Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
David Victor, in a presentation in January at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as part of a seminar series titled “Global Warming Denialism: What science has to say”, fairly recently highlighted here at Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blog in the online International New York Times, made several very important points that I think that maybe we can, and should, all agree on, as a starting point to all of our subsequent discussions on “global warming/climate change”.
First, let it be said that David Victor, in his speech, self-describes himself as follows: ”I consider myself part of the mainstream scientific community on climate change, and I do all the things that the mainstream does. I teach about climate science and policy; I participate actively in the IPCC; I publish in all the normal journals.” He is a dyed-in-the-wool, self-proclaimed, practicing, Global Warming believer. He uses the term “believer” in his speech to describe adherents to the IPCC consensus. In any case, he cannot be mistaken for any kind of a climate change skeptic.
Each of the five following points of agreement is quoted directly from his speech, though not in sequential order, with some with emphasis added, each quote is followed by some comments by myself, in italics like this, to clearly differentiate them from Victor’s quoted words:
1. “First, I’d like to suggest that calling people who disagree “denialists” is clouding our judgment. If you really want to understand what motivates these people and what motivates the captains of industry and voters who listen to them, stop calling them denialists.”
The word “denialists” is offensive in its connotation, intended or not, of Holocaust denialism, and is, in any case, incorrect, no one (“nutters” excepted), denies “climate” or that climate changes. Later in his speech, he uses a better word which I will suggest here for all of us, if we must separate people with a binary system denoting disagreement with IPCC climate change science consensus: climate change consensus DISSENT and DISSENTERS.
I will add that though Victor seems comfortable referring to climate change consensus supporters as “Believers”, if I were a professional scientist, I would find this very distasteful. It sounds way to much like something skeptics often accuse them of. I would propose they settle for consensus SUPPORTERS, which doesn’t imply slavish following of every line of a doctrine-like set of beliefs.
2. “We in the scientific community need to acknowledge that the science is softer than we like to portray. The science is not “in” on climate change because we are dealing with a complex system whose full properties are, with current methods, unknowable.”
Dr. Judith Curry , who hosts the Climate Etc. blog, is the goto expert on the issue of climate change uncertainty, and has written extensively on the subject; and its known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
3. “The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for policy. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such—are surrounded by error and uncertainty.” … “We all agree, you say, on some basic facts—that CO2 concentrations are approaching a mean of 400ppm, a value far above the 280 or 290ppm of the pre-industrial value. We agree that the climate will warm in equilibrium when net radiative forcing is added to the atmosphere, that humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era, etc. etc. That zone of agreement is impressive, but we must face the reality that those aren’t the questions that really matter for policy.”
Nearly all believers and skeptics alike agree on these basic points of the science (I place emphasis on the percentage of human contribution, many serious scientists still hold this bit in question, but in the end most agree that the exact percentage probably doesn’t really matter that much for policy). Before quibbling about radiative balance, note he says brute force radiative balance – not the nitty gritty picky details…we agree that this is not yet settled and is still a moving target for many.
4. “but [the science is] not [“in”] for the steps that actually matter for policy. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such—are surrounded by error and uncertainty. I can understand why a politician says the science is settled—as Barack Obama did last night in the State of the Union Address, where he said the “debate is over”—because if your mission is to create a political momentum then it helps to brand the other side as a “Flat Earth Society” (as he did last June). But in the scientific community we can’t pretend that things are more certain than they are.“
This simply has to be acknowledged on both sides of the climate divide – and not over-emphasized by skeptics. Some things are fairly well understood and some are still basically mysteries – surrounded by error and uncertainty — and some are in-between and require more study – clouds, ocean currents and overturn, effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation – there is quite a known list – and then there are the as-yet unknowns.
