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.
Steven Mosher says:
September 3, 2010 at 10:54 am
#################
well, physics tells us that increasing GHGs will warm the planet. Luke warmers tend to believe:
The effect of CO2 relative to H2O is so small as to be irrelevant and certainly can’t be quantified with the precision quoted in the IPCC. Taking that into consideration :
The issue, thus, resolves to this:
1. Is there a positive feedback.
Thomas Fuller wrote:
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.
I’m going to reserve judgment on whether what has been promoted as “climate science” is going to return to some mythical center or simply disappear, blown away by gales of derisive laughter. I would caution, though, that depending on an analogy to the Middle East “peace” process is guaranteed to boomerang. I’ve been watching what’s gone on in the Middle East since shortly after the adoption of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 established the framework for the partition of Palestine, and see no rational basis to expect anything except an infinite succession of unsuccessful “peace” negotiations, punctuated by episodic warfare.
There is, of course, the depressing possibility that the Middle East does, in fact, prefigure the future of climate science, as well . . .
——————————
Steve Mosher,
What does the science have anything at all to do with any labels that you use like Luke-warmer or Leading Skeptics? Nothing.
It is my impression that we are just now entering into, finally after persistently questioning the so-called settled science, a situation where open discussion/interaction can start. There has been no general open public discussion/interaction of climate science in the formal science on climate by all interested scientists. It is just starting to open up to all scientists.
Limiting discussion/interaction? Why? Honestly, why? It cannot be for the sake of science itself, it can surely take care of itself? What is it? I am really surprised by your suggestion.
We should open the science to discussion/interaction with all scientists at this point. The best theory which conforms to reality and is verified independently will determine the best scientist. That is what has been missing so far.
Are you really speaking for the “Leading Skeptics” you listed. And how did you select those?
John
I can see I will be labeled a die-hard skeptic, a non team player, a guy incapable of burying the hatchet when offered an olive branch. Thomas, I have to say you have this whole thing completely wrong. It has nothing to do with accommodation or negotiation or consensus. You reveal with this essay that you are part of the delusion that climate science is separate from the rest of science and opinions of the butcher, the baker and candlestick maker have weight. In the Palestinian-Israeli differences, these productive craftsmen do indeed have a say but the irrelevance of your position on the CS debate is only underscored by your analogy (by mention of it) with the P-I dispute. Your proudly declared centrist position is just as bad as either extreme when it is simply a layman’s opinion and not based on an understanding of the science.
Let us clarify what I am saying here with what some might say is an absurd example. Should one feel progress is being made when the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, having debated long, hard and often acrimoniously the shortcomings and validity of Einstein’s theories of relativity, finally with a handshake, to agree with the baker’s centrist position in the debate except for a few face-saving caveats?
I hope this cements my position as an uncompromising skeptic in so far as the scientific method is concerned. I’d be happy to dust off my banjo for a few verses of Kumbaya though if peace is negotiated in the Middle East.
Jimash.
I empathize with you. They are uncompromising. BUT Some hard core skeptics deny that C02 will have ANY effect whatsoever or argue that it can have NO effect. The warmista tend to use those voices to characterize ALL skeptics. They have an interest in saying ” the skeptical position denies science” It’s strategically critical for the skeptical movement to accept the science that doesnt matter. That is, one can accept that GHGs warm the planet and STILL maintain the stronger position: we dont know how much. That skeptcism is at the heart of the science. That fight is inside their camp. So in essence I am telling skeptics to join the AGW camp, and marginalize the extremists from within. You cannot credibly argue with a warmista that the extremists are wrong, UNLESS you first accept some basic facts. which argument has more weight with a warmista:
1. I agree with the basic physics, But Joe Romm is an extremist
2. I disagree with the basic physics AND joe Romm is an extremist.
And now people will argue that C02 will cool the planet, with no evidence whatsoever and call themselves skeptics. who will say:
1 the best science predicts warming
2 the levels of warming are uncertain.
