By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
In its new report on the risks from human-caused climate change, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) sets climate science back rather than “advancing” it. The report, counterfactuallytitled “What We Know,” is more an account of what the scientific community thought it knew about a decade ago than an up-to-date telling of current understanding.
Not surprisingly, the group ignores the fact that climate science is moving in a direction that increasingly suggests that the risk of extreme climate change is lower than has been previously assessed. Instead, the AAAS continues to play up the chance of extreme outcomes with the intent of scaring us into taking action — action that would have little impact on either future climate change or the risks therefrom.
The AAAS largely appeals to its own authority in trying to persuade us to believe its conclusions and yet informs its authority with old and obsolete science.
Nowhere is this more true than in its justification for highlighting the risks of “abrupt climate change” and in its faith in the ability of climate models to provide reliable and informed guidance regarding the probability of extreme climate changes’ occurring in the future.
The new report asserts:
Below are some of the high-side projections and tail risks we incur by following the current path for CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Most of these projections derive from computer simulations of Earth and its climate system. These models apply the best understanding science has to offer about how our climate works and how it will change in the future. There are many such models and all of them have been validated, to varying degrees, by their ability to replicate past climate changes.
However, the best and most recent science shows the AAAS assessment to be outdated and badly misplaced. In fact, climate models have done remarkably poorly in replicating the evolution of global temperature during the past several decades, and high-end climate-change scenarios from the models are largely unsupported by observations.
For example, in January, researchers John Fyfe and Nathan Gillett published an article in the prominent journal Nature Climate Change that found that “global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models.” And last year, scientists Peter Stott and colleagues published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters that concluded that “the upper end of climate model temperature projections is inconsistent with past warming.”
A host of other prominent papers that have examined the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse-gas emissions collectively suggest that not only is future global warming likely to be less than previously expected, but, and perhaps more important, the outside chance that it will be extremely large has shrunk dramatically. This position is further supported by new research that downplays the threat of abrupt climate change from Arctic methane release, a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, and rapid sea-level rise.
Instead of an informed report by the esteemed group focused on presenting what today’s best science tells us regarding the risks from extreme climate change and our ability to mitigate them, what we got from the AAAS was a textbook example of climate alarmism: link human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions to climate change, raise the possibility that climate change will be disastrous, and then tell us we have to act now to save ourselves.
The first part of the AAAS guide to climate alarm is certainly true: Human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions do put pressure on the climate to warm. But the most important details — to what degree and of what character — are still uncertain and are being intensely studied and debated.
The second part has been relegated to the realm of climate fantasy. Today’s leading science suggests that coming human-caused climate change is going to be less than expected, with a much-diminished associated risk of abrupt changes with catastrophic outcomes.
Which means that the third part — that immediate action is required to reduce the risk of extreme change — is largely inapplicable (and such action is likely to be ineffective to boot).
The new AAAS report runs up climate alarm but runs down climate science. The result is a misleading document that is aimed at influencing public policy. This is the situation that should be raising alarm.
This article appeared in National Review (Online) on March 27, 2014. Illustration by Anthony Watts.
Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger is assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The reason I suspect they kept screaming “we must act now!” is because they knew full well that the standstill was in motion (see Phil Jones CRU acknowledgment 2005?). The longer it goes on the less likelihood of CAGW and inaction would be in. Just my 2 cents.
Human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions do put pressure on the climate to warm.
…..CO2’s dance card is punched out
“There are many such models and all of them have been validated, to varying degrees, by their ability to replicate past climate changes.”
