Guest post by Thomas Fuller
Climate Central’s interview with Harold Shapiro, head of the InterAcademy Council which reviewed the IPCC, had the money quote–but it didn’t come from Shapiro, it came through him.
Shapiro reported that John Christy said, “if they do this, if they adapt both the letter and the spirit of what you’ve said, things would be a lot better. ”
One can hope.
In the spirit of assessment, we can offer a sort of ‘back to school’ look at climate change as a cultural and political phenomenon at this point. Let’s at least try.
Shapiro’s team at the IAC provided lots of meat and potatoes advice and recommendations to the IPCC on how to do its job better.
The jury’s obviously still out, but they could improve dramatically in time for their fifth assessment report. But there’s no doubt that the IPCC has been put on notice and that they understand that some of the things that got them in trouble in their 4th Assessment Report cannot be repeated. This should lead to a more centrist, consensus-driven look at the evidence.
The United States Congress is clearly not going to pass Cap and Trade. However, they are evidently not going to kneecap the EPA, which will be free to force utilities and very large emitters to reduce emissions. Also a centrist move.
Bjorn Lomborg has switched the emphasis of his message, in time to help get publicity for his new film, and is now stepping up his calls for concrete action (and concrete sums of money) to fight climate change. It’s a move back to the center for him. This time around, the heatwave in Moscow and floods in Pakistan and China were only briefly blamed on climate change, before cooler heads made it clear that at worst they served as previews of coming attractions.
And the transition between El Nino and La Nina is actually being discussed in fairly reasonable tones–this year’s heat is not being extravagantly pronounced an irrevocable tipping point, and next year’s cooling may be the reason why. We all know it’s coming, and we all know it’s La Nina, not the ultimate end of global warming.
Is there a center growing for discussion on climate change? It would be certainly nice to think so. In the blogosphere, more bloggers and commenters on the ‘skeptic’ side seem willing to preface their criticism with a frank admission that the physics of CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas is not very controversial. On the ‘warmist’ side, there are some who are beginning to examine some of the claims made in their name, and to admit that people like Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts are not devils incarnate.
As a ‘lukewarmer’ I’ve been in the middle for a while, with some very good company, people like both Pielkes, Lucia Liljegren, and more. It’s tempting to think people are moving in our direction.
But being in the middle doesn’t automatically make us right, and some of this movement is illusory, end of summer tolerance in all probability. Joe Romm will certainly launch another tirade against the existence of Roger Pielke Jr. on this planet, and Keith Kloor will call out Michael Tobis and we’ll probably be back at each other’s throats by Labor Day.
Kind of a pity–there’s a lot we could be doing. We could be agreeing to let wind kind of rest for a couple of years and pushing for solar power to get more attention. We could be trumpeting the energy efficiency gains from LED lighting. We could be examining in closer detail the new nuclear power plant designs and the specification sheets for the new electric cars.
When the advocates for a better climate are all busy ripping each other apart (and I have been as guilty as any in this regard) the people making the decisions are a more detached lot, who may not feel the same sense of urgency.
Hard core skeptics may say that’s okay. But even they think that better technology will supplant, or at least supplement, fossil fuels as it becomes cost-effective–and most would cheer it if it came.
I read elsewhere that ‘We’ll never have a kumbaya moment. Too much bad blood.’ But the Palestinians and Israelis have just agreed to face-to-face talks. This puts some of our quarrels in perspective.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thomas Fuller is an opinion journalist, not a scientist. He has some background in science, but he writes and sounds like and opinion journalist (i.e. like not much). We already have too much of those. Much of the time I agree with him, but this blog is supposed to bring science, data, facts. His pieces don’t fit in here. (No offense to Tom, which I respect).
Please, Anthony, concentrate on the data and science, leave opinion to other blogs (Tom has his own, which I read too). This is supposed to be a science blog, please keep it so.
I must have missed the thread on Roy Spencer’s new paper. Can anyone direct me to it? I’m in need of something with scientific content to read.
Politics will do as it will.
I think what is most important is that the scientific community disconnect from the political process (as per post-normal science) and get back to traditional procedures regarding peer and independent review, that is to say scientific method itself.
The “old ways” have their disadvantages, but the more recent modes of replacement are far worse and have led us badly astray.
I think this may be what Mr. Fuller is saying comes down to.
For most people the centre is where ever they happen to be standing at the time.
A well written “point of view” piece Mr Fuller, nothing more.
When :
1) Alarmism is replaced by cool headed reasoning
2) The science is openly discussed and results are presented without tricks or subterfuge
3) Environmental and Political advocacy is taken out of the arena
4) The theory is allowed to stand or fall on it’s merits
Then we’ll be in a better place.
