Submitted by Professor Bob Ryan
The debate between advocates of CAGW and ‘sceptics’ is a rerun of an old argument between those who take a pessimistic and those who take an optimistic view of humanity. Following the collapse of communism – an extreme version of the pessimists’ creed – those who took that position had to regroup around a new agenda. This post, which is an opinion piece, argues that in searching for their new Trojan Horse the pessimists discovered, in climatology, the ideal opportunity to bring together science, political expediency and social uncertainty in a way that would enable them to capture the political high ground. – Professor Bob Ryan
Although many of us would prefer it otherwise arguments are won through the heart as much as through the mind. To turn the tide against the advocates of CAGW we should recognise that fact and understand what has been happening over the last 20 years. I believe that it is only through recognising the ‘global warming’ debate for what it is that we can make sense of the violence and antagonism it has generated and come up with a successful counter-narrative to the CAGW position.
Throughout recorded history individual and political opinion has always polarized into two camps. There are those who fundamentally believe that humanity is irredeemably lost, that people must be subordinated to social control and that individual choice cannot lead to desirable social outcomes; and there are those who take the opposite view. This is what I describe as the ‘pessimistic’ and the ‘optimistic’ view of humanity – this distinction has been manifest in many ways: the catholic versus the protestant, the communist versus the capitalist, and now those who support the CAGW version of environmentalism and those who do not.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s the pessimists were in disarray. Communism, the creed which had emerged as the 20th Century expression of the pessimists’ agenda had collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. For a short while those who believed that humanity could, through individual action and freedom, create a better world appeared to have won the argument. The retreating left had to find something – anything – to turn the tide in their favour. They needed a much more sophisticated argument to express their world view – an incontrovertible argument that would allow them to capture the moral high ground and be sufficiently alarming in its implications to win over politicians and populations to their agenda. The beauty of CAGW is that it cannot be fixed by the individual or indeed the individual state. It needs a global solution because if runaway global warming has the potential to wipe out a large proportion of humanity then action to prevent it must be equally drastic.
However, the last dozen years have not been good for those who take a more optimistic and liberal view of humanity. The turn of the century brought a nasty dose of millennium angst and a fundamental questioning about where we go from here. Y2K, the dot.com crash, 9/11, financial boom and bust have all produced fertile ground for the pessimists to regroup and in climate science they found their Trojan Horse. Here was a relatively new science bringing under a single umbrella a wide range of sub-disciplines: geo-physics, oceanography, meteorology and many others – all populated by scientists who whilst not technically involved in atmospheric physics might well be sympathetic to the central CAGW message.
By good fortune for the pessimists, a small sub-group of relatively modest UK and US research institutions had been developing their specialism investigating the recent history of global temperature change and the role of CO2 and other atmospheric gases in regulating the climate. Bring them together with a group of savvy and articulate politicians of the (mainly) left, establish a UN panel with the remit of winnowing out of the scientific literature anything which supported the CAGW position and marginalised anything that challenged it, and the Trojan Horse was assembled.
The attack came on two fronts: first the CAGW narrative had to be sufficiently persuasive to win over those scientists whose research, no matter how tangential to the central thesis, would give it added credibility. With this a claim of ‘scientific consensus’ could be established supported by the various scientific bodies who in one way or other act as mouthpieces for the scientific community. Second, the political agenda had to be captured. In this the pessimists were aided by another social and political change.
Across the major economies, politicians had found it increasingly difficult to relieve their populations of their cash. The old approaches to the taxation of income were no longer viable – so called ‘progressive’ taxation and the ‘welfarism’ it supported were becoming very unpopular. Politicians, who by and large are a pragmatic lot, had to find ways of relieving us of our cash by stealth. In the UK, for example, hundreds of tax wheezes were invented to raise taxes in ways the political class hoped would go unnoticed. Furthermore, stealth taxes are much harder to avoid – no accountant or tax lawyer can reduce the tax you pay when you buy a new TV, fill your car with fuel or buy an airline ticket. So the last 20 years have been characterized by a search for new ways to relieve us of our money. In CAGW, the scientific and moral argument could be made for the ultimate stealth tax. Use energy and we will tax you.