Say what? I grow weary of this tactic. Most people (and reporters) ‘speed read’ things like this and, depending on their current perceptions, will skip over the “to varying degrees” phrase and repeat that “ALL CLIMATE MODELS HAVE BEEN 100% VALIDATED”. I grow tired of the weasel wording that leads the casual reader to erroneous conclusions. I’d love to see AAAS publish a table that shows each model in the CHIP3 ensemble (I presume that’s what they are talking about) and its corresponding ‘degree of validation’. Of course, I know that no such information exists because none of those models have been ‘validated’ in the sense used by real scientists and people who actually use feedback models for a living. The idea that changing the ‘tunable parameters’ of a model (especially when there are 10+) so that it regurgitates past temperature doesn’t tell me a thing about whether that model can produce reliable projections of the future state of the climate. Really, it doesn’t.
In my opinion , this statement by the AAAS tells me that they are NOT interested in the advancement of science, even in the slightest. They are living proof of Eisenhower’s admonition in his farewell address, “In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
The ‘Scientific Elite’ has to produce what the government funding their research whats to hear or they won’t get any money to continue their research. I think that, contrary to Eisenhower’s fears, it is the ‘Scientific Elite’ that has become captive of public policy rather than the reverse.
Are they the Association for the Advancement of Science or the Association for Shaming & Scuttling Science?
@Robber –
The American Association for the Adulteration of Science.
@Robber =-
Or, the Association for the Abolition of Science.
… any bets on whether AAAS will retract WWK?
I think it could take a few more years, probably after a major political change in the US federal government relieves investigators of the valid worry their grants would be targeted for “special scrutiny” (as in what the IRS has done) if the publicly express dissent from the “settled science” mantra. If enough internal pressure is applied from members and 2014 continues the pause this a trickle will turn to a flood of walk-backs by scientists concerned for their reputation.
The latest cutting edge science from the top US scientific body:
“Greenhouse gases have supercharged the climate just as steroids supercharged hitting in
Major League Baseball.”
I’m at a loss for words.
As for Anthony’s clever accompanying illustration, I would have added a small snuggle baby polar bear to go with the bottle.
Underlying climate change alarm is a model of the earth’s climate in a state unstable equilibrium, where tiny changes cause immediate and irreversible change in an undesirable, uncontrolled way.
I hope AAAS will follow up with two new campaigns, one entitled “What We Know, But Are Not Telling You” and another called “All the Stuff We Really Don’t Yet Know.” But I won’t hold my CO2.
Abrupt climate change?
Maybe they were influenced by the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, which seems to be repeated every 6 months on UK TV … just as well I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist.
“There are many such models and all of them have been validated, to varying degrees,…”. Varying degrees = the space between slim and none.
From the report:
“Extreme weather is not just an abstract concept. It is a reality that affects people across the country. In 2013, two out of three Americans said weather in the U.S. has been worse over the past several years, up 12 percentage points since spring 2012. Many (51%) say weather in their local area has been worse over the past several years. Not surprisingly, then, the gap between what we know as scientists (that global warming impacts are here and now) and what Americans perceive is narrowing: about six in 10 Americans already say, “global warming is affecting weather in the U.S.””
So anecdotal evidence is now considered valid science? And 51% qualifies as many?
The new improved, all singing, all dancing IPCC report is due out in the next few days confidently forecasting Thermageddon.
Not surprisingly, all sorts of BS is coming out now, trying to attach itself to the coat tails of the IPCC’s terrifying tale. For example, the BBC is trumpeting (that is an understatement) some arrant rubbish about some hydrothermal generated CO2 vents in the ocean floor acidifying the ocean and killing corals. The fact that all hydrothermal vents are acidic (sulphuric) and if you supersaturate any environment (gas or liquid) with CO2 all life will perish is ignored in order to make a totally fallacious point about supposed ocean acidification.
Never forget the Climate Industry thrives on grants and government largesse, without which our planet’s climate would just carry on doing its own thing with nothing for anyone to worry about.
This is all about being out there at the appropriate moment with the begging bowl.
American Association for Alarmist Soothsayers?
(Scalawags? Scoundrels? AA for the Advancement of Sinecure?)
I’m just not feelin’ the love for the ‘Science’ part of AAAS right now.