5. “…in the scientific world, there are no bright lines and the whole idea of “consensus” is deeply troubling. There is a consensus that 2+2=4. After that, we are in shades of grey. “ …“The instinctual unease with consensus helps to explain why some of the world’s greatest scientists have been climate skeptics and why the public has such a hard time understanding why these people are so disagreeable. They are disagreeable because the selection mechanisms in science demand it. If you want to find people who agree then hire an accountant. Nobody has caused bigger trouble than Freeman Dyson whose skeptical views on climate first came into focus through a 2009 New York Times Magazine profile. How do you dismiss perhaps the most accomplished physicist of his generation as an uninformed imposter? You can’t.”
This applies to many other world class Climate Scientists, Physicists, Meteorologists, and other professionals (and serious citizen scientists as well) who are regularly trashed, thrashed, dismissed as frauds, Big Oil shills, and uniformed imposters by those who should know better on the Support’s side of the Climate Divide and in a far too-cooperative mainstream media. Likewise, some skeptics label some serious climate scientists as crooks, criminals, and frauds because they produce mainstream climate science which they find disagreeable.
Let’s agree to agree with David Victor: How do you dismiss these people? “You can’t.”
(Has there been misbehavior and are there some bad apples? Yes, maybe so—but if so, then let’s honesty admit, in both apple barrels. )
If you go on to read David Victor’s full January speech, understand that he does not follow his own admonition not to call dissenters “denialists.” It gets grating very quickly. He uses other disagreeable words as well. There are interesting things in Victor’s speech about where climate fight money comes from and whom it goes, admissions you won’t see elsewhere. I’m sure you will find things to agree with and many other things that David Victor says to disagree with as strongly as I do. Truthfully, it doesn’t seem to me that he agrees with himself much of the time: he’d do better if he stuck to the basic points above and worked from these. But, as I have said so many times it annoys even me, “Opinions Vary.”
I do agree with David Victor on these five simple points. Maybe we can at least all try to agree on #1, and let’s refer, if and when we must, to those who don’t agree with the IPCC Consensus as “Climate Change” or “Global Warming” Consensus DISSENTERS and to the subject as Climate Change Consensus DISSENT, and encourage others to do so. I think it’s a pretty good alternative though I’d be glad to hear your suggestions. I’m sure none of us like being called deniers or denialists.
Thank you.
# # # #
Authors Replies Policy: I will be glad to discuss why I agree with these five points made by David Victor.
I cannot, of course, speak for David Victor as to why he made these statements in the first instance. If you wish to understand his position better, read his original speech and place it, and David Victor, in their original contexts (see the first few paragraph of this essay). I have not listened to his latest , May 15th, presentation.
This is not a technical thread and I am not prepared (or able) to discuss, defend, or even generally talk about technical points such as brute force radiative balance or percentage of human contribution to CO2 concentrations or observed warming.
Leonard Weinstein says:
May 18, 2014 at 5:49 am
Nick,
You seem to miss the fact that if about half of the warming over the last 150 years (coming to about 0.4C contribution) is due to human activity, this small increase is not an indicator of a problem (keep in mind the increase followed a particularly cold period, which was much more a problem). Also the positive effects of increased CO2 (greening of the Earth and increased crop production) has been a major boon. The key questions for policy should not how to prevent the next 1000 Gtons from being used (they will be unless nuclear comes on line faster), but how to get past the eventual using up of cheap fossil fuel energy without hurting everyone, especially the poor.
Leonard
Your point is correct but the thought of policy dictating anything is how we have ended up with a government dictating CO2. When the government becomes involved it unceremoniously harms the very people that you worry about. It is the idea that somehow the government can make good policy when they are imbued with power and influenced by personal greed.
It is not about science, this agw debate is political. Always was and always will be.
