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.
We don’t need a “consensus-driven look at the evidence.” What we need is the evidence. All of the evidence. It’s been the driving-by-consensus that lets the policy-makers use science to advance their own ends and not solve real problems such as realistic mitigation, proper risk assessment, and reducing inefficiencies in energy use. We’ll get enough consensus quite naturally when everybody can trust the science and we let free markets instead of government-rigged initiative operate.
“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.”
Mr. Fuller, they want ‘our’ money, just as you crave ‘our ‘affirmation.’
WE have no wheels together, Mr. Fuller – we are not sharing a ride.
Your concern with my concerns is unwelcome. I’m not buying your climate fantasies and I don’t want any ‘work’ (which means you steal my money and pontificate) done on climate change. What you offer, nobody has a need of.
As long as you keep spinning on other peoples’ balance of payments, you can expect fighting. What part of ‘stealing’ did you imagine led to kumbaya?
“But I will rejoice, when the house of cards come crashing down, because people will start to “suspect” the MSM, and “science”. ”
I disagree. The sad state of public science education will only allow more pseudo-science to influence public policy. From anti-vaxers to pure organic food, to homeopathy, the public is ill equipped to deal with the massive amounts of pseudo-science that they are exposed to on a daily basis. Time to look at the science education in schools. Help must start there.
“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.”
As long as “we” means individuals and not governments, it’s great! But I’m really tired of governments, like mine in the US, spending money we don’t have plus our tax money on things that are nowhere close to Constitutional. Let the private market be free once again and it will come up with any necessary innovations and, as a BIG BONUS, not spend resources on losing propositions or propellers as the case may be.
*******
Gary says:
September 3, 2010 at 10:05 am
We don’t need a “consensus-driven look at the evidence
******************
I second that! The IPCC should be presenting the skeptical arguments as well as the so-called “consensus” ones. How many times must it be said that science is not done by consensus???? I mean really!!!
T. Fuller commented to Bruce, “I think we’re spinning our wheels fighting each other instead of working on a) climate change for those who are concerned about it ”
We should work to abrogate climate change just for those individuals? Is this a token effort to mollify their minds, a feel better program? Is it productive to control the emissions of only those who believe them a problem? Why on Earth would we even try to work on a non-problem just because some people think it exists?
Should we start funding initiatives for all of the doomsayers?
We do not have to work on energy efficiency. We will do that in the normal course of things as the technologies mature and become affordable and reliable. We are always trying to do things better and more efficiently as we are always trying to use our time, money and resources better and better.
This trend does not need any specific effort. Just realize how far we have moved in the last 100 years. It is ingenuous to think that we will suddenly sit still and keep on doing what we are doing ad nauseum. That is the liberals’ vision of the rest of the people, but it is not the people—we progress.
I guess the thing that bothers me about Mr. Fuller’s article here is that he appears to be all about middle ground and centrism, when the reality is that you cannot make real, sentient decisions regarding the real world based on pseudoscience, quasiscience, or junk science; it must be real science without overlying opinions. As soon as you start to look at science as negotiable, you are not doing science and will make bad policy decisions and people or the world WILL get hurt.
Anything less than complete abolition of the IPCC and the obscene funding of the alarmists by the taxpayer is a defeat for science, truth and honest discourse.
A few important battles have been won, but the war is not over.
Smokey, I’ve no fear of discussing Middle East politics or history and I’m open to anyone who can further my “education” on the subject. Not really interested in being preached either zionism or anti-zionism, though. The situation is complex, is far more secular than it is religious – on BOTH sides – and Anthony’s blog is neither geared up nor I suspect predisposed to deal with it. Rather than countering Gail’s Koran quotes with Old Testament equivalents – and there are plenty – I think it better to discourage the political debate here.
SimonH,
Nice strawman you set up there. But I was referring to your assertion to Gail Combs when you told her that “you demonstrate such a complete lack of understanding of the Israel/Palestine conflict.”
You may not agree with her opinion, but you overstepped when you accused her of “a complete lack of understanding.” You are free to retract that statement. Or not. It’s up to you.
