying so much of the supposed science. The problems of computer modeling have begun to resonate with the public (Wall Street’s failed computer models surely helped).
Political tone deafness has made a difference (see e.g. Algore’s carbon footprint). The behavior of the most vocal alarmist scientists has also helped. Calling for your opponents to be jailed is rarely a politically effective move. Refusing to debate didn’t help either.
Isolating one factor or another and attributing all change to it is a mistake. All the factors are making a difference and their impacts are multiplicative.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
PaddikJ – Thank you; I skimmed what could be gleaned from Google Book Search and found it highly amusing, but then read “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” and realized that if I were an academic type, I would have been sucked right in, so I could definitely benefit from reading the book in its entirety.
As for the scare being over, I wish that were the case, but alarmists are already switching to the Plan B of ocean “acidification.” The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes to mind…
February 7th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
stan:
“I think the discourse from the alarmist camp demonstrates a high level of discord”
That’s good..er..I mean, that’s exactly what I meant to say!!
Anyway, its going to be awfully hard to convince me that AGW wasnt closer to 98% politically rather than scientifically driven, which is why jury rigged hockey sticks and sparsely placed thermometers buried under the snow becomes evidence of a man-made catastrophe in the works. Evidence of course requiring the election of left-leaning politicians in order to impose stifling restrictions of personal liberties and national prosperity, enforced with legions of bureaucrats and special policemen.
Just a conspiracy theory? Hell, I just go by what they say in their own words.
February 7th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I hope you are right about the political consensus collapsing. I only became interested in climate science because of how it was being misused by activists with a political agenda. The worst were the government funded biologists who got to the point that they had to comment on how global warming was affecting whatever plant or animal they were studying and it was always harmful. Anything to keep the funding coming.
I do not believe at all in climate science is currently anything more that a dream. It acts like string theory in always being unprovable. Under the current belief system the models would have to be locked down for ten years while enough yearly data was collected to see if they had any skill at all. And then someone would need to remember what was predicted from ten years earlier.
Well I have challenge that should be the minimum requirement for any global climate model. Tell me what the regional climate will be a year from now. If the climate models cannot make such a prediction then they are not even wrong. They are nothing, just like string theory.
I understand that people have looked at the one year climate predictions of The Old Farmers Almanac and found that when the predictions are reduced to a higher or lower than normal prediction where they have a even chance of getting it right, they are right 50% of the time. If the climate models cannot beat this then all the models and all the supercomputers are no better than a secret formula locked up in a metal box and kept under someones desk for the last hundred years. If they cannot beat this they are no better that flipping a coin.
What a scary thought, actually making a real prediction one year in advance that could put the models to a real test. So far the models fail the test of the mid altitude tropical warming. The models fail a predicting the decrease in the absolute humidity at 300 mb. They failed to predict the northern hemisphere cooling this year. They fail to eliminate the non-existing temperature discontinuity at the surface to atmosphere interface.
A year is a reasonable time frame for a climate prediction. The current weather patterns will be gone. Next years weather will depend on the climate. A year is long enough to be a real test and short enough for rapid improvements in the models as the many errors are fixed, one at a time.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
I wouldn’t hold them to one year since an ENSO event could easily throw everything off, so the distinction between weather and climate holds up on that scale in my very humble opinion. However, I’m not going to pay carbon taxes or some other nonsense for several decades before seeing any proof of accuracy either, especially knowing that such a gravy train would be unstoppable by then even if what brought it about turns out to be false. Surely there has to be some middle ground where even they have to admit that some doubts may be valid, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for any such figure. Besides, listening to the “warming is cooling and cooling is warming and no change is warming and cooling when there should be just warming or cooling instead” explanation is just so much more entertaining.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Roger, the way you refer to “skeptics” in this essay, an unaware reader would never know that there’s a world of difference between a scientist who is unconvinced about AGW and people who are in the climate debate because they are horrified by the possible consequences of policies pushed in the name of AGW.
Speaking as one of the horrified, we are not anti-heroes of Haarlem poking holes is a dike meant to contain the dangers of the sea. (Nice neutral analogy you have there.) We’re stopping policies we think will harm people, and pretty well so far, too, at least in the U.S.
As to your description of “skeptics,” en masse, as “think[ing] they are unraveling a mythical scientific consensus imposed by an evil elite”: How can anyone “unravel” a myth? Or “impose” one? (I thought they were trying to impose energy caps.) These tasks sound harder than pushing jelly through a keyhole.
Incidentally, calling those of us who are horrified “skeptics” marginalizes every concern about this debate – such as what energy caps do to economies – that isn’t focused directly on whether the AGW theory has scientific merit. Same goes for “deniers” and “contrarians.” No accident, that, but then, we didn’t name ourselves.
As a final side note, Hans Brinker did not place his finger in the dike. The boy who did it is unnamed in the novel. http://tw0.us/N1 if you are interested.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Dear Roger, I completely agree with you. Although it would be much nicer to think that scientific results – and education about them – is the driving force of such intense dynamics in the policymaking, I agree that politics and personal interests of people actually govern these events and “climate science” and related activities are just a puppet show.
See my reasons why the climate policy will collapse.
February 8th, 2009 at 1:15 am
#6: Reid says: “De-carbonization cannot succeed since no viable alternative energy exists”.
I disagree: nuclear energy (in all its variants) is a viable alternative, not for a radical instantaneous switch, but for a gradual phase out at least in electricity production. Best working examples: France and Belgium. Best political swings in that direction: Finland and Sweden. Best example of running into the wall because of (mostly green) anti-nuclear hysteria: Germany.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Amy-
The point of this essay is to discuss those who use science as a proxy for political debate. That would not include people on either side of the debate who do not use such proxy tactics. Of course, a lot of scientists in the public arena like to use science as a proxy for politics because that is their entire basis of authority.
Do know that the political views on climate are diverse including people who accept the IPCC but oppose the current approach (of policy based on targets and timetables) and people who reject the IPCC and accept the T&T approach (e.g., James Hansen).
As far as Hans Brinker . . . what can I say? Myth busting is hard to do! Sometimes, instead of overturning a myth, you accept it and build a statue to please the tourists.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Quite a penetrating post. The issue in the blogs and the journals is what is or is not going on. However, the public policy issue of what we should do, and what we can get approved to do, that’s a quite different matter.
From a purely intellectual point of view, this has hardly been addressed at a scientific level. If the proposal is, for instance, to lower CO2 ppm by a given amount, where exactly are the studies showing what effect this would have, and what the uncertainties are? No place. Proving that you can lower temperature by lowering CO2 is going to be hard enough – has it ever happened? But proving that it is safe to do, and will have the effect forecast, and is worth the price of doing? And will not have unwanted side effects? And getting targets allocated by country? That is really hard work, and it has not even started.
The combination of the two is what will destroy the AGW agenda, while, as you say, quite possibly leaving the hypothesis intact. A chorus of lament about warming will not convince people that a specific course of action is prudent, nor will it motivate politicians to take huge electoral risks to get it enacted. The movement needs to get away from diatribes and personal attacks and justifications of the warming thesis, and start to sketch out concrete costed programs to produce cooling – which is totally different. But one fears that most of the present intellectual leadership of the AGW movement will find the task beyond them.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:52 am
[...] question is asked by Prometheus. The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this [...]
February 8th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Dr. Pielke,
I agree with your assessment. The AGW narrative is completely intertwined with future energy supply and security across the world. For any government, ensuring adequate energy supply to meet the needs and aspiration of that society will be the primary concern. Energy demand is inexorably going up as world population increases and people, particularly in poorer countries, aspire to a higher standard of living. Moreover it will become more carbon intensive as more carbon-rich hydrocarbons will be used. Thus as conventional oil becomes more expensive, non conventional oil such as Canadian oil sands will come into play. Coal, of which there is an abundant supply across the world, particularly where energy demand is going up fast, will also be used to a greater extent. Hence man-made CO2 levels will increase faster in the coming few decades than they have in the past. Governments, even those that have embraced an alarmist AGW narrative will have to face this stark reality. Thus Australia will not stop mining and exporting coal, the U.S. will not stop coal-fired power generation. Meanwhile India and China will go ahead and use their coal. There will be several things that will help politicians make these decisions more easily. Many initiatives such as promoting energy efficiency and diversifying energy sources (renewables) are equally relevant in both the AGW and energy security narratives. It is also very likely that the inadequacies of climate models on whose long-term projections the alarmist AGW narrative is based, will become clearer. At least the lack of skill of such models to predict future changes in the climate and its consequences will likely be better appreciated. But what will decide this matter is the impossibility of replacing fossil fuels (particularly coal) as the major energy providers in the next few decades across the world.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I respect Dr. Pielke as one of the “non-shrill” participants in the debate, and appreciate his measured, even-handed approach to the subject. Yet I suspect part of his goal here is to create a “soft landing” for when the global warming scientific consensus finally implodes. Now that pretty much all (OK, all) evidence now directly refutes the global warming premise–ice core data, lack of relationship between CO2 and temperatures, missing greenhouse gas signature, falling temperatures last ten years while CO2 is soaring, etc.–the entire theory is like a house almost completely consumed by termites, and ready to collapse into dust with the next strong wind. What will that do to the scientific and journalistic community? It will set back their credibility for years, maybe decades. By suggesting that the “scientific debate” is now a side show, and the real debate is on a political level, Dr. Pielke I believe is trying to cushion the backlash against the scientific community that is becoming inevitable. That’s an honorable goal and I hope it succeeds. The scientific community is going to have to go through an era of soul-searching to make sure such a vast amount of mis-information is not served up to society ever again.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
There is a poll current at ABC Radio in Australia at http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/
Is Global Warming to blame for the current heat wave in Australia – Yes, No, or Global Warming is a Myth.
Interesting outcome. After 15,603 votes (quite a large number for such a poll in Oz), 93.8% of the respondents have said that Global Warming is a Myth.
And the ABC is notorious for its leanings on such matters – think BBC.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
[...] 8, 2009 Posted by honestclimate in Discussions. Tags: climate change, global warming trackback The Collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science Roger Pielke [...]
February 8th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I was struck by a quote in Rogers paper on geo-engineering. It estimated that in order to stablize CO2 at 450PPM it would require one non CO2 generating 900MW+/- 500MW power plant to be built evry day for the next 50 years. When the politicians grasp that it will collapse.
February 8th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Mondo
That’s amazing. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such overwhelming majorities. Are vote ‘bots voting?