I believe in AGW, but dont know how bad it will be. In short, there is no evidence that we are NOT adding C02 to the atmosphere (Anthro) there is ample evidence that more C02 will warm the planet (GW) how much? how fast? does it matter? can we do anything? do we need to? who should act? Those questions are all INSIDE the AGW camp.
paulw says (first quoting DesertYote):
“‘ DesertYote: The IPCC is not broken. It is doing exactly what it is meant to do. That is to create scientifically sounding propaganda to convince the population of the world to submit to handing over all control of their lives to an international government.’ ”
“These kind of views make us look like conspiracy theorists and any arguments that come out of here are not taken seriously.”
You have to understand that it is a conspiracy. There is a clear history and related facts. When you can name the key players and events, it is no longer “conspiracy theory.” Otherwise one could never accuse anybody of doing wrong. Do not hobble your thinking.
Maurice Strong hatched this plan to eventually create a one-world government (his dream) based on a world crisis focused on carbon (and an unproven hypothesis by Arrhenius); he knew the world could not get away from using carbon. He then set up the IPCC and staffed it with compatriots given the mission mentioned above. [Pushing wind and solar power generation gives the appearance of trying to solve the problem, but they fully know that this will not work, being unreliable, inefficient, and ultraexpensive. This gives them the facade of “honestly” trying, while all along they want the crisis and the failure to make the public desperate.]
The IPCC’s mission is to show the effects of global warming regardless of whether the world is warming or not. To support this, they willingly and blatantly alter the temperature records, both old and new, to create warming. As certain onboard agencies have a monopoly on the data, this is a regular procedure. Only inquiring skeptics hunt down the original data and find out what they are doing. We should thank them profusely.
Then the IPCC hands out billions in grant money with the clear implied stipulation that the results must involve climate change (global warming) and must support their mission – otherwise and there will be no further funding for you!
The IPCC has no other reason for being; it is a political body and is not meant to be a scientific organization. That is why the Summary for Policy Makers is so heavily edited and altered, AFTER the scientists approve their own input (giving the report a facade of real science), to make the conclusions ALWAYS carry dire predictions and recommendations which support the agenda. [It is clear why nuclear power is avoided as it would cure the problem—they do not want a solution, they want Their solution, one-world rule.] Alterations such as these are what politicians do, not real scientists. Pachauri is NOT a scientist and he heads the place.
So, this is indeed a conspiracy. A real conspiracy involving a host of politicians, individuals (wealthy with radical environmental agendas and/or seeing potential for huge profits), environmental and Malthusian groups, and governments, while being protected and aided by our very biased and unprofessional media. It is real, it is bad, and its machinations should be exposed as often as possible.
Copenhagen was supposed to be the end game of this plan and conspiracy. Fortunately, the agreement, which included the formation of a one-world government, failed to be adopted. It is not a stretch to guess that such a power would be totalitarian and socialist. We missed that bullet, but we need to disarm the shooters.
Steven Mosher says:
September 3, 2010 at 10:54 am
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.
There is however, in the peer reviewed literature, an interesting and as yet unrebutted theory that additional co2 will neither warm nor cool the planet. That of Ferenc Miskolczi.
Hows that for taking the middle ground?
And in any case, physics does not tell us that co2 will warm the planet at all. Physics tells us that in lab conditions, with all other things remaining unchanged, co2 will act to slow down the rate of cooling. It cannot warm anything.
It’s woolly thinking and sloppy use of language like this which has got us in such a mess with climate science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/28/congratulations-finally-to-spencer-and-braswell-on-getting-their-new-paper-published/
Energy conservation is no solution; it is also not sustainable.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/energy-conservation-is-not-sustainable.html
Ocean-current energy is key to the long-term. It is steady, reliable, and requires zero storage. It also is very, very close to free, having only capital costs and ongoing maintenance costs.
