Guest essay by Barry Brill
I’ve had it with tax-funded over-educated fools like Lewanadowsky presuming to categorize me on the basis of his own delusions. And I don’t appreciate Cook & co locating people in a 3% minority on the basis of infantile spin-driven surveys.
The debate over climate change is not, and never has been, divided into two monochromatic tribes who have been brainwashed into unanimity . There are as many different opinions are there are participants in the discussion. (“quot homines tot sententiae” as Christopher Monckton might say).
For those who insist upon a tidy taxonomy, I offer the following first draft:
[Note: this table was updated at request of the author on 10/9/13 to correct decimal point placements in the first three rows]
Whilst there are quite large numbers of people who are unconvinced that human activities can have any material effect on global average temperatures, the “Principia Scientific International” consortium, aka “Slayers of the Sky Dragon” strongly reject the enhanced greenhouse effect theory (AGW) which underpins mainstream climate science.
I’ve appropriated the term “Skeptics” to cover the broad tent of opinion which accepts that there has been some global warming since the LIA, to which human activities would have made some (probably trivial) contribution, through increased GHG emissions.
There is a collective view that average temperatures would increase by about 1°C if atmospheric CO2 concentration were to double from 280ppm (pre-1950), but a wide disparity of views regarding the sign and amplitude of net feedbacks. Most believe warming will be beneficial in the foreseeable future and none believes it poses a significant threat.
Lukewarmers are a subset of skeptics, who believe net feedbacks from warming to be slightly positive.
The ‘Breakthrough’ label is borrowed from the “Breakthrough Institute” but covers all who favour (limited) Government action other than emission-mitigation. This grouping broadly accepts IPCC temperature projections but believes the impacts have been exaggerated. They consider that an element of future threat arises and would combat this by promoting Government-sponsored breakthroughs in energy technology.
The IPCC, which presents “official” or “governmental” views, covers the broad tent which believes AGW is dangerous and should be combated by expensive emission-reduction programs. Its main controversial drivers are a belief in large net feedbacks (high ECS) and the use of unlikely scenarios to supply worst-case impacts.
Alarmists believe that irreversible and abrupt climate change is much more likely than indicated by Table 12.4 of AR5WG1, re-interpret the SREX report, and blame AGW for numerous other current or potential ills. They see climate change as a great moral challenge and believe decarbonization of the global economy is inevitable. This group (along with activists) controls a host of spin levers and secures a hugely disproportionate share of mainstream media attention.
Activists are usually members of groups which make a living from public donations and whose success depends upon maximising public fears. A sizeable proportion are malthusians or doomsayers who are philosophically opposed to economic growth/capitalism. Other members are lobbyists for commercial interests such as suppliers of renewables, carbon traders, consultants, gas producers, re-insurers, foresters and (until recently) bankers. They ignore all scenarios except the most extreme and are now adherents of the new RCP8.5.
The futility of consensus-seekers such as Cook and Oreskes is clear from the fact that the majority of almost all groups accept some 20th century warming (although now aware of “the pause”) as well as AGW theory. The dividing lines lie elsewhere.
The most visible division between climate opinion groups is the value they ascribe to equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). This, along with the associated transient climate response (TCR), is the key determinant of future temperatures and the extent of future threats, if any.
For 20 years or more, there has been a clear gap between the ‘most likely’ positions held by mainstream (3°C) and skeptic (1°C) groups. But the WG1 report of AR5 largely bridges that gap, and there is widespread expectation that the gap will close further when post-cut-off papers are brought into account.
AR5 recognises that those who calculate ECS at 1.5°C and/or TCR at 1°C are now mainstream scientists. An IPCC scientist modeling RPC2.6 and applying the lower end of the IPCC’s TCR will project warming of 1°C to be reached by about 2083 – of which about 0.8°C has already occurred. That result would not differ from the expectations of Skeptics. With warming much lower than last century, this science, now mainstream, clearly doesn’t justify anxiety or precipitate action.
We are now all part of the orthodoxy, separated only by a tendency to prefer higher or lower segments within the IPCC’s accommodating ranges.
At the Stockholm 4-day meeting of politicians/bureacrats, the AR5 scientists were directed that no ‘likely’ value for ECS/TCR was to be disclosed to the public. But everybody already knows the answer and the Stockholm ‘finger in the dyke’ manoevre will buy very little extra time.