February 8th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I wonder that most of the politicization has been obvious in the form of the “solutions” which have been proposed. When the IPCC Chairman says we should all become vegetarians, well, what can I say–there is a group of people and lifestyles who tend to be most likely to advocate vegetarianism; it speaks to a particular set of values. When people advocate reducing economic growth, it again speaks to a particular set of values. Personally I don’t particularly disagree with those values, but the situation is that 98% of the world does not share those values. I mean, there is no problem in a Buddhist monastery where everyone values wearing robes and minimal living. But there is a problem when leaders in positions of authority advocate values that are completely out of step with the vast majority of the people. If the IPCC had simply said, “given what data we have and what models we can best devise, we estimate that the temperature will rise by some amount, which may even present us with a severe change”, then I’d have no problem with it. Why not run simulations and try to guess based on what we know? But they took it further, and actually used it as a justification to advocate a particular lifestyle and a whole new value-system for society. And you can’t change people’s values. You just can’t do it deliberately. Nobody knows how. At best it takes generations.
February 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Jacques Voorhees wrote: “Now that pretty much all (OK, all) evidence now directly refutes the global warming premise”
Although I am a skeptic on the issue of climate change consensus, your expressed views are ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Such a claim can only be the result of trolling or willful ignorance.
Consensus scientists and politicians would choose to caricature all skeptics (and even some non-skeptics like Dr. Pielke) as having views like your own.
You do a disservice to both science and all those who reject the political and scientific consensus by spouting such garbage.
February 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Lucia,
“Are vote ‘bots voting?”. Dunno. Could be. What I do know is that they only let you vote once from your computer.
Obviously straw polls of this type are highly unscientific, and it may well be true that ‘the sceptics’ have gotten to it. But what is also clear is that if it is a poll that can be manipulated by the bots, then the pro-AGW side can also participate. It does seem to be telling us something, but I am not sure what!
February 8th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
You don’t need anything sophisticated to throw that poll very far off very quickly; the program was very poorly designed.
February 8th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Ironically, I think the change in administration in the US will make it more difficult to obtain public support for mitigation measures. During the previous administration, it was easy to be (or to profess to be) in favor of policies restricting CO2 emissions; secure in the knowledge that no such policies would actually be enacted. Now, faced with the possibility that action might actually be taken to restrict CO2 emissions, people are likely to be far more reticent about supporting such action.
February 8th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Roger,
I do understand that your focus is those who are using science as a means of reaching political objectives (or to stop their ideological opposition from reaching its political objectives), but in the AGW debate, I think that’s just about everybody. If nothing else (and there is plenty else), as long as the news media continues to spin science stories relating to AGW as evidence in favor of or in opposition to the theory, the other side, so to speak, is going to respond. Maybe you have a tighter definition than this (am I missing something? perhaps you do), but from where I sit, for a “skeptic” to even write or speak about the hockey stick, for example, is to use science as a proxy in the debate. And yet, how could we not, for the educational value of that story, told all the way through, is immense on many levels, even though by itself it does not prove or disprove the AGW theory one whit.
I don’t want to belabor the point too much, but I just think that if scientist X appears before a Senate Committee in, to pick a year out of a hat, 1988, and says something along the lines of, “science has determined bad thing Y is occurring, and taking action Z might stop Y,” and the politicians thereabouts start talking up the wisdom of taking action Z, if you oppose action Z, you will find it extremely difficult to not get involved in using science in a policy debate. Al Gore et al are essentially saying (oversimplified), “Because A is true, B must be done.” To oppose B effectively — for 20 years! — without mentioning A would be a tightrope walk few could manage or even have much reason to attempt.
So when you refer to, to use your phrase, “those who use science as a proxy for political debate,” I still see that as referring to nearly all of us. And not that it matters, but I think some of your characterizations were just a little bit harsh.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
mondo45,
Like Lucia, I was a little suspicious of the “overwhelming majorities”. I checked out the website and can find no such poll! Their current poll is “If your house was destroyed by fire, would you return and rebuild?”. Checking back to 21 January there is no such poll, and prior to that there was no heatwave. Care to explain?
Adams
February 8th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Adams – First they added the current poll, and very shortly thereafter they completely removed the one which was referred to earlier. I should have taken it screenshot while I had the chance.
February 8th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Parse Error,
Knowing the ABC, that sort of behaviour is completely believable. However, according to mondo45 it accumulated 15,603 votes in that “very short” time. I hope someone has a screenshot – I would like to see the evidence.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Hi,
You write, “The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing.”
And, “It is not due to years without an increase in global temperature. It is not due to the overturning of the scientific consensus on the role of human activity in the global climate system.”
If we went another decade without a year that’s significantly warmer than 1998, wouldn’t that have a pretty significant effect on both the scientific and political consensus regarding the role of humanity in climate change? Especially the scientific consensus?
If we went another decade without a year that’s significantly warmer than 1998, and the “scientific” consensus didn’t change regarding the role of humanity in climate change, I’d certainly question whether the “scientific” consensus was all that scientific!
February 8th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Amy,
In your latest comment you outline two arguments that I (and I think others here) see as distinct, but you appear to commingle. The first,
“If nothing else (and there is plenty else), as long as the news media continues to spin science stories relating to AGW as evidence in favor of or in opposition to the theory, the other side, so to speak, is going to respond.”
reads to me as an argument over the science – does this measurement confirm or deny a particular theory. The second,
“if scientist X appears before a Senate Committee in, to pick a year out of a hat, 1988, and says something along the lines of, “science has determined bad thing Y is occurring, and taking action Z might stop Y,”
Properly (in my mind) frames a policy outcome in terms of what science *suggests* could happen. The argument does not then go and say, therefore we must do action Z. If it does, we presume the authority of science to dictate – not inform – policy.
By doing what you suggest is inevitable,
“and the politicians thereabouts start talking up the wisdom of taking action Z, if you oppose action Z, you will find it extremely difficult to not get involved in using science in a policy debate.”
You essentially are arguing over scientific conclusions and not questioning the faulty assumption that scientific conclusions dictate (rather than inform) policy choices. If you want to get other values and interests into the policy debate, you might be more successful by arguing over the policy and not the science.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Amy-
In #18 above you say:
“there’s a world of difference between a scientist who is unconvinced about AGW and people who are in the climate debate because they are horrified by the possible consequences of policies pushed in the name of AGW”
Then in #35 you write:
“your focus is those who are using science as a means of reaching political objectives (or to stop their ideological opposition from reaching its political objectives), but in the AGW debate, I think that’s just about everybody”
Are these contradictory?
February 8th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Solman,
If the premise of the AGW theory is that the level of atmospheric CO2 is the primary factor in determining global temperatures, then Jacques Voorhees is absolutely correct in stating that all of the physical evidence contradicts this premise. There is physical evidence that CO2 may play a role in global temperatures, but nothing that indicates it is dominant or primary…now or ever!
If you are aware of any such physical evidence, I would be glad to hear about it. However, the IPCC has never argued their case from the standpoint of physical evidence, but solely on the output of computer models. Any physical evidence provided in their assessments was circumstantial at best, and almost always more readily explained by those variables that the IPCC choose to ignore, than by increasing CO2!
Given the hype and spin that AGW has received over the last 2 decades, it does seem inconceivable that Jacques Voorhees statement could be correct, but it is. On the other hand, if you believe that Mr. Voorhees “expressed views are ridiculous to the point of absurdity”, then it should be a simple matter of providing evidence to the contrary instead of calling him ignorant. One wonders why you would pick the ad hominem over a scientifically illustrative point, if such a point were so readily available.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Here’s a toast to what Jacques Voorhees Says in #25!
February 8th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
David -
As it happens, I don’t disagree with you when you identify those arguments as distinct, but I was going down a different path. I was trying to peel the onion back a little to determine a bit more closely what Roger was thinking when he crafted certain paragraphs. I was not expressing concern about an inability to get values other than science into the AGW-related policy debate. Had we not had for some time now at least some modest ability to get other values into the AGW debate, Kyoto would have been ratified in the U.S. while Clinton and Gore were in office, and goodness-knows-what-else would have been adopted in Kyoto’s wake.
That said, I am happy to discuss my view of science dictating versus informing policy.
You said I am “not questioning the faulty assumption that scientific conclusions dictate (rather than inform) policy choices.” It is unnecessary for me to question a preposterous assumption. Science dictates nothing here. The actual power (excluding the diffuse power in the hands of the people) is in the hands of the politicians. In this instance, science is the screen behind which certain politicians (supporters of an expansion of government power) hide. If the screen is opaque (the public believes the AGW theory and that a crisis is upon us), as fast as you can say “Henry Waxman,” these politicians will do as they have always been inclined to do (expand federal control of the private sector), using science as the excuse. If the screen is transparent (population remains skeptical of or uninterested in AGW), they will alter their behavior to conform it more closely to their perception of public concerns (jobs; lower energy costs).
Although science is not dictating outcomes, it has influenced the means through which a large group of politicians have sought to achieve long-held goals. (But for the energy the left spent promoting anti-global warming policies, it might have achieved its goal of a wholly government-run U.S. health care industry by now. So we cannot say science is without political influence.)
The science of AGW may appear to some to be dictating policy because both sides routinely discuss the science, as they seek either to darken the screen, or to make it more transparent. (A fancy way to put that might be, “using science as a proxy for political debate.”) But any perception based on this that science will dictate the final outcome of this policy debate is merely illusory.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Roger-
No.
The hypothetical skeptical scientist in #18 was cited to illustrate that there is more than one kind of “skeptic” in this debate; i.e., in their extremes, on one end the scientist who doubts AGW but whose presence in the debate is geared toward whether the theory is true, and on the opposite end, the non-scientist who is interested only in possible public policy impacts, though he may mention science from time-to-time in the course of promoting his policy goals. An unaware reader of your essay, I said, would never know from the way you crafted it that not all skeptics are identical.
In that paragraph, I was suggesting that I wish you had more specifically identified those to whom you referred when you wrote your essay that, among other things, rather unflatteringly characterized the behavior of skeptics.
I don’t believe I was excessively subtle, as you responded with a definition: “those who use science as a proxy for political debate.”
In #35, I followed up, because (as I see it), when you narrowed the definition, you did not narrow it much at all. For although those of us in the AGW policy debate who qualify as “skeptics” may differ greatly in personality, knowledge, subtlety or any one of hundreds of other characteristics, nearly all of us, at least from time-to-time, refer to the science. It’s almost unavoidable.