Feet2theFire:
“Perhaps our weather/climate is somewhat a reflection of our mindsets. Perhaps if our hot and steaming rants – on both sides – mellowed out, we’d see our weather/climate has also mellowed out, too.”
However, as I said above in more detail, it has nothing to do with climate change. The AGW scam is a political agenda, a plan, a well-funded, huge plan. One cannot sit back and say “get mellow, man,” as the warmist faction will then steam roll the world into a one-world government with control over our lives at levels you would not appreciate.
The only tool the skeptics have is to clearly show that the “science” of AGW is false, fight to be heard in the media, and get the public to wonder to themselves that, if the science is bogus, why would we agree to all of these “save the planet by destroying our lives and freedoms” programs; cap, tax, and trade being only the poster-child for these evil, intrusive, life-sucking plans.
My wife says that the skeptics will win, but they will not if they collectively sit back and expect others to come to their senses without someone presenting the real facts and science. They HAVE to keep pushing and making themselves heard.
So, when we make gains, it is time to push harder, not less.
Science is no more settled by compromise than it is by consensus.
The questions are simple, really:
1. Is the planet warming ?
2. If yes, what is (are) the causes ?
3. If found, can or should the underlying causes be mitigated ?
Science allows us to answer :
1. The planet is possibly warming, at an unknown rate given that instrumental data is relatively recent, is based mostly on land measurements collated at stations variably sited over time and is poorly adjusted for UHI. Trends based on proxies do not have the statistical power to arrive at any meaningful conclusion. If the planet is warming, there is zero evidence that the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate.
2. Given that there is zero evidence that the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate, it is highly likely that warming, if present, is natural. Research has been biased, highly concentrated on the possibility of man-made warming to the exclusion of natural causes. Therefore, the natural causes of the the mild warming that the planet has probably been experiencing for the last 100 years, are unclear and need to be researched.
3.Warming, of whatever cause, is quite beneficial to the human race and wildlife and at this time requires no mitigation. The ideal temperature of the planet is unknown, but certainly has not yet been reached. In any case, nothing can be done to mitigate (natural) long term climatic trends.
I don’t see what I need to compromise here.
I agree with Tallbloke: sloppy language is the problem.
There is universal agreement that the trace gas CO2 has risen substantially over the past century. But it is still a very tiny trace gas. And the planet’s T has only a spurious correlation to the increase in CO2, indicating that any warming effect must be miniscule.
If CO2’s effect is insignificant, there is nothing to worry about and no reason to spend immense sums to mitigate a non-problem.
OTOH, if the effect of CO2 on T is substantial, then a strong correlation should have already appeared in observations. It hasn’t.
So in essence I am telling climate alarmists to join the scientific skeptics’ camp, and marginalize the extremists from within their ranks. WUWT does its part by allowing all points of view. Until the alarmist blogs do likewise, they demonstrate that they are too insecure in their position to have an honest discussion that includes opposing and un-edited points of view.
“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.”
Why bother? Get the science right and all else will follow quite easily.
Roy Spencer – Negative cloud feedback
Ferenc Miskolczi – dynamic equilibrium of atmospheric composition
Anthony Watts – thermometry and record keeping
Lindzen and Choi – radiative budget in the real world
Nir Shaviv – amplification of solar variation at the surface
CASE SOLVED
Mr. Thomas,
Fantastic, preposterous claims are still made every day by the most influential alarmists, such as Dr. James Hansen, without any correction by more “moderate” elements. Nor is any explanation given when dire warning from decades past turn out to be nothing. The same people keep yelling that the sky is falling and the sky stubbornly remains. I see no room for dialog given those conditions. Science is not politics, it’s not about compromise. It’s about being true and real or it’s a waste of time and effort. Would truth make peace with a lie?
This will end with shattered reputations one way or the other… and given the risible track record of warming prognostications so far, I don’t think skeptics have much to be concerned about. It’ll make a great cautionary tale about over-exaggeration… perhaps it will replace the story of the boy who cried “Wolf”.