And so we have it: a potent brew of political fundamentalism, fiscal expediency, social anxiety, uncertain science and huge vested interests. I do not think science can now resolve the debate about global warming. It is not that the science is of no consequence – it has simply been marginalised in the much bigger social and political debate that is underway. Scientists are highly specialised, discoveries come in bits and the knowledge gained is provisional. For the young working scientist cracking the next problem and publishing the result is the main priority. They will interpret the significance of what they discover, just like the rest of us, according to their underlying beliefs about the way the world works. But as far as the bigger picture is concerned their views are no better than anyone else’s.
The positive message is that the tide is now beginning to turn against the pessimists. Climategate and all that went with it gave hope to those arguing against the CAGW orthodoxy. But in the end the revelations were not conclusive. What is and will be conclusive is the fact that the climate is simply not playing ball. The balmy climate of the last 50 years may be coming to an end. Global temperatures appear to have steadied over the last ten year, the rate of increase in sea level is slowing and across the planet things are not quite going the way the prophets of doom would have us believe. It is not decisive yet but in 5 years it might well be, and as further good quality research establishes the role of other forcings in climate change the pessimists will have to look for another outlet for their world view. But be of no doubt – they will. The battle will be reengaged but next time on a different stage.
Short summary:
Story title:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The hearts and minds issue is indeed important. But this analysis is far too superficial and overtly political. Let me give my own take on the question of hearts and minds which sadly is much less upbeat.
I believe we will win the battle but we have already lost the war.
The battle was about the science. We will win that battle because in science being right means you eventually get to win. But hardly anyone will care or even notice. The war was all about determining the great `cause’ of the 21st century. We’ve lost that war. The great cause of the 21st century will be the international drive to achieve a `zero carbon’ economy. And yes I think the silliness will indeed go that far.
The team told their big lie and defended it viciously and made it stick for the best part of two decades and by now what they started has an unstoppable momentum. It may have escaped your attention but while we were all arguing an entire generation has grown up knowing no other truth. They deeply believe that carbon is evil. There is no doubt in their minds about that. There will be absolutely no stopping this idea until that generation retires in another 50 to 60 years and the generation that follows them may then have a chance to rebel against what was done, if indeed they want to – who can say what the world will be like by then.
Winning the argument over the science will be satisfying, but it won’t be an easy or quick win. Some will never be convinced and we’ll have to wait for them to retire. But the truth will eventually prevail. Sadly however, few people pay attention to or care much about scientific truth. Indeed at least half the population think in a manner completely orthogonal to science. These are the people on the arts side of the arts/science divide. They want to ban chemicals, believe in crystal healing, and buy homeopathic remedies. Their thinking processes are based on emotion and feelings. They think modern technology is too good to be true,and that there must be a day of reckoning. They believe everything natural is good and all the works of man are evil. They feel guilt because they live in prosperity and want to atone. The story of man destroying the planet by burning hydrocarbons resonated very deeply with them, It aligned perfectly with what they already knew. It justified what they already wanted to do. They will not give this idea up no matter where the science goes from here.
And with them goes the bulk of society. Even the majority of people of a scientific and technical bent are at least prepared to go along. Most haven’t been paying much attention and at this point are simply deferring to the ‘experts’. They still believe the lie. Many have been persuaded that skeptics are anti-science. Even skeptics themselves are prepared to go along with the program, taking the attitude that we would have to give up burning hydrocarbons at some point anyway, so what does it all matter?
So there you have it. The 21st century will be all about windmills and power blackouts and bicycles and public transport and taxes on absolutely everything. The drive to a zero carbon economy will be relentless and quite nasty, and as the scientific rug gradually gets pulled out from under it, will look more and more illogical. People will be impoverished – the standard of living in western countries will be driven down (for some that is indeed part of the plan). And we will all just have to suffer through it as we’ve already passed the point of no return. No politician is going to be brave enough to stand in front of this train. This movement will have to be allowed to run its course.
In response to Cynical Scientist….I don’t recognise your dichotomies!