However there’s so much personal and political capital invested in the Alarmist approach I can’t see how the Alarmists can back off easily. On a personal level people have built careers and paid for lifestyles for themselves and their off spring based on Alarmism.
The problem with the IPCC is that it has no business in science. If the UN was concerned about science, then it would be a science academy.
While the analysis of this article is good, it fails. To make the argument on how we can improve the IPCC is playing on the statist’s playground.
There is a template at play here. Beware not to fall into the trap.
The statist’s takeover of education is a prime example. All of our lives well meaning people have offered suggestions on how to make government run education better.
The answer is you cannot. If a foreign nation did as much damage to our education system as our own government did, we would be at war.
The statist’s takeover of our nation’s energy policy is another example. Since the energy department, the EPA, and the Interior Department told us that they could produce more energy, better energy, cleaner energy, etc energy, our nation’s energy supply has been hobbled. If a foreign nation cut off our energy supplies as effectively as our own government has, we would be at war.
Since when is healthcare a function of government? If all the statists like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama really cared about healthcare, they would have all went to medical school. They did not. They went into governmental control of our lives. If a foreign nation took over our healthcare industry, we would go to war to defend it.
Same with the takeover of the auto industry via CAFE standards and outright takeovers. Same with the banks. Same with student loans. Same with mortgages. And the same with climate science such as it is.
Government should stick to governing not guessing tomorrow’s weather or climate and then handing us the bill for failed predictions.
Government never does anything better than the private sector. Not one thing, including climate.
All very fine to explain how the IPPC can do its job better, but you are playing on the statist’s playground. The IPPC should not be involved in science. It is a political organization and all its outcomes are political in nature.
The only effective way for the UN to have a positive impact on our environment would be to dismantle the UN building in NY and create an artificial reef out of the joke it is.
The IPPC is a hack big government agency. The UN is nothing more than a hack shadow government seeking to rule your lives. Do not seek to improve it, seek to defund this fraud.
“The United States Congress is clearly not going to pass Cap and Trade. However, they are evidently not going to kneecap the EPA, which will be free to force utilities and very large emitters to reduce emissions. Also a centrist move.”
This is about taxing the crap out of the public.
And this is a centrist position?
“We could be agreeing to let wind kind of rest for a couple of years and pushing for solar power to get more attention. We could be trumpeting the energy efficiency gains from LED lighting. We could be examining in closer detail the new nuclear power plant designs and the specification sheets for the new electric cars.”
Hey, I have a radical idea; how about
we leave engineering, to the engineers.
“I read elsewhere that ‘We’ll never have a kumbaya moment. Too much bad blood.’ But the Palestinians and Israelis have just agreed to face-to-face talks. This puts some of our quarrels in perspective.”
All the miss-translated “Reset Buttons” in the world,
are not going change anything, when a third of the
party is not at the table.
Is man’s CO2 making the planet warmer?
Seems rather yes or no to me, where’s the centre?
Compromise! Compromise? This is the beginning of bad science and bad policy.
The middle-of-the-road policy is for unprincipled wimps. The solution is not to make unwarranted concessions to your opponents but to have an honest and open debate on the issue. All data must be presented, and analyzed without preconceived biases towards the expected results.
Tom Fuller says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:34 am
Actually, I don’t know if the ‘Warmistas’ want a truce. I do. I think we’re spinning our wheels fighting each other instead of working on a) climate change for those who are concerned about it or b) energy efficiency for those more concerned with our balance of payments and dependence on foreign oil.
The issue is whether or not man, via his use of fossil fuels is causing climate change. Energy efficiency, energy independence, and a whole host of other issues, which actually are real, but certainly nothing to get hysterical about are simply being used as red herrings by the Warmistas. Often, what gets pegged as “energy efficiency” is nothing of the sort; it simply means using less energy, no matter what the consequences may be, and no matter what the cost. The Warmistas have a particular mindset which happens to be anti-industry, anti-capitalist, and anti-humanist. That is what we are up against. They do not care about the truth, nor about science, only their agenda.
“the heatwave in Moscow and floods in Pakistan and China were only briefly blamed on climate change, before cooler heads made it clear that at worst they served as previews of coming attractions”
Since there is little or no evidence that such events will be more common if there was warming, this sadly is again misdirection. It is basically assumed—that everything about warming HAS to be bad—based on the heavily flawed, inadequate computer models, which are, of course, not science. The IPCC HAS to dismiss and ignore the stupid models—they do not work.
Since we are not warming, then where’s the problem, according to their thinking that warm is bad?