Charles Higley says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:22 am (Edit)
Ouch! They sill don’t get it!
“This should lead to a more centrist, consensus-driven look at the evidence.”
Science is NOT “consensus-driven,” it is driven by the solidity of the science itself. Can it be tested and confirmed? Consensus includes opinion and opinion is not science
##############
There is always opinion in science at least science which has uncertainties. “traditionally” for example, we look for 95% confidence in our statistical statements. However, there are clearly cases where the public requires MORE confidence or lives with LESS confidence.
the physics of GHGs is clear. GHGs warm the planet, they do not cool it. estimating how much warming is not an opinion free exercise, and the range of figures is rather large. estimating future emissions is not an opinion free exercise and the range of figures is enormous. estimating future damages and costs is not an opinion free exercise. Yet, it’s clear that under some assumptions drastic action would seem prudent. And, under some assumptions, there would seem to be little cause for any action. The middle ground, a consensus position would be something like Tom suggests. What actions can we take that will BOTH mitigate the climate change issue and make us generally better off. For example nuclear.
Steven Mosher says:
September 3, 2010 at 10:25 am
the physics of GHGs is clear. GHGs warm the planet, they do not cool it.
Uh-huh. And what range of figures would you put on the number of tenths of a centigrade a doubling of co2 would cause Mosh?
I’d go for between 0 and 6
The truly pathetic thing about the global warming (non) issue is that we have natural gas and coal, and at the moment even oil, running out our ears. If we throttle back on those on the off-chance that CO2 will cause CATASTROPHIC warming, then we are doing nothing but hurting ourselves and our children. There is nothing noble about living a lower standard of living due to ignorance.
The tradition of the sceptic is a long and very honourable one, sceptics have done more to advance the cause of real scientific endeavour than any institution or government funded body.
Science has always worked by defending a consensus usually built on the ruins of the previous consensus which in turn was built on the ruins of earlier entrenched beliefs, science needs the services of sceptics and mavericks and lone wolf visionaries because that is how incredible advances are made.
The mistake that the AGW consensus establishment made was to attack and silence critics and scientists who simply wished to validate and check the work of others, the attacks were poisonous and spiteful and the dirty tricks were numerous.
The isolated sceptical minority has been largely blameless, they have been subjected to the vilest systematic abuse by those drunk with the arrogance of power whose position was so tenuous and precarious that they simply could not tolerate criticism of any kind.
Well, the fabricated consensus is dying now as we sceptics always knew it must and those who supported the consensus must either face reality or continue to attack the growing sceptical minority, is it going to be a scorched earth battle to the finish or a velvet revolution where the dead king is succeeded by the new prince with the exclamation “the king is dead long live the king”.
Anyone wishing to see how the story ends would do well to read up on the plate tectonics theory, how it was born and how it fought for its life against the old certainties and how it triumphed in the end. The difference being that the plate tectonics story did not have the political/carpet bagger profiteer element and that is what has in large measure contributed to the poisonous atmosphere of the current struggle with the truth.
Sandy says:
September 3, 2010 at 8:50 am (Edit)
Is man’s CO2 making the planet warmer?
Seems rather yes or no to me, where’s the centre?
#################
well, physics tells us that increasing GHGs will warm the planet. There is no physics, no evidence, no theory that predicts it will cool the planet. None. Like many who have had to build things that work based on this physics questioning the fact that GHGs warm the planet is simply not a rational option. Leading skeptics even agree that GHGs will warm the planet: Monkton,Christy,Lindzen,Spenser,Watts,Willis. That doesnt make it so, However, there is an accepted working physics that predicts warming, warming has been observed. There is no accepted working physics that predicts cooling. The balance of the evidence suggests that a belief ( and all science is belief) that GHGs will warm the planet is WARRANTED. That is all we ever have: warranted belief. There is no warranted belief that GHGs will cool the planet. They issue, thus, resolves to this:
1. How much warming ( can we even detect it given the internal dynamics of the system)
2. How much damage will it cause and to whom.
3. Will some benefit?
4. What if anything can be done? who should do it?
Luke warmers tend to believe:
1. The warming will be less than the IPCC and models predict.
2. Very hard to estimate
3. Yes.
4. We split here between those who favor global action, national action, local action
and personal action.