“The center” … what is that in science? This is not a negotiation. I just bought a car and that was a negotiation. Science is the search for the truth, nothing more and nothing less. There is no center.
As of adopting poor energy technologies to replace efficient ones, well you can keep the poor technologies. I don’t want to pay for them. All it does is make a few people richer and the rest of us a little poorer. Why would anyone support that kind of nonsense?
Charles Higley says:
September 3, 2010 at 12:27 pm
My wife says that the skeptics will win, but they will not if they collectively sit back and expect others to come to their senses without someone presenting the real facts and science. They HAVE to keep pushing and making themselves heard.
No Charles, skeptics need do nothing to win. History will prove them correct. BUT…..
#1: Will there be anyone to show the AGW clan they are wrong? or will they have frozen to death due to lack of heating fuel?
#2: The eventual victory will not be a matter of a triumpant “See?”, but one of a holding action. As long as the AGW crowd can be forestalled in wrecking complete havoc upon civilization, then you can declare a sort of victory. That fight is the real fight. The weather will do as it pleases regardless of the folly of man.
The purpose seems to degrade it from a belief to a scientifically reasonable doubt, which by the “precautionary principle” would anyway lead to exactly the same previous goal: Making carbon market (and, what is more important, profit) possible.
Anthony, you said, “We could be trumpeting the energy efficiency gains from LED lighting.” I have nothing against LED lighting per se, indeed, I’d like to kit out my house with lots of low-energy lighting. So why have I stocked up on twenty years’ worth of old-style tungsten-filament light bulbs? Because the EU has is making them illegal. And I’m blowed if I’m going to be dictated to by an unelected mob of commissars sitting in their Brussels-based proto-dictatorship, all on salaries of half a million US per year. Btw, they all love cap-and-trade in spite of the reported 90% fraud in the EU carbon market. I wonder why?
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.
From what I observe, only ‘lukewarmers’ hold this view!
The physics of CO2 is well known in the laboratory, under controlled conditions, but in the real atmosphere, with all its rich chaotic motion, it is far from well understood. All evidence both recent and from the historical Vostock ice core data shows that the level of the trace gas CO2 follows rather than leads temperature change. It is also swamped by the effect of water vapour (see – Dynamic Equilibrium of Atmospheric Composition – F. Miskolczi).
Water vapour exists in the atmosphere at much greater concentration than CO2, and any extra water vapour caused by increasing temperature leads to an increase in clouds which block out heat of the sun (see The Thermostat Hypothesis – Willis Eschenbach).
There really is no middle ground ‘consensus’ in this debate, the CAGW conjecture is either right or wrong, and so far the null hypothesis of natural oscillations in our non-linear climate hasn’t been falsified. Governments around the globe are already realising that there is no urgent warming crisis. However, the dream of peace, via the vehicle of an unelected world government and a currency based on carbon, still burns bright in the twisted minds of the ‘old money’ elite.
It is time for those on both sides who have suspended their critical faculties to reenact them and widen their selective thinking by allowing themselves critical thoughts about nearly all beliefs.
Look. I’m all for people talking, but the aim should be to establish the truth, not to reach touchy-feely consensus. The former is in the scientific spirit, and the latter belongs in another realm altogether – perhaps the mis-applied Middle East scenario.
As I indicated in my previous post, what TF seems to be advocating is to enter the bargaining phase, and somehow, to stay there whilst we all dance round the maypole on a fine summer day. This is naive, because we all know that the CAGW camp would only want to bargain for the acquiescence of the sceptics.
We need to plough on towards the acceptance phase, this being signalled when the warmistas finally accept that all the science needs to be on the table and taken seriously, whether or not it comes from those with a sceptical position. Now, that would we what I would call arriving at a sensible position. It has nothing to do with “centrality”, but much more with honesty and truth.