And being centrist, for the sake of being even, fair or reasonable, is not necessarily good. Here, it may mean that the stupid things done to “fight climate change” might simply be fewer or less extreme and thus less effective, assuming that climate change is a real problem. They would just be a bit less hurtful to the people and the economy, but hurtful nonetheless and totally unnecessary.
But as the whole climate change scam is a scam, being centrist is simply weak-minded and stupid. The scam should be opposed, not tacitly allowed to exist in a more moderate way. (“It’s OK to have a little terrorism. It’s only reasonable.”!!!) In this form it will still be junk science and wishy-washy thinking. Nature does not do centrist.
Allowing the RGGI to persist is wrong as it exists for the wrong reason. Pretending that decreasing emissions is a valid goal is just plain wrong; that’s putting efforts into something that is not important. Making sure that emissions are clean (CO2 is not a pollutant and is plant food, a good thing) and that energy is used efficiently is just fine. But, generating funds for a false goal is not right. To then use the ill-gotten funds to promote immature “green” industries is to artificially stimulate an industry that will progress by its own healthy pace regardless.
Government funding choices being what they are, the private sector is much better able to chose the best companies and research in which to invest. Keep government out of it, all that it will do is slow things down and play favorites, as they always do.
And it is completely immoral for funds to be generated for a false purpose, as in RGGI, and then use the finds to balance a state’s budget. Balancing budgets should be based on trimming budgets and raising funds through normal legislative processes, not through backdoor taxes realized by the citizen as increased costs of electricity.
“We all know it’s coming, and we all know it’s La Nina, not the ultimate end of global warming.”
However, let’s not forget that the PDO is in its cool phase and that bright thing in the sky appears to be doing a Dalton Minimum 2.0. It very well could be the end of global warming. Wait, that happened back in the late 1990s! Why do people accept that the climate scientists, who cannot predict the climate now, have any valid claim when they shout that global warming will resume some time in the future, some time, but they know it will? Duh! That’s really concise, let’s bank on that—after the next ice age or mini-ice age, it will warm, got it!
We also should not assume that warming will resume after 30 years. The Little Age did not follow the Medieval Warm Period by getting successively warmer—it had to cool for real at some point. AND, looking at the last 4 Warm Periods, including the current, each peak is successively cooler. We should worry about where this is going; warming may not be the realistic concern here. [Accepting that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the recent Warm Period very simply cancels the global warming scam.]
It is a shame that there is so much name-labeling and denigration of various people, resorted to by certain individuals when they are losing an argument. Socrates knew of this, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
What the warmists and eco-nuts clearly do not understand is that: (1) most people care about the environment; (2) technology, advancements, and wealth lead to lower birthrates (as women are educated), more efficient energy usage, smaller industrial footprints, and the time and wealth to take care of the environment and fix past mistakes; and (3) we adopt technological advancements as they become affordable—we love this stuff.
It is wrong to push immature technologies as they are perforce initially inefficient, inadequate, and too expensive for most potential users. We need to let things mature and develop naturally – that should be OK with the enviro group.
Harry Bergeron says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:48 am
It’s a VERY bad idea to compare climate rapprochement to “peace” talks in the Mid-east. There has never been a peace process, only smoke and BS.
_______________________________________________________-
Perhaps it is a good idea. Since their attitude towards honor is the same:
Qur’an 9:3 “Allah is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is His Apostle.”
Qur’an 9:7 “How can there be a covenant between Allah and His Messenger and the disbelievers with whom you made a treaty near the sacred Mosque?”
I just stumble across this. Given its section on Energy it might be of some interest since we are talking about energy and “compromise” Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, An Introduction Programming Manual
Alledgedly the following document, dated May 1979, was found on July 7, 1986, in an IBM copier that had been purchased at a surplus sale. It was found by accident when an employee of Boeing Aircraft Co. It is now 25 years later so we have the possibility of determining if the document was for real or a hoax.
Energy
“Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth…. [well that is true]
All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?….
Consequently, in the interest of future world order, peace, and tranquillity, it was decided to privately wage a quiet war against the American public with an ultimate objective of permanently shifting the natural and social energy (wealth) of the undisciplined and irresponsible many into the hands of the self-disciplined, responsible, and worthy few…..”
Gee could that be Global Governance?
Any comments on the hidden agenda Mr. Fuller? Afterall what you are ultimately asking is for the rest of us to agree to a “low energy” society “with an ultimate objective of permanently shifting the natural and social energy (wealth) of the undisciplined and irresponsible many into the hands of the self-disciplined, responsible, and worthy few…..” Isn’t that your real objective? HMMMmmm
paulw says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:18 am
“In this Internet age, what are are saying is saved for the future, and we can visit back and see who was wrong, and who was actually right all along.”
