Garth Paltridge in the Financial review:
The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise. The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate. The economic and social argument is whether the increase, even if it were noticeable, would change the overall welfare of mankind for the worse.
Attempts to resolve the arguments are plagued with problems, a lot of which are inherently insoluble. There are many aspects of the behaviour of the natural climate system and of human society that are unpredictable in principle, let alone in practice. But perhaps the biggest of the underlying problems, and it is common to both arguments since it inevitably exists when there is large unpredictability and uncertainty, is the presence of strong forces encouraging public overstatement and a belief in worst-case scenarios.
From the social and economic side of things, one might take much more notice of the global warming scare campaign if it were not so obvious that many of its most vociferous supporters have other agendas. There are those, for instance, who are concerned with preservation of the world’s resources of coal and oil for the benefit of future generations. There are those who, like the former president of France, Jacques Chirac, speaking at a conference on the Kyoto protocol in 2000, look with favour on the possibility of an international decarbonisation regime because it would be a first step to global governance (the president’s actual words were “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance”.) There are those who, like the socialists of the 20th century, see international action as a means to force a redistribution of wealth both within and between the individual nations. There are those who regard the whole business mainly as a path to the sort of influence which, until now, has been wielded only by the major religions. More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue.
Full essay:
http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/science_held_hostage_in_climate_Uamwgc7zXEsU6RbQJ5MWIJ#
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The essay pretty much nails the problem.
Actual Science in the classical sense has been long absent from any discussion about the effects of CO2 and other anthropogenic influences.
Very well written. I would be happy to see this receive international agreement and acclaim for pointing out clearly in a few words the truth.
Wow, both logical and reasonable. He must be a denier.
Nothing new here; The EU’s solution for problems, for example, is always more power to the EU.
I agree with Parltridge. I heard a lecture by Germany’s deputy minister of Finance in San Francisco last year. He seemed pleased that the Bundestag had voted about 70-30 to support EU bailouts despite the fact the the German population was about 70-30 against bailouts.
I got the impression that many high European politicians see a United Europe as an important achievement, leading to peace, and are willing to have their constituents make sacrifices to get there. Noble sentiments…
“More generally, there are those who, like the politically correct everywhere, are driven by a need for public expression of their own virtue.”
That’s really perceptive. Bravo.
great article, and nice h/t to Steve Mc and Willis!
Wish he had specified WUWT and BH too, but his praise for the contributions of climate science blogs is hearty and unqualified. Nice.
“These three [also including Judith Curry] in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame, and as a consequence their outreach to the scientifically inclined general public is highly effective. Their output, together with that of other sceptics on the web, is fast becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review.”
I concur with authors conclusion about the potential for a practical and stringent substitute for peer review-
“………Which, in turn, is why the more fanatical of the believers in anthropogenic global warming insist that only peer-reviewed literature should be accepted as an indication of the real state of affairs. They argue that the sceptic web-logs should never be taken seriously by “real” scientists, and certainly should never be quoted. Which is a great pity. Some of the sceptics are extremely productive as far as critical analysis of climate science is concerned. Names like Judith Curry (chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta), Steve McIntyre (a Canadian geologist-statistician) and blogger Willis Eschenbach come to mind. These three in particular provide a balance and maturity in public discussion that puts many players in the global warming movement to shame, and as a consequence their outreach to the scientifically inclined general public is highly effective. Their output, together with that of other sceptics on the web, is fast becoming a practical and stringent substitute for peer review…………”
Garth Paltridge in the Financial review:
“The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.”
====================================================
He also wrote there: “And there is very little real proof on either side of the climate change story.”
What a nice example of a contradiction: “very little real proof”, but “there can be little doubt” and “acceptable”!
This says most of what I have learned about cagw.
A stage one thinker. He should have added “… all other things being equal” and then maybe, just maybe pondered whether these other things would stay equal or not. In other words, Mr. Paltridge seems to know nothing of complex systems and I’d rather not have his financial advice.
These kinds of discussions usually have little bearing on reality. Yes, if humans continued to reproduce ad infinitum to the point where the population rose to 1 trillion there is a good chance that the atmosphere would become unhospitable, even poisonous.
But, that is theory. If current population trends continue another 5 or 6 decades, the global population will first grow older before it begins a rather steady decline. Keeping that in mind, it is fair to say that older populations generally produce and consume less than younger ones. Therefore, if CO2 is our prime concern, we can speculate that CO2 concentrations have or are peaking.We can also assume that the consumption of food and energy are plateauing. In Europe, much of Asia, South America, Russia, and North America the populations are aging. In some cases they are shrinking (Japan).
What an excellent essay.
Of note:
“But the battles over them should be fought in the open and on their own merits rather than on the basis of a global warming crusade whose legitimacy is founded on still-doubtful science and on massive slabs of politically correct propaganda.”
And:
“To the extent that there is such a thing as normal science, it relies upon accurate observations to verify its theories.”
Its a shame that many senior scientists have waited until now (or are still waiting) to write this sort of insightful critique. However, I welcome it all the same.
Thank you Professor Paltridge.
ps , Just a couple of small, possibly churlish, points…
1. Did we really need to have a picture of a dead tree?
2. How can mankind “…continue to the atmosphere with CO2”?
WOW, someone actually has a fairly balanced article!
Congratulations to Judith, Steve, and our own Willis, You guys HAVE made a difference! (And of course Anthony who has lead the way)
Oops, my last line should have read “…continue to FILL the atmosphere with CO2”?
“The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.”
GARTH YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG
You need to add the caveat “ALL ELSE EQUAL”.
It is so frustrating when even skeptics get the science badly wrong.