In seeking to pose the question politely, I inadvertently asked you to dance. Let me be more straightforward. When you referred to skeptics who behave in “similar fashion” to those who conduct a “scorched earth campaign of bullying, name calling [and] threats,” of whom were you speaking?
February 9th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Re #36. Adams,
I did see it on the ABC website for myself. Unfortunately, I didn’t take a page-shot of the information. However, Andrew Bolt posted a story on his blog about the issue – http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wrong_answer/ which I think independently confirms what I related, and perhaps provides an explanation.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Jim,
1. Do you agree with Vorhees that: “pretty much all (OK, all) evidence now directly refutes the global warming premise”? I haven’t seen any evidence that directly refutes any popular definition of global warming (including yours).
2. I’m a skeptic. I’m not going to argue that the IPCC has adequately supported its conclusions, because I don’t believe it has.
3. When you say “the IPCC has never argued their case from the standpoint of physical evidence, but solely on the output of computer models”, you are mistaken. I refer you to the AR4 WG1 report: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html. Chapters 3 through 5 are devoted entirely to summarizing physical evidence that supports the WG1 conclusions.
You may not believe that the physical evidence presented by the IPCC proves its case, but they have most certainly argued their case using the physical evidence.
4. You say: “Any physical evidence provided in their assessments was circumstantial at best, and almost always more readily explained by those variables that the IPCC choose to ignore, than by increasing CO2!”
The physical evidence presented by the IPCC is almost always MORE readily explained by variables the IPCC chose to ignore? Really? I’ll readily agree that there are many variables with a substantial impact on climate which the IPCC has chosen to ignore. But which of those variables BETTER explains the observed changes than anthropogenic CO2?
5. I’m a skeptic. I think that the IPCC conclusions are often far stronger than the scientific evidence warrants.
But anybody who studies the available information and reaches the conclusion that “all the evidence directly refutes global warming” has proven themselves incapable of scientific thought.
Indeed, even a single piece of physical evidence that directly refutes global warming would be interesting indeed.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:17 am
“Indeed, even a single piece of physical evidence that directly refutes global warming would be interesting indeed.”
I would be interested in your observations of what physical evidence would fall into this area. As far as I can tell, it doesn’t seem to matter what evidence appears it is always used to support the AGW theory (Cooling or Warming Antarctica) as one example (current downward trend in global average temperature) for another.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Amy-
You do a disservice to your own agenda by labeling those who favor actions that you do on climate change as “skeptics” — this implies that their basis for their views lies in skepticism about the science.
Also, do you really think that skeptics have not behaved badly in their debates with climate scientists? Seriously?!
February 9th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Arthur–
The current downtrend is not claimed to support warming. It is claimed to fail to refute warming. There is a difference.
The arguments are: How long and how deep must the downtrend be before it refutes any particular hypothesis. The current downtrend is certainlynot enough to refute a general warming trend, nor to refute that it is caused by CO2. I believe it is sufficient to refust the idea that the IPCC projection in the AR4 is on track. These are different things.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:01 am
“You said I am “not questioning the faulty assumption that scientific conclusions dictate (rather than inform) policy choices.” It is unnecessary for me to question a preposterous assumption.”
Amy,
Just because an assumption is preposterous does not make it unnecessary to question it. Your arguments about the ’screen’ science forms suggests that the assumption needs additional questioning and exposure.
Additionally, the screen you described is not particular – any kind of politician can use it, regardless of their objective. It can be used to claim that the science has closed the policy debate and it can be used to claim that the absences of scientific conclusions must keep the policy debate open.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Roger-
The conversation is going in circles. In #18 I expressed a dissatisfaction with the use of the term “skeptics,” and when using it in comments here the first few times I put the term in quotes, which as I am sure you know, is a common way to indicate that one is going along with a term for the sake of clarity without necessarily endorsing it. Now you are chiding me for the use of the term. So I will make you an offer. The next time you write an essay, refer to us instead as “freedom-loving, economy-growing patriots who aren’t sucking at the federal you-know-what,” and I will promise to use that parlance as well, should I leave a comment. Feel free to use any other flattering, or even neutral, term next time, and my offer will stand for that as well.
Your second paragraph attributes an opinion to me I never expressed or implied. You have written an essay referring to “skeptics” (your word, for all your concern that it does us a disservice) who behave in “similar fashion” to those who conduct a “scorched earth campaign of bullying, name calling [and] threats.” I asked of whom you were speaking. You apparently do not wish to say. Okay. You aren’t required to provide source material. This is a discussion about AGW, after all.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Amy-
“freedom-loving, economy-growing patriots who aren’t sucking at the federal you-know-what”
Duly noted . . . Thanks!
February 9th, 2009 at 8:34 am
David-
It’s fine to question that particular faulty and, we apparently agree, preposterous assumption, if one has the time to spend questioning preposterous things. In 41, you said I wasn’t questioning it. I said I didn’t need to. Since we agree it is preposterous, I still think we don’t need to.
As to the “screen” being used by many: My discussion of how one side in this debate tries to darken the shield while the other tries to make it more transparent was intended to communicate that the tactic is in wide use and its use is not limited to adherents of any one particular political ideology. With regards to this thread, I hope at least that I have successfully communicated my view that nearly everybody in the AGW debate is using science (some of them — within the constraints posed by the limitations of human knowledge — are even using it accurately). This is why I see the term “those who use science as a proxy for political debate” as referring to nearly everybody.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Roger-
You’re welcome!
February 9th, 2009 at 9:21 am
#48:
1. Refute means “to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous”. Lets start by acknowledging that it is generally hard to prove a negative.
2. Fortunately, the scientific standard of proof is less severe than that argued for by some denialist web site. I would agree, for example, that Lucia has refuted the IPCC projected trend. Unfortunately various supporters of the consensus have attributed this to her methods and not to any underlying problem with the AR4 projections.
3. I am especially looking forward to Steve M’s upcoming follow up to Santer et al. I expect him to use the exact same methodology used by Santer to refute the notion that existing GCMs can accurately model tropospheric warming.
I don’t expect consensus scientists to accept this refutation, but I don’t know how they can justify such a refusal. I am eager to find out.
4. If you would like to refute the notion that additional CO2 warms the planet, you have a VERY tough row to hoe. Have scientists made an error in measuring the absorption spectrum of CO2? Do we completely misunderstand the spectrum of Earth’s ingoing and outgoing radiation? Neither of these are even remotely likely. This requires us to conclude that either adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms the planet, or other, poorly understood phenomenon interfere with this warming.
Which brings me to my final point:
5. It is easy to refute a global climate model; just show that the planet behaves differently than predicted. It is very hard to disprove a physical process when the constituent elements of the process can be measured and observed in a laboratory.
When we talk about global warming by greenhouse gasses, we are not talking about some phenomenon derived from computer models. We are talking about a physical process. The computer models may be wrong (I certainly think they are), but it would be quite shocking indeed if the underlying physical phenomenon is not real and significant.
No abstract correlation between global temperatures and external phenomenon will suffice to disprove measurable physical phenomenon.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Adams, mondo45 – There’s also http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?q=link:http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=w&filter=0&sa=N but I’ve only found two partial screenshots through that, I suppose it depends on just how convincing the evidence needs to be.
lucia – What I would say is of more concern to the public is, what are we going to do in the meantime, and what happens if it continues to cool thus requiring even more energy even while we continue to avoid developing it? If and when we can maintain our standard of living without requiring fossil fuels then the common folk won’t care one bit about whether their continued use would have catastrophically altered Earth’s climate or not, and scientists will be free to argue undisturbed. For now the only practical option I’m aware of would be nuclear, and that would get people up in arms too. I don’t know for certain what’s happening in the Halls of Knowledge or the Halls of Power, but among that lowly yet large sphere of people struggling to survive, suffice it to say that I sense a great disturbance in the Force.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Amy -
re: #44
With all due respect, politicians on BOTH sides of the climate change debate “hide behind a screen of science”. Both sides bring out their respective scientific expert to say either “Look, the science is uncertain. We shouldn’t do anything until we do more science.” or “The scientific consensus says we should do something right now and we should do more science.” This way they can avoid a political debate over values (and any tough decisions that might come with it) and point anyone asking questions of them to the science. I would also hazard a guess that climate change is not the only political issue in which politicians hide behind the science.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Eventually, reality will hit: http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-sweden-nuclear-power,0,7102568.story
My concern is that the policies that will be implemented in the US to address the Climate Crisis will be very much of the same flavor as our Energy Policy over the past three-plus decades. I think the latter can be accurately described to be total failures. The US Energy Policy became a pure political football. So-called Policies designed to appease special-interest groups and gather votes for re-election. The actual real-world facts ignored by those in power.
And of course the two are closely intertwined. And the already-available real-world facts regarding fossil-free energy are conveniently ignored by those who insist the loudest that fossil-free energy is just around the corner. The recent comments by Dr. Chu are especially disconcerting; skipping over huge chunks of work and predicting dire consequences that have no basis in The Science. His comments seemed to me to be empty echos of those same loud fact-free shouts.
In his current position, Dr. Chu could easily have the work started for a high-level top-top, using simple arithmetic, look at reality. Any number of The National Laboratories would happily take the job. There should be lot o’ stimulation money to fund the tasks.
While there has up to now been sufficient slop in economic situations to allow for a lack of true policies, that situation seems to be coming to an end. My fear is that those who can least afford the costs of a carbon-free world will be those who will be harmed the most. And, by the way, why are there no studies on the potential impacts of various options? The really, really poor in the developing countries will be hurt, in my opinion. Leaders in these countries are very unlikely to allow that to happen.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:44 am
EDaniel says:
“And the already-available real-world facts regarding fossil-free energy are conveniently ignored by those who insist the loudest that fossil-free energy is just around the corner. The recent comments by Dr. Chu are especially disconcerting; skipping over huge chunks of work and predicting dire consequences that have no basis in The Science. His comments seemed to me to be empty echos of those same loud fact-free shouts.”
Yes.
In Roger’s own backyard, Golden, CO is the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). It has been sucking up million$$$ of federal money for about 36 years now, with the goal (as I understand) of finding a way to make renewable energy economically feasible. The goal still hasn’t been reached after all that time and money has been spent. Perhaps we are getting closer, as the costs of solar cells, etc. go down, but so far, no cigar. It has to do with physics and energy density. Only an increase in the price of fossil fuels will make all these other energy forms feasible, and the marketplace will take care of that, all in good time. We don’t need Big Brother in there mucking it up!
