Guest essay by Christopher Monckton
The American Geophysical Union, after three previous attempts at a policy statement on climate change, has just published yet a fourth. Christopher Monckton of Brenchley redrafts it to say what it should have said if the AGU’s objective had been the honest scientific truth.
Anthropogenic climate change requires no action
Our influence on the climate is minor but beneficial
Human activities are changing Earth’s climate, but – as the AGU must now concede – not by much. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 0.03% before the Industrial Revolution to 0.04% today. Much of this alteration of 1 part in 10,000 of the atmospheric composition may have been caused by burning fossil fuels.
The world has warmed by 0.8 Cº over the past 140 years, but a recent survey of the abstracts of 11,944 scientific papers on global climate change showed only 43 abstracts, or 0.3% of the sample, endorsing the notion that humans were responsible for most of that warming. The mean residence time of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is 7 years, so the AGU must recognize that its earlier fears that anthropogenic emissions will influence the climate system for millennia have proven unfounded.
Observations show that recent modest increases in air and sea temperatures and in sea level have been well within natural variability. Atmospheric water vapor may or may not have increased: we lack the capacity to measure it accurately. Some (but not all) mountain glaciers have receded, and earlier claims that all ice in the Himalayas would be gone in 25 years have been withdrawn. Most of the world’s 160,000 glaciers are in the Antarctic, nearly all of which has cooled in the past 30 years.
Snow cover extent in the northern hemisphere reached a record high December value in 2012. There is no global measurement of permafrost, but its extent has probably changed little. Arctic sea ice has declined since 1979, but Antarctic sea ice has increased, and the AGU must apologize for having given only half the story before. These changes are within natural variability and need no further explanation, though humans may have had some small influence. The changes are consistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences but allow for some human contribution.
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions; that higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming and greater risks to society and ecosystems; and that some additional warming is unavoidable owing to past emissions. Yet the models have consistently over-predicted global atmospheric and oceanic warming. According to satellite measurements, for 16 years 8 months, or 200 months, there has been no global warming at all.
And, though some 0.2 Cº warming should have occurred since January 2005 according to the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the satellite records show no global warming at all since that date.
Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects (both adverse and, as we now acknowledge, beneficial) on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, but our influence cannot readily be distinguished from historical patterns of natural variability and storminess and is as likely to be beneficial as harmful, particularly in the short to medium term.
In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counter-intuitive ways – some areas may experience cooling, for instance. Indeed, taking the mean of the monthly surface or lower-troposphere global mean surface temperature anomalies from all five principal datasets, the cooling has been global throughout the 150 months since January 2001, representing one-eighth of the present century.
Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water, are currently no more frequent or intense than usual, and are unlikely to increase for as long as global temperatures continue to fail to rise as the AGU had formerly but erroneously predicted. Other projected outcomes, such threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), coastal infrastructure, and biodiversity, are also unlikely in the circumstances. The AGU must now agree that previous talk of ocean “acidification” was incorrect, since the oceans are and must remain pronouncedly alkaline for as long as they are buffered by the rocks in the basins where they lie. Benefits of a warmer world (if and when warming resumes) will include increased availability of agricultural land formerly under permafrost in northern latitudes; reduced storminess as temperature differentials diminish; and greater crop yields thanks to a general growth in the net primary productivity of the world’s trees and plants owing to CO2 fertilization.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, the AGU must now accept that no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of anthropogenic climate change significantly damaging. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic advantages than anticipated. Trans-polar navigation and mineral exploration will be facilitated. However, it is known that much of the loss of Arctic sea ice is attributable to natural influences, and half of that loss since 1979 has been compensated by increases in Antarctic sea ice.
Actions that could diminish the benefits posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include the substantial emissions cuts the AGU once advocated in a futile attempt to reduce the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming, which has proven to be remarkably poorly correlated with increases in CO2 emissions. The community of scientists must learn to recognize that it has no responsibility to promote a particular negative viewpoint on climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand why the predicted climate change is not occurring, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying results to decision makers and to the general public clearly, accurately, honestly, and without the previous negative prejudice for which the AGU must now humbly apologize.