The ‘supporters’ continue, and will continue, to receive this kind of attention in the media. Human use of fossil fuels is cited at the bottom. This is up as the main on CTV’s website, as of this writing. http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/unprecedented-melt-of-b-c-glaciers-adding-to-u-s-climate-change-concerns-1.1827072
Nick Stokes is an intelligent person with a lot of knowledge. For some reason he is wedded to the IPCC conclusions in the document written for politicians by mostly bureaucrats assisted by a few CAGW scientists. As a non scientist I am not convinced by his arguments and dire predictions. I view the arguments for the medieval period as being as warm as now for sound. I look at global atmospheric temperatures that have not risen for 15-17 years. Anthartic sea ice is at its maximum since records began. Arctic sea ice has not disappeared as predicted by numerous CAGW prophets. There is no acceleration in sea level rise. The idea of the warming having gone into the deep ocean is a bit of a red herring as measurements over time are rather unreliable. Meanwhile CO2 continues to rise and rise unabated. The longer this goes on the less likely CAGW becomes. It makes a lot of sense to wait and see before we are ruined by the actions of CAGW advocates and their followers determined to fill their pockets with taxpayers money. Perhaps Nick Stokes can enlighten me with some predictions on when the various indices will begin to show a detectable acceleration that will lead to his and his ilk’s dire predictions and what “hidden” physical powers will facilitate this acceleration. Referring to models will not impress me.
An interesting viewpoint from Rod Liddle in the (UK) Sunday times today, entitled ‘We’re all doomed if we treat climate sceptics as Nazis’:
‘I am not a climate change denier, although I am a weather change denier. This means simply that when some pirouetting halfwit on the BBC tells me that tomorrow sarcomas are going to start popping up all over my body as a consequence of the relentless searing heat, I get out my wellies and my Windcheater and start placing sandbags by the door. It has worked pretty well for me so far, this “denial” stance — maybe you should try it. If the meteorologist Tomasz Schafernaker insists this evening is going to be pleasantly balmy, make sure you’ve got some candles in and masking tape for the windows. Stay away from trees.
Climate change denying is different, however, although the two “denying” concepts are of course linked. If the weather is very wet for a while and a low-lying village in the middle of a marsh floods, the Met Office will announce that this is an “extreme weather event”, which is consistent with the effects of “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW), rather than an unfortunate manifestation of that old-fashioned and discredited concept “winter”.
More than about a week’s worth of the same weather and the Met Office will tell you it’s “climate change” and all the polar bears will die and the world will come to an end. With their dire threats and warnings, the climate change lobby are rather like those people hunkered down in caves awaiting deliverance according to a calendar drawn up by some primitive pre-Columbians 5,000 or so years ago. They seem to yearn for this annihilation, which they insist is being visited upon us by our horrible affluence and wilful profligacy.
It is not surprising, when you think about it, that the idea of the end of the world as occasioned by greenhouse gases started to really pick up traction soon after that other vision of apocalypse, nuclear annihilation, receded from view, in about 1991.
I suspect there is, within the international middle-class left, a self-flagellating tendency that sort of hungers for mankind’s imminent destruction — nuclear weapons, a warming planet — and thinks it is in possession of the facts and everyone else is ignorant or complicit, and either way fundamentally evil.
Hence that phrase, capped up, “Climate Change Denier”, which equates anyone who doubts the imminent destruction of the planet with a Nazi sympathiser. It is an odious misuse of language by deranged absolutists.
But still, I’m not a denier, any more than is Professor Lennart Bengtsson, of the University of Reading. He believes man-made climate change is happening, but has some doubts as to the effect this will have on the planet. The trouble is this doubt makes him, in the view of the absolutists, a denier — even though he palpably isn’t.
He has resigned from a mildly sceptical climate change think tank because of the furious opposition from within his profession, the repugnance at the notion that he could think differently from the majority.
Furthermore, a paper he co-authored with four other climate change experts was denied publication because, Bengtsson claims, it was not helpful to the climate change cause. He reports that an eminent scientist said precisely those words — “not helpful” — when presented with the paper.
You expect science to be disinterested, to be aloof and pure? You have to be joking — we saw just how pure and aloof and disinterested with the Climategate scandal, in which pro-AGW scientists were accused of repressing dissenting views.
I suspect that partly they do this because, for an awful lot of scientists and researchers, their livelihood depends on AGW not merely existing, but being a clear and present danger, and the more dangerous to mankind the better. And partly because of the absolutist mindset, familiar to many who watch the faux left at work, that opposition simply cannot be tolerated’.