February 9th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Solman,
I want to make certain we are on the same wavelength here. When Voorhees stated “pretty much all (OK, all) evidence now directly refutes the global warming premise”, I assumed that he was talking about the premis of AGW, and not the far more general observation that the planet is a bit warmer today than it was 100 years ago. I assume that we are all talking about the theory that humans are primarily the reason for the warming.
When you say “But anybody who studies the available information and reaches the conclusion that “all the evidence directly refutes global warming” has proven themselves incapable of scientific thought.” I agree if the issue is just about warming. If, however, you mean AGW when you say ‘global warming’, then Voorhees is correct and you are wrong.
The observations the IPCC sites in chapters 3-5 of the AR4 WG1 report do indeed show that the planet has generally warmed over the 20th century, but even there tortured spin and cherry picking do not lend support to CO2 being the primary reason for the warming. What do I mean? For example…In the section on UHI we find:
“McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis
(2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns
of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with
geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic
development, implying that urbanisation and related land
surface changes have caused much of the observed warming.
However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development
are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric
circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit
large-scale coherence.” (It is implied that the circulation changes are the result of increasing CO2 in another, classic IPCC circular argument.)
So here we have two possible explanations for the observed warming. The first is the well-documented UHI effect. The second is a shift in circulation patterns that is allegedly the result of increasing CO2 and has nothing to do with the ocean circulation changes that occurred at precisely the same time. While there is no direct evidence that increasing CO2 is the sole or primary reason for the circulation changes, the report simply dismisses the better explanation (UHI) out of hand (virtually no effect whatsoever). It ignores the better explanation for the circulation changes (the ocean cycles) and implies it is all because of CO2!
That, my friend, is absolutely tortured reasoning and you find it on almost every page of the report, all twisted to support the theory. Despite this effort, one still does not find any observational evidence that increasing CO2 is responsible for the majority of the observed warming of the 20th Century. What we do find is a 20th century warming trend that is well within the bounds of natural warming cycles, similar spatially and temporaly to previously observed natural warming cycles and which appears to be (at least temporarily) over! All of this indicates that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of global temperature, just as Voorhees stated.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:32 am
jae says:
“It has to do with physics and energy density.”
Yep. My most favorite discussion point. The sole direction of energy conversion, since the beginning of The Industrial Age, has been toward higher power density. And yes, it’s all in the physics, or more specifically for this subject, Thermodynamics. The over-arching nature of those things called Laws of Nature is because they are Laws. You can’t beat’em. Plus in the case of the two favored options at this time, solar and wind, even the source is unreliable and not constant. E.On in Germany, and I’m sure other data continue to build even as we speak, has lots of real-world data. Many people seem to not be interested in taking a peek at the info.
One thing that continues to amaze me is that the sheer magnitude of what must be displaced, Lots-n-Lots o’ Watts, the time it has taken to get it in place, and the possible rates of replacement, seem to never be mentioned.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:34 am
In a post on the politicization of climate science, the irony of a discussion of the scientific basis for climate change is probably not lost on anyone.
Lots of good places for such a discussion, but this is not one of them. Thanks!
February 9th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Parse error-
I’m for nuclear. I think it’s a shame we stopped building nuclear capacity. Or course, we haven’t exactly been racing to build wind power or solar either, have we? There are groups who would like to reduce the amount of power created using hydro (to save fish.)
It sometimes seems when anyone decides to try to create any new generating capacity, a group exists to block it.
So, what does “the truth” about AGW dicate about nuclear energy, hydro, or any individual wind power generating facility? Answer: Nothing. Climate science can inform policy decisions. It doesn’t automatically tell us what to do.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
One of the problems is that the public & political disussion continues around the science. It needs to move to the enineering estimate stage. I ran industrial R&D and always new when to hand off to the engineers for assessment and scale up. It’s a pity that Obama picked a scientist to run DOE. The nation needs someone with experience in large scale engineering projects. Decarbonizing just US electrical power is a monumental undertaking never mind the world. The alternative Geo engineering on the scale needed is mind boggling. The political discussion of renewables, cap & trade, etc is simply pathetic and will not address the problem. I hope Chu tells Obama the whole truth. My belief is when the truth is known the political will won’t be there. The science has such uncertainty built in (models) that no one will want to bet the trillions needed.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Amy,
I see a big contradiction here:
“My discussion of how one side in this debate tries to darken the shield while the other tries to make it more transparent was intended to communicate that the tactic is in wide use and its use is not limited to adherents of any one particular political ideology.”
You failed, certainly with me and at least one other commenter. If you wanted to make the point that there are no limits, a single example was not the way to go.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
re: 65 says:
“It needs to move to the engineering estimate stage.”
This is one of the critical chunks of work that is being skipped. The “solutions” have been pre-emptied by politics.
Actually we need work to identify all potential solutions and then assign priorities and then the engineering estimates.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
The reason the skeptics are doing an all-out assault on Al Gore, the IPCC and Hansen, et al, is because the the fear mongering and unbelievable statements and claims by the alarmists. Skeptical scientists arm themselves with the only thing they really understand: validate the theory or models with definitive duplication of the experiment. i.e. if the IPCC and Hansen claim X=True, then others must validate it. Remember those two “scientists” who claimed to have attained cold fusion back in the 80s ? No one else could get a sustained fusion reaction with the same set-up. It’s the same with the IPCC and the hockey stick graph. No one gets the same results as Hansen and the IPCC.
Bad Science and fudging data *irks* the skeptics who have meticulously presented counter-evidence (Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, etc.) because it is their duty to prove or disprove the theory. That is what scientists do. The problem is the politicians want to tax us, change energy policy, stop projects, and change mankind based upon unvalidated models.
But the root cause that really fueled the debate were statements like this:
Gore: “The Arctic could be totally ice-free during summer withins five years!”
Chu: “‘We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California. I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going”.
James Hansen: “(we) have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.”
More Gore: “This would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on Earth,”
James Hansen calls for several immediate steps – including charging CEOs of fossil energy companies with “high crimes against humanity”.
Douglas: “Imagine the sea rising around you as your country literally disappears beneath your feet, where the food you grow and the water you drink is being destroyed by salt, and your last chance is to seek refuge in other lands where climate refugees have no official status. This is not a dream, it’s the fearful reality for millions of people.”
This type of Chicken Little stuff makes the hair on the back of true scientists necks stick straight up. So Roger… you simply don’t understand that when the alarmists threw down the gauntlet to tell eveyone we must “do something NOW we’re all gonna die!!!”
Geez! Are all the alamists even partially sane? Let’s walk back in history and talk about each coming catastrophe that is going to wipe out our species. Some of these we simply just deal with…and rightly so, like the Ozone Hole…. but we don’t need to scare a bejeebers out of the population all the time. Examples:
SARS
Bird Flue Pandemic
Mad Cow Disease
West Nile Virus
AIDS
Ebola
All the bees dying out two years ago
Asteroids from Space will destroy Earth!
The coming Ice Age (back in the 50s and again in the 70s)
Nuclear Winter
Genetic Engineering of Crops and Animals
The crust of the Earth shifting on the mantle…killing us all (1970s)
California earthquakes pushing it into the ocean
The Ozone Hole
“Columbus will fall of the edge of the Earth when he sails!”
“Christ is coming back and it’ll be judgement day before the end of the century”
The year 2000!
..need I go on on how we as humans just LOVE to need some sort of catastrophe looming at all times. Al Gore and Hansen really supplied us with a good one.
I would have preferred the coolness of “Sully” who just saved the 150 folks when he landed in the Hudson. Deal with it…calmly…deliberately…and with good knowledge (data). But instead we have Hansen and Gore with all their ridiculous claims.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“…we haven’t exactly been racing to build wind power or solar either…”
No, and I believe sufficient incentive is already there in the form of the fuel being free. Our policymakers seem to believe that money can be instantly transformed into technology.
“It sometimes seems when anyone decides to try to create any new generating capacity, a group exists to block it.”
So very true.
“Climate science can inform policy decisions. It doesn’t automatically tell us what to do.”
As far as I can tell, it didn’t really get the chance to do either before it got hijacked as an appeal to authority in order to support preexisting ideologies. Unfortunately, people can only bear to lay so much blame on the politicians before they have to kick themselves for voting them into office, so the difference at the very least would already be bound to get deflected toward the most convenient scapegoats, then when you factor in one politically active climate scientist in particular who’s promoting the “Let them eat cake” approach of a regressive tax, that only amplifies the animosity.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Dr. Pielke is right to note the irony of a discussion on the politics of global warming reverting to an argument on the science of global warming, and to ask us to “please take it outside.” I honestly didn’t think my opening assumption (the exoneration of CO2 as the warming culprit) was controversial here in 2009, but apparently it still is. So, in deference to Dr. Pielke’s point I withdraw that comment, as I do not wish to distort the thread, or be accused of troll-like behavior. What I was trying to say was that the move away from the science and towards the politics has an added benefit for the scientific community, in that if carbon-trading schemes are ultimately shot down as a result of too high a cost (regardless of the science) then it takes the spotlight off the science, and that—given everything that’s happened—that might be a good thing for the scientific community right now.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Jim,
‘When Voorhees stated “pretty much all (OK, all) evidence now directly refutes the global warming premise”, I assumed that he was talking about the premis of AGW, and not the far more general observation that the planet is a bit warmer today than it was 100 years ago. I assume that we are all talking about the theory that humans are primarily the reason for the warming.’
Evidence REFUTING even the most aggressive consensus hypotheses would be genuinely newsworthy.
For example, Jim Hansen claims that he has “nailed” climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 at 3 degrees centigrade plus or minus 0.5 degrees centigrade. I think that this is an outrageous claim which grossly exaggerates our understanding of global climate. But there is no evidence of any kind that I can point to and say: “see, that proves you are wrong.”
The WG1 claim that surface temperature records are substantially free of UHI is a pet peeve of mine. What draws my ire is that the cited studies (Jones 1990; Parker 2006; etc.) simply do not establish this result with any degree of confidence.
I am sure that AR5 will report that McKitrick and Michaels 2007 has been disproven by Gavin Schmidt 2009. I don’t think this is true (although I do find myself intuitively agreeing with Gavin’s comments on spacial autocorrelations in the temperature field substantially reducing the confidence that can be placed in M&M’s conclusions.) But even if we accept the conclusions of McKitrick and Michaels as fact, the remaining temperature trend is still larger than the back of the envelope calculation for CO2 forcing without water vapor feedbacks. There is nothing in this whole episode that refutes the premise of anthropogenic CO2.
