The World in Black and White
November 1st, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Fred Pearce at the New Scientist apprently thinks that if you are critical of the IPCC, then you must be one of those nasty “sceptics.” He writes in a news story:
Some insiders suggest that the IPCC may be more cautious in its upcoming report than it has been in the past, but this is unlikely to placate climate-change sceptics. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, Boulder, accuses the IPCC leadership of “seeing their role as political advocates rather than honest brokers”.
Of course, as readers here know well, Mr. Pearce is just wrong (I’ve emailed the New Scientist as well). I accept the results of IPCC Working Group I and have for many years advocated policy action on both adaptation and mitigation. Mr. Pearce’s lumping me in with the sceptics is particularly ironic because his entire article is a preemptive defense of IPCC scientists who are “targets of concerted attacks apparently designed to bring down their reputations and careers.” If Mr. Pearce wanted to know my views he might have just called, rather than assuming that anyone who puts forth a criticism of the IPCC must be a climate sceptic.
It must be nice to see the world in terms of only good guys and bad guys, with not a shade of grey in sight.
November 1st, 2006 at 8:15 pm
It comes down to the difference between agreeing with WG1, written by real scientists (with which most skeptics agree) vs. agreeing with the Summary for Policymakers, which was not.
The dividing line is obvious once that is realized.
November 1st, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Thanks for your comment Steve. However, while I’ve occasionally taken issue with the IPCC WG I SPM tactics (i.e., emphasizing the HS), I accept their conclusions.
But a question for you — How can someone who accepts IPCC WG1 be at the same time a skeptic? Skeptical of what?
November 1st, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Skeptical that the Summary for Policymakers (SFP)represents the findings and uncertainties of the actual scientists. As you have recently noted, the actual scientists did not have a chance to review the SFP prior to publication. That is the difference. Most “skeptics” I have been in touch with agree with WG1 – just not the SFP.
We will see if the actual scientists that did the work agree with the AR4 “findings” – will they even have a chance this time to review it prior to publication?
Will this be seminal work, or a dismissal of potential future science in order to manipulate markets?
November 2nd, 2006 at 1:28 am
Roger, in times of conflict, nuance is frequently a victim of the social pressure to take sides. We have a native tendency to categorize; the negative aspects of this are is compounded by the way in which our tribal nature clouds our perceptions.
By the way, keen anomoly detector has noticed that you use the Britich spellings of “sceptic” and “grey” – how long have you hated America? (Just kidding, of course.)
November 2nd, 2006 at 2:23 am
The New Scientist is neither.
I have never seen an article there show even the most basic grasp of any Earth science.
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:47 am
Steve H -
So does this suggest that “Most ’skeptics’ (you) have been in touch with” agree that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”? Does this include you? This seems inconsistent with the position you’ve staked out so enthusiastically in previous discussions as, for example, when you said: “My basic disagreement with the IPCC is this, which I’ve said before. They use the correlation of CO2 (atmospheric CO2 concentration) and temperature (global temperature) to pronounce that CO2 influences temperature.”
November 2nd, 2006 at 10:43 am
“It comes down to the difference between agreeing with WG1, written by real scientists (with which most skeptics agree) vs. agreeing with the Summary for Policymakers, which was not.”
Aren’t the “projections” an output–I would classify them as the most important output–of Working Group 1?
If so, which people (who know anything about the subject) agree with the projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increase of “1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius”?
P.S. For example, I can not see how anyone who knows anything can agree with the methane atmospheric concentration projections. Even a layperson should be able to see with less than 5 minutes of explanation that the methane atmospheric concentration projections are way too high (absent some sort of massive methane “burp”).
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I need to correct a misstatement – I didn’t mean to say there were no real scientists helping write the SFP – but they seem to have been overrun…
As far as the Working Groups vs. the SFP’s, the difference is that the uncertainty was lost (or rather disposed of) with the SFP’s. I agree with the uncertainty. They seem to have changed their website around or something, but the TAR doesn’t seem to be available right now.
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:13 pm
I thought that you made your position perfectly clear when you posted the result of this workshop:
Workshop on Climate Change and Disaster Losses:
Understanding and Attributing Trends and Projections
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_workshop/workshop_report.html
The report that you supported clearly contredict Mr Pearce comment. I believe that his comment was motivated by this posts:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000903is_ipcc_ar4_an_advoc.html
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Thanks Sylvain, however there is nothing in that post even remotely close to skepticism. Mr. Pearce made an unwarranted assumption that anyone critical of the IPCC must also doubt the scientific conclusions of the IPCC. This says more about Mr. Pearce than anything else. Thanks!