Firstly, I spend as much time among crystal healers/homeopaths and other assorted New Age practitioners as I do among scentists/computer specialists…..I work professionally in both spheres. Having a published book on a critique of climate science I get many invites to talk – from the smallest cafe group to Universities and larger conferences. It is the alternative society – arts/healing/truth-movement – that most wants to hear about the sceptical science (the editor of Caduceus, an alternative health journals asked for an article and he sent it back asking for MORE scientific references and less reflection on aspects of consciousness!). A very large, perhaps majority, of UK populace does not believe in ‘global warming’ and thinks the science is dodgy….and I have played my part by writing for the tabloid press, ( I was recently quoted on the front page of the Daily Express) – so there is a very large non-New Age non-crystal-hugging constituency out there as well.
the ardent ‘believers’ don’t read criticisms of the science because they have already decided it is ‘settled’…..and they are the ‘green’ beneficiaries of the gravy-laden supertanker that is so hard to turn around – politicians, science labs and institutes, campaign groups and renewable techno companies. There is a lot of ass to cover these days.
As for atoning for prosperity……such cynicism is a cover presumably for your own derriere….I also know a great many people who work toward making the world a better place in the poor countries…..and there is a very genuine humanitarian mission – they do not go on about the colonial histories or modern day economic imperialism, but get on with projects that make a difference on the ground – unfortunately, the development aid groups have totally bought into the carbon story….and stand to benefit, they think, from the carbon credits bonanza (eco-agricultural schemes are already totting up the C-sequestration credits).
R Gates: thanks for your comments which raise many issues. You clearly do not agree with my point of view so in rounding up this thread let me clarify some points that I made in my essay.
The pessimistic – optimistic distinction classifies the general perspective individuals have to others and to their environment. My reason for classifying communism and catholicism as pessimistic world views rests in their positon with respect to the individual and the state/church which both adopt. in communism – even going back to Marx – the individual is subjugated to the state and in catholicism the individual is subjugated to the church. Both have a fundamentally pessimistic view of the nature of the individual – I am surprised that you find that proposition in any sense contentious.
From social psychology we know that individuals are attracted to others and to organisation and institutions that reflect their own world view. We also know from many studies of human affiliation behaviour that individuals are attracted to others who share their most basic emotional and behavioural dispositions. That does not mean that there were no optimists in the Soviet Union or no pessimists in the USA that would be silly – it would be equally silly to say that there were none who were just indifferent/resigned or ambivalent. However, I do believe that the Anglo-American faith in human rights,free trade, open markets and democratic structures are fundamentally optimistic and attract support across the world from millions who are emotionally committed to that view of humanity. Similarly those in the west who found themselves supporting communism and other ideologies of the left do not share the same view about the position of the individual. They see progress through structures, state control, and ultimately the subjugation of individual rights to the common goal as defined by the state. To put it all another way: ‘left’ and ‘right’ and yes if you want to include it ‘catholic’ and ‘protestant’ are first and foremost emotional commitments.
The point of my essay is that the ‘conflict’ between the advocates of CAGW and those who oppose them is not about science any more even if it ever was. It is about competing world views and the deep emotional commitment that people have made to their positions. As I suggest in my essay, science has been co-opted as a rhetorical weapon by the advocates of CAGW. I argue that CAGW is a deeply pessimistic view of the dangers that we face and more importantly the ability of individuals through the choices they make to adapt and if necessary to change things. The answer, the advocates argue, is a transnational agreement to limit and to police the emissions of member states – to effectively control the means of global production through the limitation and control of the energy supply. They have, through their penetration of the media, the research literature, politics and the UN sponsored IPCC distorted the debate. It is, I argue, a political/scientific world view which has attracted activists who have a deep dislike of the individualism and freedom that the Anglo/US model represents. It has sucked into itself a broad spectrum of individuals who given their view of the world and notwithstanding their ignorance of the science have found another opportunity to attack the capitalist system. In this sense, like communism CAGW represents a deeply pessimistic view of human development and the ability of people to manage the changing climate whatever the source of the change.
All the best
Peter – delighted to hear that Chill has done well and given the way that you presented your case I am not surprised that the hard-nosed money men (and women) perked up and took notice. I hope you can keep your research and your advocacy going forward at full speed. It is frustrating when so much of the media blanks out one side of the debate t but you have reached and influenced a substantial audience – no mean achievement.