“That, my friend, is absolutely tortured reasoning and you find it on almost every page of the report, all twisted to support the theory. Despite this effort, one still does not find any observational evidence that increasing CO2 is responsible for the majority of the observed warming of the 20th Century. What we do find is a 20th century warming trend that is well within the bounds of natural warming cycles, similar spatially and temporaly to previously observed natural warming cycles and which appears to be (at least temporarily) over! All of this indicates that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of global temperature, just as Voorhees stated.”
I disagree with many of your conclusions, but I would certainly not characterize them as ridiculous. I save the word ridiculous for those who claim that the available evidence REFUTES the AGW hypothesis.I am aware of NO physical evidence that can not be reconciled with AGW.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Ricku -
In #58, you tell me, “With all due respect, politicians on BOTH sides of the climate change debate ‘hide behind a screen of science.’”
I believe I said that.
See #44. Me: “…both sides routinely discuss the science, as they seek either to darken the screen, or to make it more transparent. (A fancy way to put that might be, ‘using science as a proxy for political debate.’)”
Same meaning, is it not?
As to your last sentence: absolutely.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
David-
Re #66, “You failed, certainly with me and at least one other commenter. If you wanted to make the point that there are no limits, a single example was not the way to go.”
How do I ask, “how many examples would suffice?” without coming across as less than cordial?
February 9th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Hi Roger,
I’m not sure if you missed my question, or thought it was rhetorical (it wasn’t).
You wrote that, “The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this fact you will be very soon. … It is not due to years without an increase in global temperature. It is not due to the overturning of the scientific consensus on the role of human activity in the global climate system.”
My question is, if the world goes another decade without a year that is significantly warmer than 1998, wouldn’t that have a pretty significant effect on both the scientific and political consensus regarding the role of humanity in climate change? Especially the scientific consensus?
Thanks,
Mark
February 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Hi Mark, I did think it was rhetorical;-)
My answer: Yes.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Hi Roger,
If you thought it was rhetorical and the answer is “yes,” wouldn’t a more accurate assessment of your take on the situation be (emphasis added):
“The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing.”…”It is not due *primarily* to years without an increase in global temperature.”
In other words, don’t you think at least some part of the collapse in political consensus comes from 10 years without a year significantly warmer than 1998?
February 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
No.
I can’t prove it, just my view of what I see.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Hi Roger,
“No. I can’t prove it, just my view of what I see.”
Well, yes. Who can say for certain why things are happening?
(Other than Paul Krugman? 
)
But suppose this:
1) Suppose in the next decade, it is determined that ambient air capture and disposal (aka sequestration) of CO2 can be performed at a cost of $50 per ton of CO2. (I think we both agree that’s way lower than will be possible, at least for scrubber towers.) Therefore, humankind could capture and sequester ALL of its emissions (28 billion tons of CO2) for approximately $1.4 trillion per year.
2) Suppose also that the world temperature doesn’t exceed the 1998 temperature for the next decade.
3) How much ambient air scrubbing and sequestration do you think would be occurring in the following decade? 0 percent of emissions? 50 percent of emissions? 100 percent of emissions?
My guess would be much closer to 0 percent than 100 percent. After all, even 10 percent capture and disposal would be $140 billion per year.
Best wishes,
Mark
P.S. Better get home!
February 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Amy –
re #72
You say in 44: “In this instance, science is the screen behind which certain politicians (supporters of an expansion of government power) hide. If the screen is opaque (the public believes the AGW theory and that a crisis is upon us), as fast as you can say “Henry Waxman,” these politicians will do as they have always been inclined to do (expand federal control of the private sector), using science as the excuse. If the screen is transparent (population remains skeptical of or uninterested in AGW), they will alter their behavior to conform it more closely to their perception of public concerns (jobs; lower energy costs).”
The point I was trying to make was that neither side of the political debate over climate is seeking to make the screen more transparent (as you seem to indicate above). Perhaps I misunderstood your argument, but what would be the purpose of the screen, then? Or to lay off the screen analogy;), what would be the purpose of using science as a proxy if you wanted an open, transparent debate? In my humble opinion, both those who are for action on climate change and those against action use science to put forward their arguments. They just use different science.
As you say in 44 and 72: “…both sides routinely discuss the science, as they seek either to darken the screen, or to make it more transparent.(A fancy way to put that might be, ‘using science as a proxy for political debate.’)”
What I am saying is if you are using science as a proxy for political debate, then you are seeking to darken the screen no matter what side you are on.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Roger,
Sorry about the diversion into climate science on your policy blog. Over the years, I have perhaps been guilty of this more than any other.
I have found that most arguments swirl around details, when the disagreement actually resides in the fundamental assumptions, which are never discussed. Without acceptance of the fundamentals, arguments on the particulars are a waste of time, and policy derived from such arguments almost always do more harm than good. I just find it difficult to consider policy arguments when the whole debate is built on such a weak and unverifiable premise. It is kind of like going to a tea party and arguing with the mad hatter!
That said, I will side a little more with Mark Bahner on his assessment of the collapse of climate change policy. I see your point. Politicians like the idea of climate change policy and would implement it if they could, regardless of the science. It gives them more cash to spend, more power and control, plus the illusion that they care and are doing something. AGW advocates know what politicians want and have played them (along with the media) like violins. But such policies could only be sold to the public in good times, when people can afford to consider noble issues and not worry about having a roof over their heads. It just doesn’t play in Peoria any more, due to the economy.
But Mark has a good point too. While the politicians may not care about the science, many rank and file folks do. They may not understand the details, but they do have a sense for snake oil salesmen. They know that hard winters and a ten year period with a slight cooling trend don’t mesh at all with the doom and gloom stories they have been fed on a regular basis. The rank and file is becoming skeptical and politicians are starting to take note. It has got to have some impact on their thinking.
February 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Ricku-
I see where the misunderstanding arose. I’ll pop back on this thread in a couple of hours to briefly explain. I don’t think we disagree with each other at all, but I have three children under ten, and if I try to respond sensibly to your post during the last hour before their bedtime, I’m liable to muck up our communications still further. I have at least that much knowledge of my limitations!
February 9th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Hi,
“They know that hard winters and a ten year period with a slight cooling trend don’t mesh at all with the doom and gloom stories they have been fed on a regular basis.”
Well, the 2005 hurricane season was ridden for all it was worth (regarding global warming fears). So that sort of balanced out with the ten-year temperature trend and the winters (especially since some winters in the past decade were also exceptionally mild).
But I think it’s absolutely crucial, if carbon reductions cost anything at all, that global temperatures increase by at least 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. And the more expensive CO2 reductions are, the more rapidly temperatures will have to rise to keep the global warming mitigation fires burning (so to speak).
February 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
This thread and this one: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-politicization-of-economics-4946#comment-12104 seem to me to have a common foundation. The suggested “solutions” by politicians in both cases is basically, “Just do something”. It has been my experiences that this Solution is a sure prediction of failure.
In both cases, the proposed solution seems to be an answer looking for a problem. The answer being, “Give me your money”.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Ricku-
When I introduced the screen metaphor in #44, I pegged it for illustrative purposes to a specific issue, that being politicians looking for an excuse to increase government power over the energy sector. In that particular example, persons who like the idea of increasing government control over the energy sector would like the screen opaque (that is, the public thinking the politicians were really motivated by a desire to fight global warming, when their real motives were political). Meanwhile, those who opposed increased government control of the energy sector this would want it to be transparent (that is, the public not caring about global warming so the politicians could not effectively use global warming as an excuse).
Hiding motives go on all the time, not just on AGW. For instance, the politician who says the U.S. needs some kind of science research done, and he inserts an earmark to have it done in his district. His real motive may be to bring home the bacon to aid his re-election or to get the board of the research facility to kick back some campaign contributions to him, but the earmark language will be all about the scientific research and that will be the public cover story.
I did not mean to confuse the issue with the concept of government transparency generally, such as FOIA requests and the like. The metaphoric screen I was talking about just shields the politicians’ motives.
If it is not clear now please just forget the entire analogy, as it obviously has outlived its usefulness. Just know that I believe the tactic gets used by all sides, on many issues, and I was not intending to imply otherwise.
February 10th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Amy (#18), I think you hit the nail on the head with your description of different kind of “skeptics”: The unconvinced scientist on the one hand and the politically horrified on the other. Along similar lines (though from a different perspective), I described these two types as ‘scientific skeptics’ and ‘ideological skeptics’ (http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/anything-but-co2/). A subset of the former are those scientists who strongly favor familiar lines of evidence, while ignoring that from other disciplines. (see http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/professional-deformation/)
It is good to see people being honest about the motives for their “skeptical” (or horrified) attitude; that is all too rare these days. It opens the door to a much more constructive kind of debate, which you seem intent on having as well, namely about policy options for mitigating climate change that are the least damaging (or even beneficial) to the economy. I’m all for such a public discussion, and I think so-called “skeptics” of “horrifieds” could play a valuable role in such a debate, as long as the science isn’t bend in the process.
Bart
February 10th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Amy,
This,
“How do I ask, “how many examples would suffice?” without coming across as less than cordial?”
is pretty cordial. FWIW, I was trying to be cordial, and may have failed.
As for how many examples, two that covered divergent political agendas would have addressed my concern about better supporting the notion that everybody can use science to hide a political argument.
February 11th, 2009 at 7:16 am
[...] Jr. of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado has started an interesting blog series on the growing realism on the political side of the climate-change [...]
February 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
(86),
“It opens the door to a much more constructive kind of debate … namely about policy options for mitigating climate change that are the least damaging (or even beneficial) to the economy.”
Anyone familiar with the broken window fallacy understands that any such policy options aren’t going to be beneficial to the economy.
And how about a constructive debate where we acknowledge: 1) we don’t understand enough about the climate to know if the next several decades will be warming or cooling, 2) we don’t have any idea what the overall impact of humans is on climate, 3) the climate models fail to include a wide range of parameters (human and natural) which impact climate, 4) we have no way of effectively “mitigating” climate change, if we don’t know what impacts humans have and we don’t understand enough about the climate to do so intelligently, if we did.
And last 5), we know that the current proposals being promoted will cause intense suffering for billions of the world’s poor for generations to come.
If moral, intelligent people are willing to acknowledge those simple facts, a rational debate can be had on what sensible course of action might be taken. However, if hubris dominates, and one side of the argument continues to claim that they have knowledge and capabilities which they clearly don’t, rational debate is impossible.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
How about we first acknowledge that the current proposals have yet to be shown to be effective. Ethanol has been a debacle (and note that there is no persons or organizations that can be held responsible for this miserable failure). Cap-n-Trade moves the problem and has a built-in nasty greed factor (and it has not yet reduced emissions anywhere). So far as I know, taxes have not yet been shown to be effective at promoting significant curtailment of consumption of anything.