Erroneous versions of the above statement were adopted by the American Geophysical Union in December 2003 and were revised and republished in December 2007, February 2012, and August 2013. In the face of the evidence, the AGU must now accept that its previous statements were inadequate.
@terry Oldberg 2:21 pm
Stephen Rasey, I challenge you to prove your contentions that: a) Monckton and the AGU have not jointly been guilty of using the equivocation fallacy.
It was not my contention at all.
Your statement that I took issue was “200 billion US$ investigation of global warming to which the AGU and Monckton have been a party…..”
Which more than implies Monckton shares with the AGU (‘have been a party”) with the 200 billion US$ investigation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Stephen Rasey:
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your contentions. So far as I know, Mr. Monckton has not shared in the 200 billion US$. The entity that Monckton has shared with members of the AGU is not the funding for global warming research but rather is a deceptive argument of the form of the equivocation fallacy. A consequence from this deception is for conclusions reached by the AGU and by Monckton in their respective policy statements to be logically improper.
The equivocation fallacy is fostered through the use of the polysemic terms “model” and “prediction” in the arguments of the AGU and Monckton. It can be eliminated through a disambiguation that results in a one-to-one relationship between terms and meanings. I present such a disambiguation in the article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
When the terminology of global warming arguments is thusly disambiguated, it is revealed ( http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 ) that the research on global warming that has thus far been conducted has had a faulty methodology. A consequence is for the 200 billion US$ to have been spent without providing a basis for policy decisions on CO2 emissions. About all that can be said about the results of this research that is of significance for public policy is that 200 billion US$ in public money produced no usable result but seemed, as a result of a deceptive argument, to have produced one.
@richard Holle 9:55 pm
“”The newly approved statement will be reported to the AGU membership in the 20 August 2013 issue of Eos, the source of record for all AGU proceedings.
Oh, isn’t that nice! That AGU membership gets to read the statement in Eos in 12 days.
Yeah, like all 62,000 members had a hand in the statement.
Terry Oldberg 8:37 am
The entity that Monckton has shared with members of the AGU ….
There you go again. By saying Monckton and AGU share things, you are equivocating in the extreme. Context is everything. Equivocation is exposed by context.
Monckton shares with the leaders of the AGU a familiarity with the English language. Not much else.
Contextually, Economically, Philosophically, Epistemologically, Grammatically, Rhetorically, Objectively and Logically, Monckton’s communication shares little with that produced by an AGU committee and is far superior in communicating knowledge and ideas. The AGU has him beat on politics and power and equivocations.
Stephen Rasey:
Your comparison of Monckton to the AGU is incomplete and misleading. Like the AGU, Monckton states his argument using the polysemic terms “model” and “predict” thus making an equivocation of this argument. Then, like the AGU, he draws conclusions from this argument. In doing so he, like the AGU, is guilty of the deceptive argument which is known to philosophers as the “equivocation fallacy.” By accusing me of use of same fallacy, you’ve changed the topic from the position statements of Monckton and the AGU to the unrelated topic of me. This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy. The presence of it invalidates your argument.
Do you agree or disagree regarding the presence of the equivocation fallacy in the position statements of the AGU and Monckton? If you disagree, what is your argument?
By the way, your claim that “equivocation is exposed by context” is inconsistent with use of the term “equivocation” in the philosophical literature. In this literature, an “equivocation” is an argument wherein a term changes meaning the the midst of this argument. By logical rule, a proper conclusion may not be drawn from an equivocation. To draw a conclusion from an equivocation is the “equivocation fallacy.”
@terry Oldberg 12:46 pm
I disagree. I reread the Monckton rewrite of the AGU statement and my respect for his writing style and clarity only increased. There is no equivocation fallacy in it at all.
He makes many simple declarative statements. He quantifies where possible, unlike the AGU. He uses the terms “may” (7 times), “can” (2), “unlikely” (2), “might” (not at all), sparingly. I view Monckton’s statement as exemplary in clarity and objectivity.