It is the dishonesty and disingenousness that most winds up the sceptics and agnostics. Warmistas seem incapable of grasping this simple point. Acceptance will be when everyone on both sides just wants to focus on scientific evidence. Then let the truth be whatever it is, even if it’s a resounding “we don’t know”.
I was once unable to convince a young lady to remove her clothes.
But I was able to talk her out of half her clothes.
Ah yes, the results of compromise!
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.
No, the physics states that the sun warms the planet. Without the sun, the earth would be at 3K like the rest of the universe.
The energy budget of this planet (averaged over a reasonable time period) currently is “Sun in (@6000K)” + “Universe in (@3K)” + “Geothermal energy” = emissions (whether reflections or Stefan-Boltzmann). All of these will be measured in watts (ironically).
If you want to add greenhouse gasses to that equations, then, using conservation of units, please express greenhouse gasses in watts, along with an explanation of how these watts are being produced (fission, fusion, chemical changes, entropy etc)
I believe the statisticians have already taken “Climate Scientists” to task over mixing units with rates, but being statisiticians, no one understood them.
Now if you want to claim that greenhouse gasses affect the distribution of heat, and hence the distribution of temperature – that I can live with. But having said that, averaging that distribution will then destroy any visibility of changes in that distribution in a rather ironic way.
Charles Higley says:
September 3, 2010 at 12:13 pm
paulw says (first quoting DesertYote):
“‘ DesertYote: The IPCC is not broken. It is doing exactly what it is meant to do. That is to create scientifically sounding propaganda to convince the population of the world to submit to handing over all control of their lives to an international government.’ ”
“These kind of views make us look like conspiracy theorists and any arguments that come out of here are not taken seriously.”
______________________________________________________
You have to understand that it is a conspiracy. There is a clear history and related facts. When you can name the key players and events, it is no longer “conspiracy theory.” Otherwise one could never accuse anybody of doing wrong. Do not hobble your thinking……
Copenhagen was supposed to be the end game of this plan and conspiracy. Fortunately, the agreement, which included the formation of a one-world government, failed to be adopted. It is not a stretch to guess that such a power would be totalitarian and socialist. We missed that bullet, but we need to disarm the shooters.
__________________________________________________________
Thank you.
Until CAGW is put into the political context and people start waking up we will remain in very big trouble.
It is a long term three pronged attack. As Kissinger stated: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world”
MONEY
You only have to look at the original move away from the gold standard, what is happening to the world’s economy, the demise of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and the call for a creation of a new international currency reserve to replace the dollar. to see how control of the money supply is shifting.
FOOD
You only have to look at the impact of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Ag, the Biodiversity Treaty, patenting of life forms and the newly enacted regulations on farming throughout the worldon independent farmers to see the take over of “Food Sovereignty.” Mexico lost 75% of her farmers, Portugal lost 60% and the EU plans to remove a million Polish from their farms. There have been more than 25,000 farmers suicides in India thanks to the WTO.
ENERGY
Control of CO2 emissions and hamstringing of nuclear energy.
Conspiracy? I do not think so. It looks like a well executed plan to me.
The centrist position is that dumping large amounts of the various by-products of hydrocarbon ignition into the atmosphere is bad and making our economy dependent of fossil fuels produced in unstable parts of the world is bad. We should aggressively spend public funds to stimulate the develop of clean renewable energy sources like nuclear and geothermal (a sort of Manhattan project for enregy). We should also establish liberal technology transfer practices to allow private entrepreneurs to commercialize the R&D resulting from the public funding. This is a position that the majority of people would support. You don’t need alarmism to get people on-board for something like this. You simply need leadership.
Where alarmism and Mannian ‘manufactured-on-demand’ science comes in handy is if you are advocating for sweeping public policy changes like the replacement of free market capitalism with some other kind of economic system, namely a centrally controlled, planned economy. In this case, the “science” of CAGW is simply a tool in the service of a political objective.