February 11th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Stan (88),
Your points 1-4 have been extensively investigated by scientists for decades, and we have since moved a few stations further.
Your point 5 sounds quite alarmist to be honest.
You may be aware of the recent McKinsey report on mitigation options, where they show that up to a certain amount of emission reduction, the costs are negative (i.e. beneficial) to society.
You are clearly unaware of the consequences of unmitigated global warming, and not knowing enough about it should make you more, not less, worried. See eg http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2009/02/lumpy-container-yet.html (towards the end) for an elegant explanation.
EDaniel (89), no serious measures have been taken yet, and I agree that ethanol is a non-starter. There are a lot of potential measures available; society so far choses not to seriously adopt them.
Bart
February 11th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Bart,
I don’t argue religion, especially with a true believer.
s
February 11th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Bart (85)-
Thanks for including your blog link. I have added your blog to my daily RSS reader.
February 11th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
David (86)-
Two. Okay.
Cordially,
Amy
February 12th, 2009 at 6:29 am
[...] Policy Collapsing ! Here is an interesting little article, bound to stir a few ‘opinions’ Prometheus Blog Archive The Collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science I particularly liked this statement – [...]
February 12th, 2009 at 9:11 am
I don’t really agree or even understand that there is a political consensus (as opposed to a scientific consensus) in the first place. (It’s hard to undermine something which doesn’t exist.
That said, it’s clear that activist climate scientists have not been effective.
There are reasons that the deck is stacked that way that you don’t address. Scientists are not trained in politics. People engaged by organized advocacy groups are. Publicly funded scientists are presented with disincentives from participating in debate. Privately funded advocates are presented with incentives. It’s the local high school team vs the Dallas Cowboys.
Please note that the fact that most of the vocal, politically active climate scientists are politically inept in no way implies that they (or should I say “we”?) are incorrect.
It’s also evident, as you claim, that the political process is doing climate science itself considerable harm.
I look forward to your followups on this matter.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:33 am
[...] – they’re still believers at Met, but why the skew? Are the waffling? Have they read Peilke? The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this [...]
February 12th, 2009 at 11:15 am
mtobis–
It’s fine to claim that climate scientists aren’t trained in communication and some unnamed privately funded advocates are trained.
But you give no specifics. So how are we to judge whether your claim is true in any practical sense? Who do you consider to be a trained privately funded advocate and who you consider the untrained scientist? What training has each person had? In any case, does whatever communications training anyone received really matter?
It is true that some training might help.
One of the difficulties for the climate scientist side is that asome of the more vocal scientists jumping into the fray have decided to resort to using shrill snark, name-calling, appeals to motive, ad hominem attacks, claims to authority, evading questions actually asked by skeptics, rebutting strawmen, and loud invective to support their position. (Some of this behavior can be seen here.) Writing letters of complaint to people bosses is not unprecedented, nor is refusing information requests which has the effect of making it difficult for people to discover the basis of individual scientists specific claims.
One hopes no one trained them to do this. It’s all counter productive. But this behavior isn’t due to disincentives for participating in the debate. It’s behavior displayed by those who do participate.
Also, I think, as a practical matter, you are incorrect when you suggest climate scientists aren’t trained to communicate. Some of these activist climate bloggers seem to be taking active steps to train.
They seems to be enrolling in (possibly publicly funded) workshops for communication. They tell us they are reading and writing books on how to communicate science. See blog post.
So, it’s clear the climate scientists are engaging in formal training. Unfortunately, the training appears to be counter productive.
Why is it counterproductive?
Communications advisers appear to give bad advice. This includes advocating reframing inconvenient questions so as to answer a more convenient one. (This ploy is familiar to anyone who has watched a political debate. It’s commonly known as “not answering the question”.)
Other advice includes answering questions yes/no questions by repeating cliched metaphors about coin flipping. (See Susan’s Hassol’s bad advice. (Mike advices readers at RC to follow Ms. Hassols advice in a recent comment.)
For what it’s worth none of the poor communication practices I described are taught or encouraged by the scientific community. They are rarely displayed in public scientific forums. (Some of this bad behavior is seen in private. After all, people are human.)
In my opinion, the result of climate scientists following all this bad communications advice the hear during their communications training sessions has been that those jumping into the fray:
a) fail to answer questions people are really asking,
b) create the appearance of evasiveness
c) cause some to assume vitriol is necessary to mask the uncertainty in the science and finally,
d) foster distrust.
This is extremely unwise because the science supporting the truth of AGW is strong!
So, I do agree with you the scientists are politically inept. I agree that doesn’t mean their case for AGW is incorrect.
But now, I must issue a strawman alert:
Did Roger suggest that the the political ineptness of climate scientists means AGW is wrong? No. If your comment represents some sort of rebuttal of Rogers post, then you are rebutting a strawman.
While correct claim to rebut a strawman may seem wise, you might wish to recognize that many readers are not going to forget that Roger did not suggest the scientists bad behavior means they are wrong about the science.
No, political ineptness does not mean AGW is wrong. It means the climate scientists behavior is counter productive. They can try to shift the blame for failure of their inept political forays onto unnamed highly trained communicators funded by unnamed private entities. However, blame shift won’t help. The only thing that would help is to stop being inept.
February 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Roger, the fact a political consensus existed is true and can be seen from the fact both McCain and Obama ran on the issue. The fact it is collapsing is also true has little to do with the behavior of climate scientists. It is collapsing mainly because of changing political priorities due to a collapsing economy. Most politicians are rightfully reluctant to throw additional burdens onto a collapsing economy.
Your assertion climate science has not changed much since AR4 is demonstrably wrong. First, your father has come out much more vocal in his criticism of the IPCC and their bias in selecting which papers to feature and what scientific evidence to ignore. His criticisms have not gone unnoticed. Also, since 2007 we have seen the publication of a great many peer-reviewed papers indicating rising CO2 will not be catastrophic. Among the most prominent are the Schwartz paper on climate sensitivity and the Chylek paper on aerosols and climate sensitivity. We have also seen a paper by Spencer and Christy on a negative feedback over the tropics they identified as the Infrared Iris effect hypothesized by Lindzen. And there are many, many more papers. Perhaps most significant is the fact Ocean Heat Content has not increased since 2002. This is completely contrary to the Earth’s energy budget being out of balance. If it was truly out of balance, the increase in Ocean Heat Content should be annual with very little variability. In addition, global surface temps and satellite temps are coming down. The PDO has gone into its cool phase and Spencer has a new hypothesis of how the PDO can effect long-term climate trends. All of this adds up to significant scientific evidence we will not see a climate catastrophe due to CO2.
While the political consensus is collapsing mainly from economic realities, the change in the science is a secondary force.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
[...] The Collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science [...]
February 12th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Hmm. It would appear that Ron and Lucia don’t agree on the state of the science.
February 12th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Stan,
Lucia is very bright. I could not compete in a contest of IQs. But our positions are probably not as different as you may think. Lucia writes:
“This is extremely unwise because the science supporting the truth of AGW is strong!”
I actually agree with this statement, I just do not agree that AGW will be catastrophic. Even Stephen Schwartz from Brookhaven National Lab has this view. He is still concerned about global warming but feels his paper on climate sensitivity show “we have time to find a solution.” It is logical that more atmospheric CO2 would cause some amount of increased warming. How much is the real question. If I remember correctly, Lucia looked at Schwartz’s revised paper and did not think it was far wrong.
However, the work being done by Spencer could eventually show the net feedbacks are negative and the recent warming was caused by the PDO.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Take note that skeptics haven’t gone around calling for criminal trails or the imprisonment of climate alarmists.
Oh but they HAVE, Harry. Lubos Motl, the skeptic Czech physicist, has on his own blog called for the “euthanasia” or urgent “quarantine” of reporters and others who have recently written on climate change, and has separately graciously called me a “freedom-hating” “hypercommunist” “Nazi” who “should be put in jail or executed before it`s too late”.
Further, not that it excuses his rhetoric, but Dr. Hansen was clearly criticising not differences of opinion, but acts by fossil fuels company executives to muddle the science rather than arguing over policy.
February 13th, 2009 at 2:44 am
I think that Amy Ridenour makes a number of useful points.
However, I would like to draw a little attention to a slight bit of disingenuousness that she evidences when she requests that Roger and others refer to her and others in industry-funded think tanks and PR shops who have until recently effectively blocked both climate mitigation and adaptation policies in the US, not as “skeptics” (which may wrongly imply that they doubt the science), but as “freedom-loving, economy-growing patriots who aren’t sucking at the federal you-know-what” instead.
This shows the small conceits that not only she and others in her noble band are being transparent about their goals, which are as American as apple pie and based soley on their love of country, those who have differing preferences somehow are either less noble or less transparent.
I have no doubt that Amy is a patriot (though I see no relevance to it, as I don’t see any implication that “alarmists” are NOT also patriots to be justifiied), and agree that “freedom-loving, economy-growing” is useful as a broad stroke of policy preferences. But I think that it would be helpful to add a few modifiers for clarity, such as:
- “funded by big businesses that want sweet deals from government”, and,
- in the case they are funded by fossil fuel interests, “particularly the right to use our common atmosphere to emit GHGs free of charge, regardless of the multi-generational risks”.
Sorry if that makes things too long for you, Roger. May I suggest “policy skeptic” as an alternative?
February 13th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Roger, sometimes I applaud you and other times I disagree, but there are also plenty of time when I really have a hard time figuring out what it is you are trying to say. This is one of those times.
What is collapsing – a “political consensus” to do what – enact policies in the US (or globally?) that will achieve stabilization at 450 ppm? While there may have been targets like this in the UNFCCC, it was always clear that they were aspirations, not commitments. This was especially true when the US made it absolutely clear it wasn’t accepting Kyoto, thus undercutting the incentives for all of those with “binding” obligations. I don’t see a political consensus on anything that is collapsing. There seems to be a shared and growing agreement that climate change and our contribution to it is something that we ought, collectively, to take very seriously and to do something about – and this does not seem to be “collapsing”.
Are you simply saying that economic hard times may be affecting the time horizons of everyone and political will of nations to act, and bemoaning the implications for society to grapple with both mitigation opportunities and adaptation needs?