Interesting statement Kip. You are definitely entitled to your opinions and beliefs.
I thank Anthony for allowing you to publish your article here as you do push thought provoking questions.
I’m more than a little confused with your decision to cherry pick statements that you consider choice from someone’s speech.
I call it cherry pick because you seem to be missing David Victor’s own personal slant towards us CAGW consensus doubters. Pay attention to the old adage “Actions speak louder than words.” A person who mentions some points that are moderate or centrist if you will to everyone overwrites those gentler words when they resort to ad hominems or declarations of climate absolutism. Especially when they fall into the classic CAGW denigration in the same speech.
Yes, the comments are closer to what I would like to hear for discussion. No, I do not accept that they are David Victor’s true attitudes. Platitudes do not calm me down nor make me happy or even content.
Now about this first item on your list.
From my standpoint, all that is proven is the basic concept of CO2 IR absorption. I’ve yet to see proofs that demonstrate exactly how excited little CO2 molecules heat up other atmospheric gases or emit their little IR photon?
Yes, there is conceivably a delay in IR’s ultimate emission to deep space; exactly how long? Exact by measurement and controlled tests, that is!
That concept doesn’t make me a dissenter by any stretch of the imagination; instead I and many others represent believers in the null condition. Demonstrate by replicable experiment CO2 effects!
Somehow, I doubt the ability of anyone to truly demonstrate CO2’s impacts until they can concurrently demonstrate what all those atmospheric molecules behave; when the sun rises, when the sun sets, when storms swirl in, when the earth tilts towards or away from the sun…
Theories are great! Theories are only developed ideas until demonstrated by experiment.
Frantically drumming up scare stories about an uncommon molecule and weak IR photons reverberates from the shadows as ‘wolf… wolf”. Claiming that science is already explained and casting smoke in our eyes is far from proof or proper science.
Greg: “If you want to turn the “science” of climatology upside down, and rid the world of a continuous stream of warnings of looming catastrophes, simply vote the Dems out of the White House, which controls the research grants and start doling out grants to those who question the wisdom and evidence for carbon hysteria. Problem solved.”
I disagree with you brother. There are plenty on both sides of the isle ready to use this issue to gather power, tax citizens, tax business. There are also corporations ready to rake in the revenue (remember ENRON) aligned with their lobbyists. Return this issue back to the legitimate scientific method and most goes away.
IMO, it is the direct connection between scientists and policy makers that creates ravenous political bedfellows. It has infected the host. This is the source of the name-calling.
One can no more argue with a believer than one can argue with faith. Argument MEANS to present the facts of the real world and logically deduce the consequences of those facts. Yet no facts are necessary for one to believe or to have faith. Thus, no argument is possible.
If you do have the facts and have reasoned correctly to the logical conclusion neither belief nor faith is necessary or operative. You simply assent to the fact of what is, is what it is. It follows that belief and consensus (*meaning only the collection of individuals believing in the same thing) are not a part of the practice of knowing (aka science). That is unless you believe as Kant taught that you really can’t know anything. In which case, why all the fuss one way or the other because none of us, including Kant, can know anything.
Question: if what Kant taught is true, how can you know that it is true?
Answer: You can’t. All you can do is believe but you can’t even know that you truly believe.
Question: how could we mere mortals, incapable of knowing, have built a planet wide and solar system spanning high technology civilization? Apparently, it just happened totally by accident as manna from heaven. Then we equally accidentally are using it without really knowing what we are doing. This notion has a long way to go to be as good as a psychosis.
Yet, this is exactly that the true believers are asking us to believe and to submit to their superiority as masters of the universe. They expect us to return ourselves to the status of a 20,000 BC hunting and gathering tribe based upon that self evident fact (to them) of their infinite superiority.
Remember the fable of the frog taking a scorpion across the stream? Ultimately the scorpion stung the frog and said “After all, I am a scorpion and I do what scorpion’s do.”
Conclusion: Trust what they say to mean what they said at your own risk. It will most likely come back to bite you. That bite can easily be fatal.