November 3rd, 2006 at 8:53 am
The TAR is back so I can further respond to John Fleck’s question. I am unable to locate your phrase “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” except in or referencing the SPM (not SFP – sorry). Where are you saying that is? I’m sure you’re not confusing the SPM with the work of the scientists, I just can’t find it and would like context.
November 3rd, 2006 at 9:36 am
Further, here are statements of the scientists with which I agree:
At the end of the WG1 Chapter 4 Executive Summary: “Feedbacks between atmospheric chemistry, climate, and the biosphere were not developed to the stage that they could be included in the projected numbers here. Failure to include such coupling is likely to lead to systematic errors and may substantially alter the projected increases in the major greenhouse gases”
Or, from Chapter 7 Executive Summary: “significant deficiencies in ocean models remain.”
I certainly agree with the Executive Summary of Chapter 14:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/501.htm
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Roger, from what I have been able to gather from reading your blog, it seems you might more accurately be characterized as a climate change *mitigation* skeptic — i.e., more skeptical than some that policies to substantially mitigate climate change are justified.
One’s position on the wisdom of mitigation must flow from a judgement of how the costs of mitigation are balanced against the benefits from climate change damages avoided by mitigation. Thus, one can oppose mitigation without questioning the science indicating that humans have caused the climate to change and are expected to cause it to change much more in the future.
Is that a fair characterization of your position?
Best,
Scott
November 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Regarding the question about the human influence on 20th century climate change, and scientific accuracy of IPCC’s TAR SPM:
(1) my impression, as a scientist doing climate-related research, is that there is a strong consensus that, in the words of a National Academy of Sciences report, “The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.” (Climate Change Science, 2001).
(2) The IPCC TAR Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) accurately represents this scientific consensus. In fact some of the most knowledgable and respected climate scientists are authors of the SPM, and they support this finding.
November 4th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Scott-
Thanks for commenting, but you completely miss the mark when trying to characterize my views. Below are a few statements that I’ve published in 2006 alone on mitigation. If you want to understand my views, have a look at my testimony this past summer at the House Government Reform Committee which provide the most concise and comprehensive perspective.
There is really no excuse for anyone to mischaracterize my views, they are all laid out in many publications and frequently here on this blog. So I do appreciate your asking rather than just assuming!
“Human-caused climate change is real and requires attention by policy makers to both mitigation and adaptation – but there is no quick fix; the issue will be with us for decades and longer. Nothing in this testimony should be interpreted as contradicting the assessment of climate change science provided by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2466-2006.09.pdf
“Mitigation of GHG emissions should also play a central role in response to anthropogenic climate change . . . Emission reductions are necessary to reduce the risk to reach levels of CO2 concentrations which might lead to abrupt climate changes and/or processes in the atmosphere which could become irreversible.”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_workshop/summary_report.pdf
“To emphasize, humans have an effect on the global climate system and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions makes good sense.”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2449-2006.02.pdf
November 4th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Roger, Thanks, I am trying to understand your position. It seems my initial attempt was too general a characterization. But it seems your policy position must lie somewhere between the following two poles:
(1) RPJr endorses the need to stabilize GHG concentrations at some level (based on the quote above from the disaster workshop which says emissions reductions are needed to avoid levels that could risk abrupt climate changes).
(2) RPJr opposes policies for stabilization at a doubling or less (based on your post in September on “The Dismal Prospects for Stabilization”, where you concluded that “stabilization at 550 is not in the cards”)
(whether you hold this position or not, this seems like a potentially untenable position if 550 ppm is sufficient, as some scientists believe, to induce abrupt climate changes)
As you have discussed, keeping concentrations to no more than a doubling is a widely stated goal among those who believe significant mitigation is needed (climate scientists and policy people alike). Is it fair, then, to say that you are a skeptic of this particular benchmark policy?
Best,
Scott
November 5th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Scott-
Thanks for your comments. A few replies.
1. I find this game of trying to find some way to characterize me as a “skeptic” humorous, but I’ll play along. Please note that everyone who has policy preferences (i.e., all of us) are “skeptical” of those policies which we do not prefer. So we are all “skeptics” of something. Make no mistake, the effort to tar people with the skeptic lable on climate change is of a political strategy. Once you can label someone, it makes it far easier to dismiss the substance of their views. But if must give me a label, how about “Non-Skeptic Heretic”?
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000828gregg_welcome_to_th.html
2. To characterize one end point in your spectrum, you write, “RPJr endorses the need to stabilize GHG concentrations at some level.” This statement is content-free, as ANY emissions path will stabilize GHG concentrations at “some level.”