The cut-off date for the 2013 WG1 was in February. A few weeks later[1], The Economist reported two peer-reviewed Norwegian papers, one finding a most likely ECS of 1.9°C and the other a 90% likelihood of a 1.2-3.5°C range. It declared there was “much less controversy about the TCR. Most estimates put it at 1.5°C with a range of 1–2°C”.
In August, the Otto et al paper (whose author list includes several IPCC notables) found that TCR was 1.3°C and ECS was most likely 2°C but the 90% range should should extend down to 1°C. Pat Michaels has listed[2] a raft of other authoritative papers which agree.
It is only a matter of time (and not much time) before the ECS is repositioned to 1-3°C and the TCR to1-2°C. At that point, many more people who are near the upper end of the ‘Sceptics’ grouping with join with those multitudes who are at the lower end of the ‘Mainstream’ grouping to form a new “Orthodox” group.
This merging could be an uncomfortable time for both parties. Kuhn argues in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm. Will that remain the case when views of TCR are only a fraction of a degree apart?
If further science grants are extended to Lewandowsky and his voyeuristic ilk, they should analyse the new minority groups – the alarmists and activists – not those who are now barely distinguishable from the mainstream.
[1] http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
[2] http://www.cato.org/blog/still-another-low-climate-sensitivity-estimate-0
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Please define acronyms.
The “Us v Them” mentality (“we are scientist, they are holocaust deniers”) is a worry. At least here you can say, look, it isn’t just Good v. Bad, it is a whole range of views and a range of reasons and data for those views.
Unfortunately, people’s mindsets don’t usually change overnight, even if everyone is looking at the same page of objective information. We mentally construct views, and we don’t know how we do it. So we end up seeing what we “see”.
But the only antidote may just be to continue to point out why it ain’t so simple.
Unfortunately the culture of Post-Modernism in academia and so on, teaches everyone how to deconstruct other’s arguments. Activists can always say, oh you are in the pay of Big Oil, you have been influenced by disinformation promoted by Big Oil, etc. etc.
But as a developmental psychology professor wrote, that’s not real Post-Modern thought. Real Post-Modern thought is when people spend most of their time deconstructing THEIR OWN thinking.
Or maybe in more common parlance, just making the effort to try to be intellectually honest.
Most interesting. All the differing categories–we humans are an interesting species!
(I can never understand why everyone just doesn’t agree with me….)
Mr. Brill,
I agree with your harsh characterization of Lewandovsky, Cook et al. These are hundred proof mountebanks. I think, however, that there are more categories than those included in your list.
For example, I cannot answer firmly “Yes” or “No” to the question about the existence of anthropogenic global warming. The only honest answer, in my opinion, is “We don’t know.”
There is no doubt that human activity somehow, and to some extent, influences the environment. How, and to what extent? Nobody knows. It is quite possible that a sum of human influences results in global cooling, not warming. It is possible also, that a sum of interacting and counteracting human influences is practically zero.
Interesting and very good attempt to categorize climate opinion, of which I have never seen before. This will of course be fiercely rejected by the alarmists and co. since this may encourage common sense discussion and would break the myth of the magically quoted 97%. Would think that media mainsteam and politicians would pick up on something like this as it is visually effective. Heaven forbid we could even have a proper poll by asking the general public as to which category they would position themselves. Now that would be fascinating.
ECP I understand, but, RCP? Please define.
And… ‘Sceptics’ grouping with join with ‘ should ebe ‘Sceptics’ grouping will join with ‘
I like this essay. It’s a good distillation of the situation which should be shown to any sheeple who believe the 97% claims.
Are the ECS figures for the first 3 categories correct ? They look an order of magnitude too low.
What is RCP ?
I’m not sure that “pause” is the correct word for all of the skeptical groups. Pause implies resumption. Do all groups accept that the Modern Warm Period has definitely not yet reached its maximum ? Those groups which have a lower bound for ECS which is at or below zero might prefer “plateau” or “halt” or some synonym.
Think you should remove remedy from the table. As it should be irreverent to the science you believe. Also it’d very likely each group have many different remedies based on their ideology.
Also the IPCC doesn’t think warming has paused.
Thanks for this post. It could be an interesting and productive way of categorising opinion.
But I’m puzzled by some aspects. Could you explain your RCP column?
If RCP means Representative Concentration Pathway, as used in AR5 and defined here (http://www.c2sm.ethz.ch/news/scen_workshop/presentations/c2sm_ws10_plattner.pdf) then, if I’ve understood it correctly, RCP 2.6 is the extreme mitigation pathway, with CO2 emissions peaking and then declining before 2100. RCP 8.5 is closer to what we are following under ‘business as usual’ – continuously and rapidly increasing emissions.