Now that is not a middle ground born from a desire to comprimise. That is an uncomprimising dedication to the facts as we know them. GHGs will warm. we dont know how much, dont know how much harm will result, exactly, and disagree about the best agents of action. The extremes in this debate are people who claim that GHGs can have No effect, that more warming is universally good, and that anybody who suggests otherwise is a socialist. And those who claim that the warming will be horrible, that warming is universally bad, and that anybody who fights it is a oil shill.
There are plenty of reasons to go ‘nuclear’. Climate is certainly not one of these.
Ahh okay, Smokey, I getcha.
In that case, I should clarify that: IF, as is easily inferred from Gail’s selective quoting of the Koran, Gail thinks that the reason that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is sourced in the preachings of the Koran and its preaching of hatred of Jews, THEN she definitely doesn’t have a grasp of the situation. If, on the other hand, Gail DOES actually understand the Israeli/Palestinian conflict but has carefully chosen to conflagrate hatred of the Palestinians through selective and irrelevant quoting of the Koran, then I suppose I should apologise to Gail for getting in the way of her anti-Arab message.
SimonH says:
September 3, 2010 at 9:24 am
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.”
________________________
Not my quote. Oh and I am Lebanese/American
Steven Mosher:
I was strongly opposed to Tom Fuller’s argument about “middle ground” until I read your assertion at September 3, 2010 at 10:25 am which says:
“the physics of GHGs is clear. GHGs warm the planet, they do not cool it.”
Clearly, your statement is unequivocal and, therefore, an approach to “middle ground” would be a move from it and towards reality.
Firstly, the “the physics of GHGs is” NOT “clear”.
The absence of the ‘hot spot’ proves that the postulated feedbacks required to convert any AGW into a discernible effect do not exist.
The ‘hot spot’ is explained in Chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4 and you can read it at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
Figure 9.1 (on page 675) summarises the expected responses to various forcings from 1880 to 1999.
Figure 9.1(c) shows the expectation from GHG increase and Figure 9.1(f) the sum of all forcings.
Figure 9.1(c) is the only diagram of the set of individual forcings that provides the pattern of warming which has the ‘hot spot’.
And both Figures 9.1 (c) and (f) display the ‘hot spot’ because the AGW prediction is that the effect of the increased GHGs is to overwhelm the effects of the other forcings.
That warming at altitude in the tropics has not happened according to radiosonde (i.e. balloon) measurements taken over the last 50 years and has not happened according to MSU (i.e. satelite) measurements taken since 1979.
Indeed, the data indicates slight cooling at altitude in the tropics (i.e. the opposite of the expected effect of GHGs).
So, it is an empirical fact that the theoretical effect of GHGs is denied by the empirical data. Therefore, the “the physics of GHGs is” NOT “clear”
(quod erat demonstrandum).
Secondly, it is true – as you say – that “GHGs warm the planet”
but it is NOT true – as you say – that GHGs “do not cool” the planet because they do.
At altitude the GHGs emit radiation to space from the atmosphere. Without this cooling there would be little heat loss from the atmosphere (and the atmosphere is part of the planet).
So, a substantial move by you towards the “middle ground” (i.e. reality) would be appreciated by me (and I suspect others, too).
Richard
Tom, I think your hope for changes are going to turn out to be forlorn.
Here is chapter author Myles Allen saying business will be conducted as usual.
“The middle ground, a consensus position would be something like Tom suggests. What actions can we take that will BOTH mitigate the climate change issue and make us generally better off. For example nuclear. ”
Nuclear, count me in.
But, I’ll tell you, when I talk to AGW advocates I try to take the middle ground.
First, we are carbon life forms, you cannot eliminate carbon from the life-cycle.
They don’t buy that.
I maintain that while pollution controls that will also mitigate excess CO2
are good, while over regulation, punitive taxing and redistribution of wealth
to places where it will be squandered, even as we go broke, is not a good deal.