Even with lowered expectations, it still seems to me that we have every reason to expect that the Obama administration will proceed with climate change initiatives, both at home (on at least jobs, stimulation, smart grid and CAA fronts) – though whether the benefits of those initiatives will outweigh costs is another matter – and abroad. There seems to be a fair degree of political support for such policies, including within industries that believe that they can benefit from them.
As far as climate science goes, I fail to see how, in any sense, its “sustainability” is being threatened. Man’s quest for knowledge and understand continues apace – much of it being pursued by private investors – regardless of some stalemate in the political arena.
You refer cryptically to the “self-destruction of the politically active subset of the climate science community”, but this, while headline-grabbing, leave whatever point you are trying to make very opaque.
February 13th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Tom–
Policy skeptic doesn’t work, because they don’t doubt the ability of policy to modify outcomes.
Also, I agree with Ron we may not be that far off. It appears he accepts that AGW the science for AGW is strong. He may lean toward thinking the science is strong, but the evidence points toward the lower range indicated by the AGW. In which case, his views are entirely consistent with the consensus, which, after all, includes a range of values.
Certainly, with regard to accepting consensus, thinking evidence points toward the low range indicated in the AR4 must be just as accepting of the consensus as thinking evidence points to the high range indicated in the AR4. (Presumably, agreeing with the low range in the AR4 is more consistent with the AR4 than insisting the AR4 is wildly conservative.)
As we’ve been discussing the political ineptness of some of the climate scinetists, , I suspect the underlying reason why some of more politically active climate scientists resort to demagogy is they want to confuse people into believing only the upper end of the range of possibilities is supported by the science. Moreover, some wish to advise people that the IPCC projections are too low. In addition, they wish to portray their views as the consensus.
In their efforts to the the latter, the more scietific discussions necessarily resort to evasiveness, vagueness, and red herrings as required to prevent the audience from looking at the graphs and discussions in the AR4 and noticing the actual ranges discussed in the report.
Having put themselves in the position of trying to sell their non-consensus views as the consensus, they ultimately end up resorting to the shrillness, invective etc.
Sadly, in the end, some of the audience ends up believing that all climate scientists behave like the more vocal groups. Overcompensating, some people become skeptical that AGW is has any basis at all.
Ron
Schwartz makes a some big underlying assumptions. But, given those assumptions, I get a low climate sensitivity too. There were some comments on the paper, I discussed those a bit at my blog.
Anyway, I don’t so much say Schwartz is right as I say, that his answer is the one you get under those assumptions. His uncertainty intervals may be wrong— but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the numerical value for sensitivity you get that way is low.
February 13th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Hi Tom-
The political consensus is represented by the global agreement forged in Rio in 1992 with initial steps to codify in Kyoto in 1997 and is now being discussed in terms of a “Kyoto II” (or other descriptors) at Copenhagen this coming December. The IPCC has organized itself to support this consensus.
Key elements of that consensus are the notion that an agreement must be global, it must be focused on binding targets and timetables, that it must focus on pricing of carbon, and that emissions trading is the best way to achieve a price on carbon.
Now you may think that such a consensus has never really existed. I would disagree. Either way we wind up at the same place however. I just put up a post with an interview with Steven Chu hinting that cap and trade might not be the best option. Here is the US the consensus among the intelligentsia has been for a while now that cap and trade is the way to go. A consensus does not me unanimity of views.
On the sustainability of climate science, see the concerns expressed by Vicki Pope of the UK Met office which are similar in some ways to my own views. Some people are indeed concerned about the effects of the very nasty political debate on the institutions of climate science. Another example is the comments about the AMS made recently by Andrew Freedman.
I hope this clarifies, but if not, please ask again, thanks.
February 13th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Lucia,
I accept that the science showing rising atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic and will tend to warm the atmosphere is strong. This is my working definition of AGW. I do not accept the range of values promoted by the IPCC. Schwartz sensitivity estimate is 1.9C, far below the IPCC range of 3-7C for doubled CO2. To be honest, I think Schwartz is high. The fact Ocean Heat Content is not going up each year is a strong strike against the IPCC range or even Schwartz estimate. Argos data is open for all to see and therefore less subject to mischief from arbitrary adjustments by the keepers of the data. Facts are stubborn things. Eventually scientists will give the ocean its due.
February 13th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Ron–
I should also note: When I say I got the same value Schwartz got, I mean I get the answer Schwartz gets in his response to comments– not the one he got in the original paper. I posted my reason for the higher value months before the revised comment came out..
February 13th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
[...] The Collapse of Climate Policy Roger Pielke Jr., Prometheus, 7 February 2009 [...]
February 13th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Roger:
1. Given your response in 106 it now seems clear that by the “collapse” of the “political consensus surrounding climate policy” that you are talking primarily about what you see as an INTERNATIONAL political consensus, rather than to any DOMESTIC political consensus.
Thanks for the clarifcation. Most of those who commented on this thread don’t seem to have understood your focus (and I’ll wager that few of others out there who are hearing of or reading your post understand it either).
As for such a “consensus”, let me note simply that the rejection of Kyoto by the US in 1997 made it clear that any such consensus – whether the aspirations in the UNFCC or in the “binding” obligations of Kyoto – was in fact illusory. As a result, I don’t see that there is any consensus that is now or might be “collapsing”.
2. There might be a shared agreement as to the framework of a Kyoto II – to be negotiated and then agreed and implemented – which shared understanding you feel is sufficiently strong to be called a “consensus” and that includes as primary terms “an agreement must be global, it must be focused on binding targets and timetables, that it must focus on pricing of carbon, and that emissions trading is the best way to achieve a price on carbon.” Is there such a consensus, is it collapsing, and is such collapse something to bemoan or applaud (as more productive policy approaches may be available)?
I look forward to your reading your views on this.
3. You note that in “the US the consensus among the intelligentsia has been for a while now that cap and trade is the way to go”, but it seems at least confusing, if not inappropriate, to call the views of a particular slice of people a “consensus” – at least in the context of a “political consensus” – when the “intelligentsia” have failed utterly to implement such a cpa and trade program on the policy front for decades.
Be that as it may, I still look forward to hearing why you think such a consensus is collapsing and what such a collapse heralds.
4. As for Vicky Pope, I presume you too want to encourage the media (and scientists) to keep their eye on the big picture and not to feed into the confusion between the weather (short-term variations) and the climate, and that it’s fine to warn, like Ms. Pope has, of potential disastrous temperature rises later this century under BAU: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5371682.ece
Unfortunately – but predictibly – “skeptics” have been quick to misinterpret Ms. Pope’s frustration and warning as being applicable not only to herself, but to Jim Hansen and James McCarthy, head of AAAS, as well. Clearly these are not her targets (as they are talking about long-term trends and not the weather), but are they yours, and if so, why (as the basis must be different from Pope’s)?
Your reference to Andrew Freedman, who decried the AMS recognition of Jim Hansen with their highest award for his work (including public communication of the science), would seem to indicate that these scientists – as well as others “of the politically active subset of the climate science community” – are on the road to “self-destruction”. Well, inquring minds want to know more.
So far, you seem to be offering up only headlines and Rorschach blots.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
As we’ve been discussing the political ineptness of some of the climate scinetists, I suspect the underlying reason why some of more politically active climate scientists resort to demagogy is they want to confuse people into believing only the upper end of the range of possibilities is supported by the science. Moreover, some wish to advise people that the IPCC projections are too low. In addition, they wish to portray their views as the consensus.
Lucia, thanks for your thoughts, which could be on point.
However, I would venture that another reason that some scientists are getting exercised is that (1) their understanding of climate science (including the both the remarkable inertia in the system as well as the possibility of relatively sudden surprises), when (2) coupled with the short-term time horizon of most people and the obvious difficulties of getting many different interest groups and nations to take effective collective action, (3) has them frustrated and feeling that the best thing that they can do is to raise their voices.
February 14th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Tom (110)-
Thanks for your comments, though I do think we are getting into the picking nits stage of the discussion.
1. On the political consensus, I don’t believe anyone would claim that there is a domestic political consensus in the US. Sorry if that confused you, I obviously thought it was obvious. As far as whether others are confused or not, I’ll leave it to you to judge the levels of comprehension of the readers here.
2. On your question:
“Is there such a consensus, is it collapsing, and is such collapse something to bemoan or applaud (as more productive policy approaches may be available)?”
Indeed this has been a focus of this blog for 5 years now. But you know this. If you’d like to read an excellent review see the writings of Prins/Rayner and Prins on the Kyoto Protocol and its aftermath. These writings can be found from Prometheus.
3. In the US I do distinguish between a consensus among the intelligentsia and a political consensus, you seem to get this in exactly the way I have intended.
4. Whether Pope is referring to Hansen or McCarthy I do not know, and am surprised to hear that you seem to think that you do know who she is referring to.
5. “So far, you seem to be offering up only headlines and Rorschach blots.”
I try my best to answer your lengthy questions. Leaving insults as a closing shot is typical among trolls, but not your usual MO.
February 14th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Roger, sorry, I appreciate your responses but meant my last comment seriously. Just stroll through the intertubes (in addition to comments here) and you`ll see very, very different interpretations of what people think you`re saying, some of which appear to be 180 degrees from what you`ve kindly clarified in comments to me.
As a result, I can`t help wondering whether I (and others) am just not clued in enough to follow you, and/or whether you prefer a degree of ambiguity and opacity that I find here alot with the Japanese.
Sorry to burden you with length questions, hopefully they attest that I`m being diligent, and not trolling.
We all have priorities to balance by the way, so I appreciate that you generally favor me with a response – though of course none is needed.
February 14th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Tom
(1) This is no excuse to mis-characterize the consensus view regarding the expected outcome. It’s perfectly possible to correctly characterize the consensus and then also explain the potential for high costs if the consensus is wrong, and under-estimates the degree of warming.
(2) You may well be correctly identifying some climate scientists motives in exaggerating the amount of warming in the consensus position. If, as you suggest, their motive for exaggerating is to motivate action, I suspect mischaracterizing the consensus, or confusing people into believing the consensus is for more warming than exists is doomed to failure. People will compare data to projections and likely conclude those making alarming predictions are crying wolf. This will make people reluctant to act. People often respond to exaggeration this way.
(3) No one is complaining about them raising their voices. I complained that exaggerate the warming or effects described in consensus view like the IPCC, and try to mis-represent this as the consensus view. I agree with you that some of these people do so loudly. I also agree that part of their motivation for the loud misrepresentations is frustration in being unable to convince panels like the IPCC to adopt their view as the consensus and/or to get the public to act on their own views.