That second one would be too long to publish. It would have to come in its own library building, with dimensional pathways in L-space like the one at the Unseen University in Discworld. It still might not be able to accommodate a missive on “ALL THE THINGS SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW”. Of course, then there is the even larger volume (a la Rumsfeld) of “ALL THE THINGS SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW THAT IT DOES NOT KNOW”. That one will be hard to write as we really don’t know what we don’t know, but if we did (and didn’t explode in the resulting paradox) it would probably be the longest book (we didn’t know was) ever written!.
Confusing enough? I know I am.
As of this comment the What We know link is down.
And you wanna know what is the PERFECT counter to this, as far as communicating our message to any average voter? “COLDEST WINTER IN 100 YEARS!!!” And that’s all. If they’re really interested, show them the simple chart, and then stop talking. One simple picture destroys years of studies and thousands of words of explanations.
Who cares if it’s not a perfectly accurate representation of the big picture? Not your average voter, that’s for sure.
===========================================================
Should that be confirms?
Once upon a time, a small group of pot bellied silver haired men sat at a round table plotting the greatest myth known to mankind ( CO2 as a ghg) .and how that bull$#%t would be a spring-board to the biggest land-grab in north america’s history after the genocide of the indigenous people’s that once walked this land. That small group of men are The Club of Rome.
expect a flood of alarmism in the run up to the climate change meeting.
The Scientific Debate On Global Warming In One Chart
Powell combed through the papers and found only two that rejected the idea that humans are responsible for climate change.
“On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving,” Powell writes.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-scientific-debate-on-global-warming-in-one-chart-2014-3
How climate change will acidify the oceans
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26746039
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/mar/26/bbc-failing-robust-debate-climate-change
The UK’s weather will become both too wet and too dry – and also too cold and too hot
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/25/climate-change-uk-weather-wet-dry-met-office
so co2 dogmatists ramping it up.
AAAS is among the official bodies offering fat ridicule targets faster than I can write essays about them for the next book on climate and energy. So many choices, so little time…Polar bears aren’t even a species, let alone going extinct. Mismanaged Pacific Northwest cultured estuarine oysters threatened by natural coastal upwellings. Catastrophic Eemian sea level rise caused by earthquakes. Smoking volcanoes that do not inject stratospheric aerosols. Northwest Passage shrinking ice that trapped 2013 vessels ( it was worse than the Ship of Fools, just under-reported since even more embarrassing.)
AGW is the satirical gift keeps on giving.
Taphonomic,
Good point. I think the real crux here is people say weather is worse, is because of a committed, relentless media focus on weather extremes in the press. There is never any historical graph showing the current whatever (heat wave, drought, tornado,snow, hurricane… ) in context.
They are just trying to scare people with weather. Fortunately those like Anthony, Pielkes, and us older folks with longer memories are present to counter such alarmism.
My son gave me a book from 1943 from the USDA, “Climate and Man”. Looking at the temperature records from 1920s -1942, I see that despite all the alleged warming, I still can’t plant tomatoes reliably in northern Illinois before Memorial day ! Old books are a cultural memory bank. Hard to do politically correct revisionism.
Taphonomic says:
March 27, 2014 at 2:25 pm
From the report:
“Extreme weather is not just an abstract concept. It is a reality that affects people across the country. In 2013, two out of three Americans said weather in the U.S. has been worse over the past several years, up 12 percentage points since spring 2012. Many (51%) say weather in their local area has been worse over the past several years. Not surprisingly, then, the gap between what we know as scientists (that global warming impacts are here and now) and what Americans perceive is narrowing: about six in 10 Americans already say, “global warming is affecting weather in the U.S.””
So anecdotal evidence is now considered valid science? And 51% qualifies as many?
Owen in Ga:
You are absolutely correct to point out the impossibility writing “All the Stuff We Really Don’t Yet Know.” Replace that with a new suggestion for an AAAS publication – “All the Stuff We Were So Sure of at One Time, but which Turned Out to Be False.”