Why do you put your sceptical categories into RCP2.6? I assume that the more sceptical don’t think that CO2 concentrations are particularly relevant and/or don’t think that emissions should or will be reduced. Or did you put them there because they think radiative forcing due to CO2 is low?
I don’t see a pause, since it will require looking back from a time in the future to tell. I suspect it’s more likely the crest of a wave, since in my opinion what we’re seeing is cyclical. Clearly human activities are affecting the measurement of temperatures, which means historical records are meaningless. Anecdotal evidence shows it’s been both warmer and cooler in the past.
Honestly I started out believing and only became skeptical about warming claims when it became obvious that what we were being told would happen just plain didn’t. I also don’t think “Remedy” is even required, since nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
However, the chart does look pretty close to how I see things.
Alarmists and Activists are dangerous no matter what the cause and need to be reigned in somehow.
Interesting.
I think there needs to be a bit more overlap in the solutions. I’m a luke warmer but I believe that technology has an important role to play in mitigating any influences by man on climate. Not paricularly CO2, but new methods of energy production, efficient energy use, efficient agriculture, energy delivery to the third world, avoidance of pollution, letting forest be forests rather than potential biofuel plantations…………..
I suppose that makes me a tree hugger.
Nice go at it. Only thing I’d suggest is adding the grouping ‘Engineers.’ Where the rest of the columns can be merged for a single entry “Put up or shut up.”
This is an very useful chart and with the fine tuning suggested above will be even better.
There is a classification, or perhaps a modifier of classification, missing which is type of belief. as the CAGW hypothesis is not really believed by many of its proponents but it is a useful fallacy.
I would propose that within the ‘believers’ there are the following groups:
‘True Believers’ who are totally convinced by CAGW that in a few years time boiling seas will rise forcing the ‘last few breeding pairs’ of humans into the now tropical polar regions. This group are used as the ‘useful idiots’ of the groups below. They really do believe and will be in tears over the desperate position that they believe the world is in. These are the ones who feel for the polar bears _and_ the ‘baby seals’ and see no illogicality in that position.
‘Political Believers’ who are not necessarily believers in AGW but are making full use of it to gain political advantage and political power. This probably includes most members of the IPCC management, the UN and many first world politicians and bureaucrats. They use all the same ‘words’ as the ‘True Believers’ but with more cleverly nuanced rhetoric. They will work with one Common Purpose Community Organizing for a Sustainable future following the Agenda 21 world view. Many of the Fabian ‘progressive’ and World Governance groups fit into this group.
‘Financial Believers’ who do not necessarily believe either way but who have seen a good money (subsidy) making opportunity and do not want to let anyone upset their boondoggles until they have locked in their profits, Many major financial institutions, politicians, out to grass politicians, green energy companies etc are in this group. They use all the same ‘words’ as the ‘True Believers’ but with more emphasis on their particular profit making / subsidy taking palliative technologies.
‘Malthusian Believers’ who find the CAGW meme fits their world view that mankind is a disease that has infected the Earth and that the numbers of humans should be reduced back to ‘Garden of Eden’ levels. This fits the sinners requiring redemption philosophy of many religions; it also fits the ‘Green’ view that everything in nature was ideal until humans started destroying Gaia. These people may even believe that climate did not change until mankind came along and that the hockey stick is real. Anything that results in the destruction of technology and the forcing of the evil first world to live more like the bucolic 3rd world will get their support.
Not sure that you can fit these classifications into a simple table – but I think most would agree they exist.
We Lukewarmers are definitely not a subset of sceptics. Fundamentally we welcome warming, we agree with AGW, but we don’t agree with the C part.
My brother’s the engineer in the family and he’s a Full Monty Woo supporter. Climate Alarmist, Anti Monsanto, Pro Green Peas, you name it. That apart, he’s a total genius at what he does and an extremely likeable guy.
There doesn’t seem to be any designation for the group (to which I believe that Willis and I belong) which holds that the radiative response to CO2 at the molecular level is as stated by standard physics, but that this causes no impact to the atmosphere because:
a) A good proportion of CO2 generated at ground level is immediately absorbed by nearby plant life
b) The major thermostatic systems in the atmosphere completely overwhelm any minor extra heat source, to the extent that it may not be measurable at all.
