One of the more disgusting aspects of ’science’ advoacy is the constant and unceasing repetition of political bumper sticker spin unsupported by true facts. Educated and intelligent scientists should never have to reduce valid true facts to something that will fit on a bumper sticker.

Another is the constant and unceasing repetition of ‘Big Oil’, ‘Big Coal’, and ‘Big Fossil’. These industries do not directly contribute significant amounts of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. It is the demand for, and consequent consumption of, the products and services of these industries that emit enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Additionally, financial arguments, if true, can and should be supported by numbers.

And yes, ‘Big Science’ has its personal financial rewards that are almost never mentioned. Los Alamos County in New Mexico has a per-captia income level that is among the top five in the country, if not first place.

Finally, has anyone seen plans for reduction of CO2 emissions that have more than a snowball’s chance in hell of actually being successful in the real world?

Well, I guess a more important question is has anyone seen any scientific facts that support the argument that we can control the climate by slightly preturbing one small component of extremely and inherently complex coupled dynamic systems.

Well, actually, given the time scales involved, the important question might be haven’t we already past the point in time for which proposed ’solutions’ can be shown to be effective. Not to mention the time scale of about 50 decades needed to implement significant changes in extremely complex world-wide infrastructures if we started today. The time-scale problem is probably the overriding aspect of the real-world workability problem.

hmmm … so given all this what can the IPCC have left to advocate?

The previous administration which included Al Gore made all kinds of claims and yet did nothing of substance on AGW.

The previous Canadian administration made all kinds of claims and yet did nothing of substance on AGW.

The current EU administration(s) made all kinds of claims and yet are doing nothing of substance on AGW.

It seems to me the governments of the world are making all kinds of claims to support the IPCC but doing absolutely nothing of substance to create policies to prevent the dire consequences foretold by the profits of doom.

In my opinion Prof. Pielke is misreading Mr. Pachauri.

Mr. Pachauri is gainfully (for him) employed at the centre of a geopolitical whirl wind that has absolutely no personal downside. I suspect he is having far too much fun playing he game to want to get off.

As for adaptation, I entirely agree with the view that it would be counter-productive to de-link adaptation from mitigation, if for no other reason than that policymakers who fail to understand the need for mitigation will be poor advocates for adaptation that is needed because of a past failure to recognize the need for mitigation. Perhaps it would be better to say that they will be advocates for poor adaptation due to the insincerity of their reasons. For example, politicians who like to shovel money at fossil fuel companies will tend to be more receptive to adaptation strategies that involve the continued shoveling of money at fossil fuel companies.

Similarly, scientists need to avoid falling for endorsing mitigation steps that fall far short of the need, although this is trickier.

Well of course it is! The IPCC has been an advocacy program from the very beginning. Certainly, most of the 2,000 scientists that participate are doing honest science, but everything is being steered by committee leaders on up; the layers above those scientists.

There is very little rationality in thinking that all problems arriving from climate change should be handled by controlling GHGs, yet that is the only thing that is talked about after the IPCC releases one of these massive works (or in this case, long before the report is released).

If, however, the primary goal of the IPCC and the United Nations was to gerrymander a redistribution of global wealth or strengthen the bureaucratic hold on the global population, then a carbon restriction policy would make absolute sense. Adaptation and innovation policies would bring immediate and much more efficient solutions to the problems of climate change, yet have had little play. If that is not an agenda, what is?

Ummmmm…maybe that’s because we *are?*

See slide 43 (page 57 of 64) of James Hansen’s Keeling Lecture:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf

The forcing growth rates of GHGs (including methane, CO2, and other GHGs) are currently actually below James Hansen’s scenario that results in 1 degree Celsius temperature rise from 2000 to 2100. When combined with approximately 1 degree Celsius from 1880 to 2000, the result is very much on course for a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise from 1880 to 2100.

“The European Union is doing too little to achieve its goal of limiting global warming although it portrays itself as a world leader, some academics say.

They want upcoming studies of the environment to add new urgency to international action to axe use of fossil fuels.”

In other words, “We know the proper course of action already…let’s find facts that support that action (and ingore those that don’t).”

The brave new world of environmental “science!”

It is very unfortunate that the discussions have had to get down to this level of issues in contrast to maintaining a very much more scientific character.

And I think it is not ‘this administration’, or any executive-branch administration, that will set any US policy. It will be up to the House and Senate to write and pass any laws affecting US policy. Both of which I think are now, and forever have been, more or less vacuous on any actually workable ‘energy policy’.

Yes it is hard to accept! It is simply wrong on two counts.

1. When I testified before Congress last month James Connaughton, Bush’s head of the CEQ, testified on the panel before mine. He was asked if the Bush Adminsitration accepts IPCC WGI science as presented by Tom Karl of NOAA on the same panel. His response, “yes, absolutely.”

2. Accepting a particular body of science does not lead to agreement on a particular set of political commitments. This is the logical fallacy called the “is-ought problem” — see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

Seeking to use the IPCC to compel the US to change its climate policy will not only fail to succeed, but it will likely destroy the practical value of the IPCC itself.

Thanks!