So, while I agree you may have correctly identified motives, that these motives hardly excuse scientists who resort to demagogy in an attempt to get their way.
February 14th, 2009 at 11:03 am
I had an experience in another field of science, in which a scientist said “I agree with you that the research does not, strictly speaking, back up my position that I am describing as the correct policy option (in this case, resource management and not policy per se), but if I don’t say what I am saying, I don’t believe managers will be careful enough (as careful as I’d like them to be) so I am purposely going beyond the bounds of my knowledge.
This is, unfortunately, more common than many would like to believe. . Unfortunately, the scientific community does not appear to have self-regulating behavior.
It is interesting that the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society includes this in their code of ethics:
“I recognize that my deeply held, professional convictions may conflict with the interests and convictions of others. I am obligated to be clear and honest in distinguishing between reports of results from rigorous study and my professional opinions based on observations or intuition. My
professional opinions clearly so identified have value, but must not be put forward as fact. In addition, the temporal, spatial, and contextual limits of my facts and their confidence limits must be clearly acknowledged.”
Also “I will distinguish between recommendations based on science and those based on policy, both to avoid confusing the public and to better separate political decisions from aquatic science.”
I recommend a read of the complete code of ethics:
http://www.orafs.org/pdfdocs/codeofethics.pdf
And wonder if the climate science community has a similar code of ethics?
February 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Tom (113)-
I’m happy to engage in a discussion, and to answer questions. Obviously the more precise the question the better position I’ll be in to answer.
There is a lot of junk out there on the internet, including views expressed about me and my views that are 180 degrees from the truth
So if people want to know what I think, they should do as you are doing and simply ask me.
Meantime, I’ll keep writing and try to be as clear as I can. When I don’t reach clarity, ask away.
February 14th, 2009 at 11:17 am
docpine (115)-
This is really interesting and worth a post. Thanks!
February 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
You’re welcome. A couple of years ago I attempted to round up professional codes of ethics in the natural resource management professional societies for an environmental ethics course I was teaching, and Oregon AFS had by far the best on the science/policy/management topic, in my view. You can tell they have lived this (think salmon, dams for electric power generation, oceans, grazing, logging, urban development) and have real-world wisdom.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Lucia,
Your comment 6 was apparently typed in classic Lucia fashion – fast, furious, and typo-ridden; I sometimes think that your fingers can’t keep up with your brain.
I think I agree w/ most of it, but I must attempt a translation first:
Some of the science debate on climate is, and always was, a proxy debate. Some want to pretend – and others really think – that answers to the science questions can, by and of themselves, dictate policy decisions. That is not so.
We know enough about climate to recognize that something ought to be done. But what? I think what little consensus we had on “what” is collapsing.
Is that about right? I had meant to respond sooner, but stuff intervened. However, in reading more recent posts – some of them yours – it seems still relevant. For example, the consensus you refer to is obviously the policy consensus (non-existent in the US, as Roger notes), not the mythical scientific consensus.
Two other of your statements also piqued my interest; from post 6:
“We know enough about climate to recognize that something ought to be done.”
and later:
“the science supporting the truth of AGW is strong!”
Both of them are general enough that it’s hard to tell where you stand on the scientific issues. When you say “We know enough about climate”, what parts of our understanding do you think are solid? Likewise, when you state that “the science . . . is strong!” are you referring to specific areas of climate research that you consider solid, or – surely not! – the whole enchilada?
My apologies if the preceeding comes off like an interrogation. It’s not – I’m really curious to know your specific views (and please, don’t tell me to review your blog – I don’t have time!).
BTW, an interesting coincidence that you used Susan Hassol as an example of bad communication advice. For several years now, I’ve privately used the term “Hassol Effect” in accounting for the remarkable tenacity of the Dangerous, Human-abetted Global Warming myth (there – I’ve made my views plain!); in fact, I’m becoming more and more convinced that the Hassol Effect – AGW Careerism – is the primary driver. Climatology is the least of it: Journalists, Environmentalists, Economists, Lawyers, “Communication Consultants” (and Politicians, of course) – careers across the entire socio-economic spectrum are being built on it (final caveat: I do not imply that these people are cynical opportunists, callously exploiting mass hysteria. Human motivation is far more convoluted than that).
Sigh. I’d really meant to keep this brief.
February 14th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Arrgghh – block quote didn’t work. Lucia’s two short paragraphs begin with “Some” and end with “collapsing.”
February 14th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
So, while I agree you may have correctly identified motives, that these motives hardly excuse scientists who resort to demagogy in an attempt to get their way.
I confirm that I was only trying to understand/explain behavior, not to condone or endorse it.
As to the “demagoguery”, I would merely note that (1) we do not share instantaneous access to all information, (2) even if we did, we would likely interpret it differently and have differing preferences regard to action, (3) we are all adept at self-justification, and (4) no doubt those whom you consider demagogues have differing views as to the justification and efficacy of their actions.
Discussions about demagogy that focus simply on the efficacy of the tactic employed may be useful, but I think that such discussions may easily lose focus. Focussing on the on the merits of policies advocated may be more productive.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Roger, are you essentially echoing – with respect to both the domestic and international scenes – what Ted Nordhaus said last April? http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/04/deconstructing_joe_romm_a_prim.shtml
“Environmental groups assumed that once the debate over the science was settled, the debate over policy would be settled too. But things didn’t turn out that way.
The strategy worked. News coverage today rarely, if ever, cites sources who question the existence of climate change or its anthropogenic origins. And few policymakers continue to publicly question climate change. The assumption among environmental leaders was that once the scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change was occurring was established, this consensus would translate into a consensus as to what to do about it — a consensus that would embrace the policies long advocated by the national environmental movement, namely the Kyoto framework at the international level and cap and trade legislation at the domestic level.
But a funny thing has happened over the last several years, as opinion about the reality and urgency of the climate crisis has “tipped.” The consensus that would allegedly result once broad public acceptance of anthropogenic climate change was achieved has fractured. Efforts to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Accord at the international level have stalled, as developing economies, led by China and India, have balked at any framework that would constrain carbon emissions and slow economic development in the developing world, where most of the growth of carbon emissions over the next century will come from. The fragile coalition of businesses, some segments of the energy industry, and environmentalists that appeared ready to support a domestic cap and trade system has frayed, as the environmental movement has demanded that all carbon allowances be auctioned and business interests have balked at the increasing costs of the regulations.”
It sounds like Nordhaus is really saying that, rather than any “consensus” collapsing, what is happening is that those who hoped that agreement on the scientific basis for concern would translate easily into particular policies are finding out that it just ain`t so. It`s not clear to me that environmentalists generally held such assumptions, but in any case it seems to me more productive to focus on incremental policy suggestions that will win domestic and international support. (I met Prins last year and am familiar with his writings, BTW.)
In any case, I would note that I agree wholeheartedly with what you said last year: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/joe-romm-throws-another-fit-4812
“The “facts” do not determine whose political views are right and whose are wrong. Saying that science “inexorably” leads into a certain political direction is just wrong, and introduces a set of pathologies into the policy process. It leads people to the mindless tribalism and unsupportable claims to absolute certainty about science, as often displayed by Romm.”
I would note that the pathology you point to in Romm is shared by many in the virtuous, patriotic, freedom-loving camp of various Amy Ridenours, who have similarly assumed that climate science dictates policy, and so until recently have preferred to base their arguments over policy on disagreements over science.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
TokyoTom-
I checked the dictionary and apparently demagoguery and demagogy are both OK, even though I have a natural preference for demagoguery. To me, demagogy sounds like a religion that worships demagogs.
I think both the topics themselves and the behavior of people who address the topics (and profess to have credibility due to “science” as opposed to other sources of legitimacy) should be equally open to critique, discussion and evaluation.
February 14th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
docpine, I don`t disagree with you that behavior of scientists or others should be open to discussion; in fact, I find myself doing it quite often. However, I think that it is relatively distracting and unproductive.
But while we`re talking about it, let me venture a distinction that seems to have been overlooked: “demagoguery” refers to a class of tactics for obtaining and strengthening their political power. Those who do not aspire to such political power are not “demagogues” – though they may be prophets crying from the wilderness, blowhards, Cassandras, pundits etc. Of course their behavior remains fair game for discussion.
February 15th, 2009 at 6:33 am
TokyoTom,
The word “demagogy” has a definition. It’s even discussed at legnth at wikipedia.
I described the climate scientists resorting to using logical fallacies like strawmen, red herrings, appeals to authority and appeals to motive.
At the wikipedia, you will find these listed under “methods” of demagogy.
Those who use these methods may think their actions justified, or the methods effective. However, by definition of the word itself, resorting to these methods means resorting to demagogy.
As it happens, blog posts complaining their methods of communication are have been ineffective appear on a number of pro-AGW blogs. You are right they may not see the connection between their failure to communicate and the tactics that appear in comments, above the fold, in newspaper columns etc. And, maybe I’m wrong and they are ineffective for other reasons.
I think it’s the demagogy that is causing them to fail.
February 15th, 2009 at 6:36 am
TokyoTom
Agreed. The climate scientists are resorting to these tactics, and they are doing so in an attempt to strengthen their political power.
That they fail just means demagogy doesn’t always work.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
[...] latest warning about global warming alarmism follows the declaration that “the political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing" by University of [...]
February 16th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Lucia,
Even if there were almost no skeptical scientists, I don’t think you can make the case that the science supporting AGW is “pretty good.” At least not for the purpose of supporting policy measures and certainly not the extraordinary changes alarmists are demanding.
To establish that the case has been made scientifically, I believe that the science should be proven. Every element of the case for AGW should be established by studies which have been replicated repeatedly by other disinterested scientists and checked and re-checked. The work should be transparent for all to see. Quality control should be the highest possible. Statistical work in the studies should be examined thoroughly by experts in statistics and reflect the best approach available. Given the enormous stakes, that doesn’t seem too much to ask.
Nothing remotely close to that has been done. We have slipshod garbage like the hockey stick accepted as gospel throughout the climate science community without anyone bothering to check anything. Doesn’t exactly inspire any confidence in that scientific community. Given the growing pile of quality disasters piling up of alarmist studies, why should anyone afford them any credibility? Quality control is poor. Transparency is a joke. Replication is non-existent. And politics dominates.
They don’t have enough credibility to have “proven” anything.
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
[...] This latest warning about global warming alarmism follows the declaration that “the political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing” by University of Colorado Professor Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. on February 7, 2009. Pielke, Jr., [...]