Well, pessimism vs optimism is a great theme, well-founded, but your article has odd things:
– I don’t see the relevance of “catholic versus protestant”
– climate alarmists were active in the 1970s, long before government policy led to both the 9/11 attacks (failure to defend) and the mortgage collapse (coercion of lenders, enticement of borrowers, and ponzi-like agencies), long before the fall of the USSR. (Albeit that reduced credibility of the Old Left, and the New Left rose further.
– Y2K was insignificant, the dot_com bust was nothing substantial
As for connections between environmentalism and Marxist political ideology, look at the number of greens who advocate socialist measures and the number of leftist activists who are avid environmentalists.
And “Pompus Git” shows that s/he is indeed pompous.
To “jae” I say that the left’s method of pulling up by bootstraps is some kind of spontaneous collective notion that always turns out to be oppressive, whereas those who believe in individuals see the only viable method as self-improvement.
I recommend Ayn Rand’s book “The New Left: The Anti-industrial Revolution” (new edition titled “Return of the Primitives”).
YEP said on June 9, 2011 at 8:27 am
“Murphy was an engineer. Operating under the assumption that if something can go wrong it will is not a bad way to design machines.”
and contrasted that with humans.
Well, you have to understand engineering more broadly but recognize the limited context of a machine (as you in effect say, humans are different, and I say the context of the climate debate is much wider than a machine).
Engineers have confidence in many parts of the machine, having specified quality materials and tested important functions. They have explored how it might fail and what the consequences might be. In a society able to afford high reliability, failures might be mitigated at all costs – such as by duplication of functions, and backups like the manual pitch trim in the fly-by-wire 777 airplane.
But engineers put the machine into operation, by users who accept some risk. Otherwise they wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning (but if they didn‘t starve first it might collapse in an earthquake, so maybe they’d find a cave except it too might collapse in the earthquake if a flood or bear didn’t get them first).
You note that humans have adaption mechanisms, which is one area where Malthus et al went wrong. (He was beginning to realize in old age the effectiveness of actions like conservation and substitution. Even a machine can be programmed to conserve and substitute, within the limited capability of machines of course – programmed by humans. If the 777 airplane has a shortage of electrical power it sheds less important loads like galleys. If it is short of hydraulic power it drops a small turbine into the airstream to drive a hydraulic pump.)
Climate alarmists fail to look at the full picture. Their neglect of real data and some feedback mechanisms is regularly chronicled herein. They fail to do what good engineers do. Worse, they evade the impact of their actions on human life, willingly sacrificing others to their cause.
For many the reason they don’t integrate and value human life is some psychological problem. Some of my friends say it is the guilt that drives much altruism, fed of course by Marxist fixed-pie presumptions, but it seems apocalyptic as well. I wonder if it is like the fascination some people have with skeletons and bleeding, which in some people leads to nihilism such as of the killers at Columbine high school. (Note the suicidal types who take as many others with them as they can, instead of just quietly committing suicide. For Islamic Totalitarians that may be a way to “heaven”, but in societies like the US the motivation of nihilists– which neo-marxist/post-Modernist teachings are full of including their “art”, is less easily identified.)
Here’s a lead to glacier change I stumbled across, a study of growth/retreat of a modest glacier in the coastal mountains north of Vancouver B.C.
“Mass balance and streamflow variability at Place Glacier, Canada, in relation to recent climate fluctuations” by R.D.Moore and M.N. Demuth, in journal “Hydrological Processes”, 2001, vol. 15, no18, pp. 3473-3486.
This bit from the abstract shows part of what they did: “Place Glacier’s winter and net balances are correlated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). ….. A reconstruction of net balance extending back to the 1890s, based on a regression with winter precipitation and summer temperature, displays decadal-scale fluctuations consistent with the PDO.”
Payment is required to read the whole article.
The article in Wikipedia on Chinook winds briefly mentions an aboriginal legend about the glacier, but it sounds as though claims in the legend may be vague analogies. (IIRC human settlement on the BC coast goes back several thousand years, trading between tribes was common but so was war.)
Moderator – sorry, my post on the Place Glacier was intended for Tips & Notes.