I think we’re allowing the warmists to get away with saying that extreme climate change is occurring at all. When I look at the Palmer Dought Severity Index, and tornado occurrence graphs, and hurricane data, and pretty much every other weather/climate index, I don’t see anything that’s out of the natural variation we’ve seen so far.
My question to the warmists is how can they look at these records, many over a hundred years’ in length, and claim that there is any severe climate change going on anywhere? I read news articles saying things like “Balkans hit by worst flooding in 120 years,” and know this will be trumpeted as being more “proof” of climate change, while it’s ignored that there were floods just as bad 120 years ago, long before there was any possibility of AGW.
For my part, I always admonish people to go look at the data for themselves and not just believe the press releases. The resource pages here are invaluable for doing just that, as they provide links to the original sources. The best argument is the truth, and the more access to the real data people have, the closer to the truth they can get.
Because i understand basic radiation physics, I don’t accept that a partial increase in CO2 will increase atmospheric temperature. However, If the atmospheric density increases then there would be a temperature increase. I have found nothing in any literature that can prove otherwise. This probably goes against the ‘beliefs’ of sceptics on this blog. I never was a believer in anything, I was always an accepter or non accepter, never a rejecter.
“Why don’t we all just agree on Global Warming?”
I’ll be glad to tell you why. We were (and still are being) lied too by supposedly trusted professionals. Supposed GW scientists who have knowingly used unscientific methods, manipulated data, tweaked results, fabricated graphs, used bad models, colluded with peers to hide contradictory facts, and played politics. We were and are being scammed out of Billions of our Tax dollars for so-called Climatologists of AGW to keep them needless employed.
We were and are being ripped off by AGW Alarmists pushing needless Greenie products that to often have a bigger “C” foot print. How many birds have to be chopped and fried before they admit their Greenism is doing more harm? We were are dealing with several progressive/socialist groups who have banned together to drive a political agenda that revolves around power, control, money, and regulated redistribution of life and riches.
Take heed folks, agreeing with Greenies, Alarmists, Believers, GW Scamers, MannBearPigs, and IPCC/UN on AGW is a serious mistake. Even agreeing there is “Climate Change” without detailed context is a mistake with aforementioned. To AGWers, acknowledging there is “Climate Change” is to them akin to admitting every change in weather, every change to climate was and is caused by Man and Man’s use of Carbon.
Take a lesson from NRA’s experience with anti-second amendment / anti-gun crowd. If you give even an inch on what seems like a reasonable point, the nose of camel is under the tent. The fanatics will be back demanding feet and concessions. Give in on those, and fanatics will be back insisting on miles and capitulation.
“We agree that the climate will warm in equilibrium when net radiative forcing is added to the atmosphere, that humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era”
No. That is mere conjecture and opinion. The fact is that, although certainly possible that we have caused some exceedingly small amount of warming, it can not be shown. The “human fingerprint” is a myth.
Science isn’t about “agreeing”. That belongs in the political realm.
“The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance
Radiative forcing in W/m^2 gives an amount of temperature change only utterly, utterly dependent on the climate sensitivity figure.
“humans are all but certainly responsible for at least half of the observed warming since the preindustrial era”
Nope. Even for the warming in the 20th century, the natural contribution from CRF+TSI (mostly CRF) change was around 0.5K of the around 0.6K observed global warming over the previous century; http://tinyurl.com/nbnh7hq
Curry: ‘“The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for policy.’
This is where the IPCC ‘consensus’ breaks down. it’s because the SW part of ‘forcing is real** but the LW part, ‘back radiation’, isn’t.***
**Because the Earth’s temperature is very low compared with the Sun’s, the error arising from not subtracting the Earth to Sun Irradiance from the Sun to Earth value, essential to get net energy flux, is negligible.
***The real net IR emission from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere is the surface to atmosphere IR Irradiance minus the atmosphere to surface IR Irradiance: 396 – 333 = 63 W/m^2. This is the catastrophic science failure at the heart of Climate Alchemy. Until it’s fixed, there can be no progress.