They are not persuaded .
Then I explain my personal actions taken to mitigate excess emissions of all kinds
at, I would say, great personal expense.
They are not impressed.
Polar Bears are drowning and it is my fault.
I cannot “bear” it.
Don’t bet on the kneecapping of the EPA. Watch the November results. If it is on the low side of a Republican victory, you are probably correct. If it is on the high side, you are wrong.
But the Palestinians and Israelis have just agreed to face-to-face talks.
Not a good analogy Tom.
They’ve been trying since:
July 17, 1968
1968 Palestinian National Charter ratified
First chairman of the PLO, Ahmad Shukeiri
In its original 1964 version, established the Palestine Liberation Organization. Amended in 1968, focuses on the independent national identity of the Palestinian people
Almost all sceptics accept the concept of CO2 being a ‘greenhouse gas’. Most sceptics accept that perhaps 10-15% of the ~0.7 degrees C increase in global temperature over the past century was due to the effects of rising CO2 levels.
Most sceptics accept that if CO2 levels were to double from today’s levels, then global temperatures are likely to rise, but not catastrophically, perhaps by 0.5-1.0 degrees C.. This is the concept of CO2 forcing.
Most sceptics accept that if temperatures rise, there will be more water vapour in the atmosphere. Logic suggests that increased water vapour levels in the atmosphere should mean more clouds, which trap heat beneath them – this is the principal cornerstone of the concept of positive feedback so loved by warmists.
The basic flaw in fundamentalist warmist theory is it ignores the fact that more clouds would mean more of the Sun’s energy being reflected back into outer space – this is negative feedback, a factor which is routinely ignored by warmists. There seems to be growing evidence that this negative feedback may be equal to, or possibly even greater, than the positive feedback.
This is a quote from NASA: http://terra.nasa.gov/FactSheets/Clouds/:
“Until recently, scientists did not know whether clouds had a net cooling or heating effect on global climate. Clouds reflect solar radiation, which tends to cool the climate, but they also help contain the energy that the Earth would otherwise emit to space, which tends to warm the climate. Measurements made in the 1980s by NASA’s Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) satellite demonstrated that clouds have a small net cooling effect on the current global climate”
Perhaps a simple analogy might be this: you are walking in a park on a warm, partly cloudy, spring day. If you are a warmist, then you won’t feel cooler if a cloud passes between you and the sun, however if you are a sceptic, you will undoubtedly feel cooler.
It is self-evident there is no need to waste so many billions of dollars on the climate change industry. The problem lies in the fact there are many tens of thousands of climate ‘scientists’, bureaucrats and politicians whose comfortable lifestyles are completely dependent maintaining the health of the climate scare industry.
There is no way these people are going to accept the concept of negative feedback or of natural climate cycles – why should we expect these people to want to destroy their own comfortable lifestyle by practicing real science?
We can do absolutely nothing about climate cycles or climatic change – mankind’s impact on climate is totally trivial when compared with the forces of nature.
To me, the biggest credibility gap with the big government types is that they want to kill carbon claiming its bad, but almost completely ignore nuclear. When someone has a problem they want to solve, and they don’t go for the obvious answer, something is rotten. Then when the people advocating drastic solutions aren’t willing to participate themselves in the solution ala Gore et al, then I think people have a right to be suspicious. As Glenn Reynolds likes to say frequently on his blog instapundit.com: I’ll believe there’s a problem when people (leaders in this case) start acting like there’s a problem.
This is where the conspiracies are born: people start thinking that government is out to control them and then make up a story about breaking the economy (cap and trade would do that) create a big crisis, then use it to justify massive changes in our sociology. They can even point to history where such plans for control actually came to fruition. I think its good to remember the old saw: “Just because they’re paranoid doesn’t mean somebody is not out to get them”.
@ur momisugly Jeff says September 3, 2010 at 7:47 am:
And if you really think the Isrealis – who have inch by inch gotten everything they’ve wanted from the status quo – might come to thsese talks in good faith, if that status quo is threatened? (which, of course the talks would)
Wow. . . talk about a naive view of the real world…