3. At the other end of the spectrum, based on my post . . .
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000923the_dismal_prospects.html
. . . you conclude that “RPJr opposes policies for stabilization at a doubling or less”
First, let me address your logic. My post was focused on handicapping the prospects for achieving stabilization at 550 ppm, which I find dismal (as, I should note, did the Stern Committee). This is not the same thing as advocating that we stabilize (or not) at 550 ppm. I might think that the weather will be fair and mild in Boulder this week, but it doesn’t mean that I am against snow.
4. More generally, I simply reject your spectrum as an ineffective way to frame the challenge of climate change — based on stabilizing atmospheric concentrations, a single approach (of many possible approaches) to the challenge of emissions reductions. I reject your framing for several reasons.
First, you are trying to frame the problem focused on “tuning” atmospheric GHG concentrations to some desirable level. Dan Sarewitz and I critiqued this particular framing in 2000 in this paper:
Sarewitz, D. and R. A. Pielke, Jr., 2000. Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock. The Atlantic Monthly, 286(1), 55-64.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-69-2000.18.pdf
Imagine if we were talking about poverty instead of climate change. Lets say that you proposed that we “stabilize” global poverty at no more than 5% of global population by 2075. And lets say I responded to you by saying that establishing such a target and timetable makes little sense from the standpoint of actually taking actions to reduce poverty. Would than make me a “poverty-reduction skeptic”?
No. It would mean that I favor policies that are (in my view) likely to be far more effective than the target and timetable approach to poverty reduction. Your (hypothetically in this thought experiment, of course) support for a target and timetable approach, doubting my favored policy, would thus make you the “skeptic” of my views. No?
In all of this, keep in mind that stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations is a means, not an end.
5. I think that there are far better policy options on climate change than the targets and timetables approach. My views are supported by a large literature and now, years of experience under the FCCC and Kyoto. For example,
Frank Laird, 2000. Just Say No to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter. http://www.issues.org/17.2/laird.htm
Tol, R.S.J. 2006, “Europe’s Long Term Climate Target: A Critical Evaluation”, Energy Policy.
http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/twodegreeswp.pdf
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000718europes_long_term_c.html
Rayner, S. 2004. The International Challenge of Climate Change: UK Leadership in the G8 and EU, Memorandum to: The Environmental Audit Committee House of Commons, November.
http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/documents/EACmemo.pdf
Victor, D. 2001. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming, Princeton University Press.
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/s7029.html
My own systhesis on how we might begin to reconstruct a climate policy that works on both adaptation and mitigation can be found in the following two papers:
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2005. Misdefining ‘‘climate change’’: consequences for science and action, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 8, pp. 548-561.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1841-2004.10.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2006. Statement to the Committee on Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives, Hearing on Climate Change: Understanding the Degree of the Problem, 20 July.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2466-2006.09.pdf
[I won't have sympathy for responses that this is too much reading. The Stern Report is700 pp.;-)]
Are you skeptical of the policy proposals put forth in these various works? Does this make you a “skeptic of policies that might actually work”?
And if you are skeptical of policies that might actually work, is ist possible that you are in cahoots with Exxon and Senator Inhofe?
Are the true climate skpetics those favoring the current targets and timetables approach, because it is the option most likely to fail?
Hmmmmm . . .
OK, this last bit is obviously tongue-in-cheek, but the general point is that we ought to be able to have a debate about policy options on their merits without the reflexive urge to place each other into pejorative political categories.
Sorry for the length of this response.
Thanks to anyone who made it to the bottom!
November 5th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Roger,
I fear you are not your own best advocate. (Not that one should be surprised. Some top negoiators says that they don’t negoiate their own speaking and writing deals.)
I am a reader but I don’t know that “Mr. Pearce is just wrong”. Unfortunately, the best rebutal you have offered so far of Mr. Pearce is buried in these comments. But you haven’t addressed the factual question of whether you ever wrote or spoke such words about the IPCC? Or about anyone?
But regarding the quote: “seeing their role as political advocates rather than honest brokers”. Did you ever write or say such a thing in regard to the IPCC? It’s seems very likely that you wrote such a phrase about some topic at some time. I would think that the phrase might be found somewhere in your forthcoming book.
With Google I searched on the phrase in the quote and found only this blog.
I would note that making attibutions about what motivates someone else or “how they see their role” tends NOT to be your style. I applaud all those who avoid what I call the “attribution game” — making attributions of motivations and core beliefs without solid grounds for doing so.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Cortlant-
Thanks for your comment.
Yes indeed I wrote that statement, and I stand by it. You can read it in context here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000903is_ipcc_ar4_an_advoc.html
In his article Mr. Pearce labels me a climate skeptic. This is indeed wrong.
See this post:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000934interview_and_podcas.html
Thanks!