His (too short) discussion of post-modern science is really up to the point.
There is a widespread assumption that more global warmth would be bad. In fact it would be good, because the warmth would occur in winter, at night, and in the higher latitudes.
There is a widespread assumption that more CO2 would be bad. In fact, it is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better.
There is a widespread assumption that climate related problems are getting worse because of global warming and the rise in CO2. In fact, the incidence of natural disasters is trending downward.
To quote Will Rogers, “What gives us problems is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know that just ain’t so.”
Greg House says:
June 22, 2012 at 10:07 am
Garth Paltridge in the Financial review:
“The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.”
====================================================
He also wrote there: “And there is very little real proof on either side of the climate change story.”
What a nice example of a contradiction: “very little real proof”, but “there can be little doubt” and “acceptable”!
___________________________________
Greg, the guy is part politician. ( He was a chief research scientist with the CSIRO division of atmospheric research.) That first sentence up front was the hook to suck in the Politically Correct part of his audience so they would read the rest of his article.
It was a nice sugar coating and allows a graceful backing off for the hardliner as they get their face ground into the mud. (Sunspots# today = 13 link)
One BIG confusion here, The radiative Forcing part of the AGW narrative, ie Greenhouse Gas’ has been been completely empirically falsified. There are no Greenhouse gases CO2 H2O CH4…
and we need to say so loudly not continue to accept this nonsense.
And then there’s the “Fantasy Fuel”: Cellulosic Ethanol – supposed to solve CO2 and fossil fuel issues. All it’s doing is giving EPA the opportunity to steal from refiners.
*******************************************************************************
Federal regulations can be maddening, but none more so than a current one that demands oil refiners use millions of gallons of a substance, cellulosic ethanol, that does not exist.
“As ludicrous as that sounds, it’s fact,” says Charles Drevna, who represents refiners. “If it weren’t so frustrating and infuriating, it would be comical.”
And Tom Pyle of the Institute of Energy Research says, “the cellulosic biofuel program is the embodiment of government gone wild.”
Refiners are at their wit’s end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol back in 2005, assuming that someone would make it. Seven years later, no one has.
“None, not one drop of cellulosic ethanol has been produced commercially. It’s a phantom fuel,” says Pyle. “It doesn’t exist in the market place.”
And Charles Drevna adds, “forcing us to use a product that doesn’t exist, they might as well tell us to use unicorns.”
And yet, they still have to pay what amounts to fines:
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/regulation-requires-oil-refiners-use-millions-gallons-fuel-that-is-nonexistent/?test=latestnews#ixzz1yXwTwyeb
Garth Paltridge in the Financial review:
“The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate.”
This statement is not correct. Many for decades have quetioned the basic science. Was it Bohr that said Arrhenus (sp) was wrong?
The below link is a paper on IR radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere and he does not think that CO2 does what is now attributed to it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34962513/Elsasser1942
On postmodern science, the definitive book is by Professors Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. It is called Higher Superstition and was published in 1997. They were pleased their book got so much attention but I think things have actually gotten worse. It’s just further below radar now. If you are not familiar with the Sokal Hoax story, that really does play into part of what I see going on with climate change.
The behavioral sciences division of the National Science Foundation wants primacy over the natural sciences. Because one can be the vehicle for political theory. The other not so much if it functions as intended.
Also if you are not familiar with Bruno LaTour’s work, that’s another angle to appreciate in the social sciences hijacking the natural sciences. Very influential in K-12 science teaching so there goes what can happen in tomorrow’s higher ed.
Greg House says:
June 22, 2012 at 10:07 am
Garth Paltridge in the Financial review:
“The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.”
====================================================
He also wrote there: “And there is very little real proof on either side of the climate change story.”
What a nice example of a contradiction: “very little real proof”, but “there can be little doubt” and “acceptable”!
Greg, you missed the point. What he is highlighting is that there are undisputed empirical facts, whiich scientists on both sides of the dispute accept. One fact is that CO2 does get warmer as it absorbs IR. Another fact is that physical law says that the increase in warmth will be transferred in part (there will also be entropic losses) to other gas molecules by conduction if in no other way. Yet another fact emphasized by sceptics is that even if “qualitatively true” the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is far less than miniscule. So small that any quantitative changes would unobservable. Yet another fact is that human activities such as altering land for agricultural use or city construction do observably change local climates (just not through CO2). The urban heat island effect is a local scale anthropogenic climate change. However, sceptics point out that not even collectively do these facts necessarily sum to proof of global-scale human-induced changes in climate. That is why he says the theory is “qualitatively” sensible. There is no “quantitative” evidence that can only be explained if and only if AGW. In fact, there’s no quantitative evidence that proves without doubt that human use of fossil fuels is altering the atmosphere’s CO2 levels. AGW is not in fact a “theory” scientifically. It is a conjecture or hypothesis that as yet has not been proven. At other scales, such as the idea that AGW could bring about global catastrophes, we do know that is mere humbuggery. There is already far more than enough empirical evidence to disprove that. So, he is carefully trying to make a fine distinction between the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the discussion.
Good assessment, Garth.
Because we are in the 21st century with all the technological advancements accumulated just in the last 50 years, even the most sophisticated among us can be vulnerable to being misled by theories supported by fragile datasets and massaged with grandiose computer programs with poorly vetted sets of assumptions.
Postmodern science does not necessarily mean garbage in – garbage out. On the contrary, it is much more subtle to be effective. Look for mostly good inputs with a little tweaking here and there and a stretch or two in assumptions and pretty soon you have everyone who buys in marching down the wrong path….. with complete confidence. We are far removed from the “Dark Ages” but be careful who gets political power and how much.