You, judging from your WRBriggs piece, are hooked on the supposition that a climate model cannot be verified and therefor cannot “predict”. I agree that their verification is neigh impossible, but models and modelers CAN and DO predict — It is just through observations they seem to be lousy predictors.
Tarot card readers and astrologers predict all the time, but I personally I make and alter no decisions based upon those predictions for I view them to be worthless based upon theory and observation. I hold the IPCC and their allies in equal regard to Tarot Card Readers because their respective predictions have similar vagueness and accuracy, plus I observe a shared motivation to extract as much money from their Marks as possible.
You might hold that Monckton committed an equivocation fallacy because he wrote: “Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise….. “. His rebuttal is parallel to the AGU statement that refers to those models. Even if the AGU commits the fallacy with respect to models, Monckton commits no fallacy by referring to the models only to destroy their value and authority by exposing how badly the models overestimate predictions compared to observations over the past two decades.
While we are on the subject of equivocating, let us dispense with the subterfuge that “predictions” and “projections” are different things. When “projections” are used to support an advocacy policy or decision, they become predictions made by the advocate. Using two words to mean the same thing is as logically fallacious as using the same word for two concepts.
So enough! with trying to tar Monckton and the AGU committee with the same Equivocation Fallacy Brush. The AGU committee might very well deserve that tar. Monckton should not be splattered so indiscriminately.
Stephen Rasey:
For reference, I present the following proof of the contention that Monckton is guilty of the equivocation fallacy.
For an equivocation fallacy to be present, it is necessary and sufficient for the following two ingredients to be present:
1) An argument is made that contains one or more polysemic terms and
2) One or more conclusions that are drawn from this argument.
In the literature of climatology, the terms “model” and “predict” are polysemic ( http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 ) and are used by Monckton in making his argument. Monckton draws conclusions from this argument. Thus, Monckton is guilty of the equivocation fallacy.
QED
In your attempt at refutation of this proof, you deny that “predict” and “project” have different meanings. However, this denial does not refute my proof. To refute it, one would have to prove that the terms “model” and “predict” are both monosemic. This cannot be done, for I have proved both of them to be polysemic ( http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 ). In this way, your attempt at refutation fails.
A barrier to understanding for you seems to lie in the fact that in the disambiguated terminology that I develop in the above referenced paper I use the words “predict” and “project” in reference to differing meanings. In the non-disambiguated language of the climatology literature, the word “predict” has (at least) these two meanings. However, my use of these two words is immaterial for I could have used the made up words XXX and YYY in reference to the respective meanings and the conclusion would have been the same. The conclusion would have been that in the literature of climatology, “predict” is polysemic..
Stephen Rasey:
Your point is correct. The IPCC DOES make predictions (e.g. of “committed warming”) and computer model projections become predictions when used as forecasts (e.g. by the IPCC).
So, you are right, and I write to offer some friendly advice; i.e.
try to resist the temptation to reply to Terry Oldberg.
I have learned from repeated experience that such interaction will be (to be polite) unproductive.
Richard
richardscourtney:
Inasmuch as I have addressed these issues in a pair of peer reviewed articles, both of them reviewed by distinguished climatologists, your advice to Rasey that my arguments should be ignored is supremely anti-intellectual. Have you published peer reviewed articles on the equivocation fallacy in climatological arguments? I’m not aware of any.
you deny that “predict” and “project” have different meanings.
I deny that “project” has a different meaning than “predict” when advocates use a “projection” as a “prediction” in support of their advocacy. Context is everything.
You have used the words “model” and “predict” in the same sentence. Are you guilty of the Eq. Fallacy? No, because you make the argument against that connection. Monckton used “model” and “prediction” because he was arguing against the AGU committee use of that connection.
Enough. You have failed to convince me you are correct. You last post has convinced me you are clouding the issue with unimportant matters.
Stephen Rasey:
For the record, I’ll point out that I have proved my contention and you have failed to refute this proof. Thus, though failing to signify your capitulation, you have functionally capitulated.