So why are you not worried about that? You are after all an anonymous alarmist.
As for Mann and Jones, one is a liar the other is rent seeking yes man.
Or maybe, just maybe? Each of them can be described as both liar and rent seeking yes man.
Are you in the pay of “Big Carbon”?. ( Sorry mods, I couldn’t resist ).
Gail Combes says “It’s a VERY bad idea to compare climate rapprochement to “peace” talks in the Mid-east. There has never been a peace process, only smoke and BS.”
I’d say it’s a VERY bad idea to criticise someone else’s bad comparison when you demonstrate such a complete lack of understanding of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with any cherry-picked quote from the Koran, including yours. If you don’t understand it – and you clearly don’t understand it – I suggest you don’t try to frame it, even in criticising someone else’s reference to it.
What buffun said; to which I add that ONLY science has ever learned from mistakes. Politics has NEVER learned from mistakes.
What Pablo said; you have to accept that Warmistas have personally IDENTIFIED with there position. This puts their very psyche at risk and move all consideration to the realm of psychology.
Centrism is appeasement. The warmist are wrong – their belief is religion, not science. They have to be faced down and beaten. The warmist have an agenda of state control which is anti free enterprise and fascist in nature. You cannot compromise with slave owners. You are free or not. Any halfway stage and you’re still a slave.
Look again at what Charles Higley says (near the top of the blog).
I have a feeling that SimonH is going to get an education. ☺
paulw is an amazing troll.
In this discussion a centralist is a warmer who does not want to be caught out in the cold.
“Is man’s CO2 making the planet warmer?
Seems rather yes or no to me, where’s the centre?”
_____________________________________
Some possible center positions might be:
“Man-made CO2 is making the planet warmer, but a warmer climate would be mostly good for human civilizations and all other life on earth.”
or
“The overall trend in climate is down into another ice age which will be ameliorated to some extent by man-made CO2 and its few degrees of global warming.”
or even possibly
“Man-made CO2 does not contribute significantly to global warming but the climate will be getting up to ten degrees C or more warmer — uncomfortably warm — due to man’s land-use changes (building ever larger cities and cultivating ever more land) and the early stages of this warming has been showing up in the data.”
In short, we could have any one of a number of possible centrist combinations of “man-made CO2 causes warming” with “but warming is good” and “man-made CO2 does not cause warming” with “but bad warming is coming.”
evanmjones says:
September 3, 2010 at 8:35 am
I think what is most important is that the scientific community disconnect from the political process (as per post-normal science) and get back to traditional procedures regarding peer and independent review, that is to say scientific method itself.
Whenever a lot of agenda and money ride on scientific judgement, there is a danger of coercion, inducement, and graft.
In those situations, public scrutiny is required. The assertion of the right of the public to scrutinize the science they pay for is itself a political act of, for and by the people.
All the posturing, propaganda and scare-bullying by the bureaucrats and politicians provides ample evidence that they need to be scrutinized by the people too.
We will not wait to be asked to join the politicians, bureaucrats and establishment scientists at the table. We will kick it over, and carry it off to a brightly lit chamber where cards cannot be passed under it undetected. Then we will summon them to come and sit at it with us so we can see what they’ve got.
Politics has been defined as the art of compromise, but I personally don’t want compromised and/or politicised science, as that road leads to delusional thinking such as that of the hostage taker in California.
As a sceptic who understands that the climate is a chaotic system of many cycles of differing lengths and causes which interact with and overlay each other, I want proper adherence to the scientific method and honesty about the data, however it falls. The ramifications of allowing scary nonsense extrapolated from simplisitic and erroneous models being used to frighten anyone into any sort of compromise do not bear thinking about. There should be no ‘reasonable conensus’ either: science has never been and will never be subject to consensus.
The problem of being in the middle is that it is a position created by those not in the middle. There is nothing to be proud of being in a position you don’t influence. Years from now you will still be in the middle but the edges will have moved on because of activists. Your middle will perhaps have shifted from a previous middle, perhaps not. It has no anchor.
The “consensus crowd” has convinced me that you can’t trust government scientists. It’s a business, and it has a marketing division. The product might be ok or it might not be – they won’t tell you. They’ll always praise themselves and their fine intellects in the highest tones.
Remember the Monbiot – McIntyre debate? Why did Monbiot suddenly agree to such an endeavour? Because he thought he was winning? No. Because he recognized that the current marketing campaign of the government science doesn’t work so well and the marketing tactics has to be changed. So play a little touchy feely.
Still not trustworthy a minute.
Denial
Anger
BARGAINING
Depression
Acceptance
Two more to go?