In my opinion you cannot purely categorise people in terms of their estimation of numbers like TCR or ECS. There are significant qualitative as well as quantitative differences.
One such difference involves the role ascribed to natural variation. Skeptics see climate as a chaotic system having considerable natural variability; some of it potentially dangerous especially on the cold side potentially tipping into ice age. The IPCC orthodoxy attributes a much lesser role to natural variability and tends to view the climate as a system which responds predictably to forcings. This difference cannot be described in terms of values for ECS or TCR.
Some participants are using thought processes which cannot be charactierised by numbers at all. At the extreme activist end of the spectrum there are people who operate on a much simpler logic of natural = pristine = good and who see any influence of man as unnatural and therefore harmful. These people are not thinking quantitatively; they are thinking emotionally. This group includes the “all chemicals are bad” people; the ones who quite happily will sign a petition to ban the dangerous chemical dihydrogen monoxide.
dcfl51: You are quite right. The ECS decimal point is misplaced in first 3 categories. Sorry.
RCP = representative concentration pathways. These replace the SRES scenarios devised in 1999 for TAR and AR4. The RCP’s are snapshots of alternative futures in year 2100 and reflect possible global radiative forcing values, ie +2.6, +4.5, +6 and +8.5 W/m2 respectively.
RCP8.5 is a collection of unlikely outcomes, including population >15 billion, no technology changes, methane released from clathrates, etc which would conspire to produce exceptional warming. No matter how low the probability of this extreme pathway it will inevitably be ascribed more airtime that the other three combined.
Please Mr. Brill can you advise me into which category I belong? I believe in AGW but have yet to be convinced by CAGW.
I have seen the major changes to local climate which can result from deforestation, overgrazing large-scale dams and changing major water courses.
But I am also aware that energy created from non-CO2-emitting sources does increase local temperatures. There would still be urban heat islands in a city where all vehicles were electrical, all fossil fuel was banned and all sources of electricity were wind, tidal or solar. Have a look at a map of the globe at night and see all the lights – each one emits some heat no matter its energy source.
Whether or not the myriads of heat islands affect the climate significantly I do not know but if a cow farting in a field can have that effect so can a single light bulb. And let us not forget that some scientists believe that agriculture forms a significant part of man’s contribution to rising CO2 levels.http://www.worldwatch.org/agriculture-and-livestock-remain-major-sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1
Thank you Ruth Dixon for pointing us to the explanation of RCP.
My view is that CO2 emissions will peak and then fall, not because of government mandated restrictions, but because mankind will find better ways of generating electricity. We already see scope for this through Thorium reactors and there is the tantalising possibility that the problems of fusion power might be solved. The danger to mankind is through politicians destroying the current capability to produce affordable baseload power from fossil fuels before other practical technologies are developed.*
There will continue to be a need for fossil fuels as their portability and energy density make them ideal for transport.
* Note : Wind farms and solar cell arrays are not practical technologies for baseload. In fact, for reasons discussed here and elsewhere many times, they are worse than useless.
The author implied that the IPCC doesn’t believe there’s been a pause by providing a question mark after the word Pause in the IPCC’s box, effectively implying “What pause?”
Im sorry to go off topic here but this is so hilarious I was wondering if anyone else had heard it- apparently global warming will be responsible for a future jellyfish invasion?? Im not kidding:
http://www.thenation.com/article/176520/our-house-fire-reality-our-changing-climate#
“column Inches, glacial miles” section, fifth paragraph
apparently a BILLION TONS of jellyfish are going to wreak havoc in the future if we dont do something now.
Ruth Dixon
I’m obviously displaying my own preference. I don’t think Government mitigation schemes will be necessary to see emissions growth ease off over the coming century. The shale gas revolution will massively dampen emissions over the next 30 years, by which time we’ll probably be well into Thorium or 4G uranium plants. China has undertaken to reduce energy intensity by 45%, for purely economic reasons and other developing countries will do likewise. Population is sure to be declining in the second half and technology will change as much (or more) over the next 70 years as it has done since WW2.
As to RCP8.5, it could scarcely be more different from business as usual: population more than 50% above best estimates, methane pouring out of the seas (said to be “very unlikely” in Table 12.4), no technology improvements over 80 years, resurgence of coal-fired plants, economic growth on a scale never before seen, etc
Excellent essay.
Starts off like Emile Zola. (“j’accuse!”)
Ends like Ulysses Grant. (“Let us have peace.”