Terry Oldberg:
re your post addressed to me at August 10, 2013 at 10:52 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/the-agu-policy-statement-as-redrafted-by-monckton/#comment-1386373
Your appeal to authority (of both peer review and your opinion of yourself) has been read, noted and ignored.
In the unlikely event that you provide something worthy of response then I would be willing to reply to it.
Richard
richardscourtney:
It is not hard to guess the motivation of a person such as yourself in seeking avoidance of participation in a debate on a side that has already lost the battle.
By the way, the fallacy to which you make reference is appeal to illegitimate authority. In the peer review system, a referee is a legitimate authority. Appeal to legitimate authority is no fallacy.
Terry Oldberg:
Yawn!
Richard
Terry Oldberg 11:16 am
In the peer review system, a referee is a legitimate authority.
Appeal to legitimate authority is no fallacy.
Wow! You are writing to the wrong audience.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/20/the-illogic-of-climate-hysteria/
A fallacy is a deceptive argument that appears to be logically valid but is in fact invalid. Its conclusion will be unreliable at best, downright false at worst.
– argumentum ad populum – the consensus or headcount fallacy
– argumentum ad verecundiam, the reputation or appeal-to-authority fallacy
– argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.
– argumentum ad misericordiam, the fallacy of inappropriate pity.
– post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the argument from false cause.
– argumentum ad petitionem principii, the circular-argument fallacy
– a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, the fallacy of accident, from the general to the particular.
– fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, the fallacy of converse accident, from the particular to the general.
– argumentum ad hominem, the attack on the man rather than on his argument.
– the argumentum ad baculum, the argument of force (the nastiest of all)
As for the legitimacy of “Peer Review”, do a search of “Pal Review” and see how much argumentum ad verecundiam is worth. Three of many links below:
Peer Review, Pal Review, and Broccoli WUWT Feb. 17, 2011.
BEST: What I agree with and what I disagree with – plus a call for additional transparency to prevent “pal” review WUWT Oct. 21, 2011.
Peer Evil – the rotten business model of modern science WUWT Jun 25, 2013.
Terry Oldberg – Your statement “By the way, the fallacy to which you make reference is appeal to illegitimate authority. In the peer review system, a referee is a legitimate authority. Appeal to legitimate authority is no fallacy.” is incorrect. Every appeal to authority is in itself logically invalid, because it contains the assumption that the authority cannot be wrong. But any authority, no matter how legitimate, can indeed be wrong. The letter from 100 scientists to Einstein would be a reasonable example. The Helicobacter pylori story another. The only value in an appeal to authority lies in the arguments used by that authority, not in the authority itself.
Earlier, you stated: “For an equivocation fallacy to be present, it is necessary and sufficient for the following two ingredients to be present: 1) An argument is made that contains one or more polysemic terms and 2) One or more conclusions that are drawn from his argument.“. That too is incorrect. There are two more necessary conditions, namely that a term with more than one meaning is used in the wrong meaning, and that the usage is material to the argument.
@Mike Jonas at 3:44 pm
A very succinct refutation. Nary a word without effect.
It was a good idea to draw our attention to this
Simon,
Given that the NY Times and the Economist among many others now acknowledge that global warming has stopped, how do you view those events on your planet?
I don’t read the New York Times but I do read the Economist. You’re misquoting. The Economist repeatedly states that AGW is real and frequently discusses policies to deal with it.
Simon:
Thankyou for informing me in your post at August 12, 2013 at 12:40 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/the-agu-policy-statement-as-redrafted-by-monckton/#comment-1387854
Well, that convinces me. The empirical climate data which ALL denies AGW must be wrong because the Economist repeatedly states that AGW is real. /sarc
Richard
You need approximately 30 data points to be statistically significant. Cherry-picking the 1997/98 El Nino event as a start-point isn’t valid either.
On your advice, I started reading the New York Times. They state that AGW is real and happening too. Maybe it’s a conspiracy…..