No, no no!
I am not a dissenter I am a sceptic. The term ‘supporters’ makes it sound like a gamer team.
I am sceptic, they are not sceptics. The only Antonym term in http://www.thesaurus.com for ‘Sceptic’ is ‘Believer’ whether they like it or not, they are believers – it is official.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/sceptic
The term ‘supporter’ takes us back to the starting block.
Antonyms: enemy, opponent, opposition, adversary
http://thesaurus.com/browse/supporter
So what’s changed ?
Many thanks to Kip Hansen for this informative thread.
“I can understand why a politician says the science is settled—as Barack Obama did last night in the State of the Union Address,”
So can I. Obama has no hesitation about lying to achieve his political aspirations and goals.
If you look at some of the key people who have been behind AGW sham, you will find one thing in common. Most of them have been caught being dishonest, and have shown no remorse. One Mann and a ManBearPig particular come to mind.
David Victor should have quit at 4. Item 5 is dubious. Freeman Dyson has articulated his points, and if you disagree with what he says, you should take him up point by point rather than remarking on the psychology behind his motives. It’s thinking of the debate as a beauty pageant. Furthermore, it’s inappropriate to discuss the mathematical uncertainty of the question of whether 2+2 = 4 in comparison with scientific uncertainty. The shortcomings of climate science are not comparable to the doubts embodied in Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.
The only part I disagree with is the claim that humans are responsible for at least half of the warming seen. I believe it’s closer to 1/4th. Prior to the satellite era, the data is to corrupted by micro-site and UHI issues to tell much of anything from. The satellite era is too short to be meaningful and has only covered the warm phase of the PDO at a minimum we need to wait until the cool phase of the PDO completes.
Can anyone provide me with references of scientific work that quantifies how much of the 400ppm of CO2 is attributable to man? So many variables need to be accounted for; CO2 exchange in oceans, soils, plants, etc.
JamesS says: ” and know this will be trumpeted as being more “proof” of climate change, while it’s ignored that there were floods just as bad 120 years ago, long before there was any possibility of AGW.”
Prime evidence of the absolute dishonesty AGW Alarmist Climatologists.
On related note; Real scientists, true scientific professionals, are making a serious mistake by not vehemently calling out their AGW Alarmist peers on such matters. Their silence is ruining the reputations of true scientists and putting a dark cloud over fields of science. The same goes for journalists, news reporters who fail to question and point out things like 120 years ago there was flooding as bad or worse, and that was before the shammed AGW could have been cause.
All the IPCC ilk need do is successfully float the word consensus (which is of course political, not science), and they’ve mostly won opinion. But science is not about opinion.
Kip Hansen says:
“I’m sure none of us like being called deniers or denialists.”
——————-
I don’t mind at all being called a denier …… simply because I call myself that ….. and because I am a vocally adamant denier of the “junk science” claims of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). CAGW is not based in/on logical reasoning, intelligent deductions and/or actual, factual scientific evidence and proofs.
Gregory says: “Return this issue back to the legitimate scientific method and most goes away.”
As in be fair on topic of AGW? Sounds good.
How about we take all research funding that has been spent thus far in favor of AGW, and fund equivalent in research disproving AGW over next two decades. With said funding coming out of existing AGW funding budget, with no overall increase in the budget.
garymount says:
May 18, 2014 at 6:26 am
“@Nick : Half the warming since pre-industrial occurred before humans could have had anything to do with it. You should know that.”
——————-
Actually, 98+% of the warming since pre-industrial occurred before humans could have had anything to do with it. Said warming began some 22,000 years ago at end of the last Glacial Maximum.
And said Interglacial Global Warming (IGW), …. with all of its “ups n’ downs”, ….. is still in progress as far as I know because the next Ice Age has yet to begin.
And just because the proponents of CAGW have “high jacked” all of the IGW from 1880 to present does not prove their “junk science” claims that human emissions of CO2 is the culprit that is causing their “fuzzy” math calculated “high jacked” temperature increases.