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.
I believe this post by Bill Whittle also applies to the global warming issue. Don’t believe your lying eyes or your lying thermometer. Pay attention only to what the government says.
Here is my list of things skeptics/climate realists and Warmists probably can agree on;
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas which, under laboratory conditions has been shown to have a warming effect.
2) The earth is not a laboratory, nor does it behave like one.
3) CO2 has increased by some 120 ppm in the past century or so, and a good portion of that increase is probably due to man.
4) That increase has had a beneficial effect on plant growth, and is responsible for much of the greening up of the earth, and increased food supplies.
5) There has been a warming of some .7C the past century or so.
6) In general, life, including humanity flourishes during warmer periods, and suffers during colder ones.
That’s about it, I think.
One side says “the facts and observations don’t agree with your models or conclusions.”
The other side responds with “you are not just stupid but evil as well.”
Tell me where there’s common ground?
A great one liner as response to Daily Mail article UK (below link) about Bergsson ouster.
“Any sensible person knows global warming and man made climate change do not exist and have been invented to steal more tax off you”. My father an eminent atmospheric physicist (published 3 papers in Nature in the 40′ s and 50’s and studied with Einstein Max Planck Institut fur physik now deceased of course)” told me this exactly 20 years ago.He did not even bother to explain the physics (I would not have understood anyway) wow this made my day LOL
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631477/Revealed-How-green-zealots-gagged-professor-dared-question-global-warming.html#ixzz325YHpd5J
I don’t agree that the preindustrial CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 270 -290 ppm. As the late Prof. Jawurowski has shown CO2-concentration in ice-core are in no way a reliable source for the CO2-concentration in the atmosphrere. Stomata-data of leafs on the other hand show that the CO2-concentration in the atmoshere were much higher as the ice-core data.
I think the fundamental problem is one of corruption. Barack Obama was elected President. As soon as that happened, many of his donors suddenly set themselves up in the “alternative energy” business (Solyndra, et. al). The were then the recipients of huge tax breaks (e.g. Solyndra received an exemption from the state of California from sales tax on all of their equipment purchases to outfit their factory in Fremont, California), government guaranteed loans, and outright government grants. These entities quickly burned through that cash, declared bankruptcy, and were off the hook for the repaying with the taxpayers left to absorb the loss. Meanwhile the political cronies walk away with pockets full of cash paid out in the form of inflated salaries and bonuses.
What has Al Gore done in his lifetime to amass the wealth to own TWO mansions on either side of the US and fly around the world constantly on a speaking circuit? What did his father do before him to amass any wealth handed down through the family?
The problem is that we are being robbed and they are using “global warming” as the vehicle to get people to agree with parting with money out of their pockets to put into theirs.
Victor’s gestures are way too little, way too late.
It’s been an entire generation since a few climate scientists saw a path to power opening up. They took that path, recruited and trained others to follow it, and they aren’t about to abandon it now.
The political hard core will have to be publicly discredited and will have to lose many of its positions of influence before the rest of the relevant scientific community will admit they were privately a little uncomfortable all along with what the hard core was doing.
Genuine science will survive the crackup.
But a crackup is what it will take.
The way universities presently work, Mann will not end up unemployed. Unless Penn State declares “financial exigency” (low probability over the next decade, though it can’t be ruled out), he will finish out his career overpaid and under a cloud.
Dead on Willis!
The warmsters bad behaviour began the day they turned off the air conditioning and closed the window at the early Senate hearing on global warming.
From there through the list of corruption you cite right to the present day Mau-Mauing of elderly Swedish scientists, the warmsters have proven they lack scientific or ethical integrity.
Why would we meet them half way? Wars against honourable enemies can be ended by compromise; wars against totalitarian thugs can only be ended with unconditional surrender. Roosevelt and Churchill understood that.
The fact is that warmster’s policy and propaganda, based on shakey science, has cost billions of dollars and, arguably millions of lives. Finding points of agreement with these unscientific zealots is like discovering Pol Pot’s compassionate side or Boko Harum’s social justice agenda: adorable but utterly beside the point.
At the moment the only agenda skeptics should have is a relentless demand for facts, observation based science, validated models and no policy prescriptions without proof that a) they will make a measurable difference to b) a well specified and serious problem. Hammer the warmsters on the basic science and the absolute absence of proof that any carbon dioxide emissions reduction scheme is going to make any difference to temperature whatsoever.
This is scientific and policy war with real stakes: the mis-investment of billions of dollars in windmills and solar (not to mention idiocies like offsets) has literally killed people directly through fuel poverty and indirectly because the money wasted could have been used to help people who have now been left to die because there is no money to pay for clean water or anti-malaria programs or vitamins.
Those deaths are on the hands of the warmsters and we must not rest until their bad science and malignant economics can no longer kill the poor, the sick and the elderly.
Bruce, most CO2 is natural, including natural greening oscillation trends and natural rebound from mini-ice ages. Of the smaller anthropogenic part, a portion is fossil fuel and the rest of the anthropogenic portion is because of increased greening related to agriculture and human connected population growth in the animal kingdom.
“Critic is sufficient though and especially beneficial in that it is a term of respect. Both of the terms you propose are terms of respect and I definitely agree with your suggestion that all of us pursue discussions using only terms of respect. ”
What has the self anointed rulers of the universe done to deserve that respect? They have all but destroyed the concept of science by their “hiding the decline” and other sleazy unscientific tactics. All while cashing in on countless billions of tax payers hard earned wealth.
I have more respect for Bonnie and Clyde. At least they put THEIR lives on the line when they robbed banks and killed people. They eventually paid for their crimes with their lives. Our so called “rulers of the universe” have used government as a screen for their crime and have added to that crime by claiming that “it is for the children”. Then they have the chutzpa to come back at us to say “the science is settled”, “no you can’t have the data you paid for”, “that we say so IS proof”, and “send us more money” with the same breath. That it all goes through the countless dirty hands of governments does not make it one wit better.
But back to the descriptive word, I much prefer “critic”. It is an intelligent descriptive used in other topic areas. Movie critic, food critic, political critic, etc…
Do we need to agree at all?
I remain skeptical of scaremongers of any breed.
I lived through the Mutual Assured Destruction Meme, an ideology sure to produce a generation of Nihilists. I was sold on the belief that man is a cancer, destroyer of all that is good, as a young man,…Utter Rubbish but you do need to think it through for yourself.
Human nature however seems far more consistent than the doom of the week prophesy.
There will always be freeloaders, persons more than happy to watch you work and then “share” the proceeds with you.
The coordination and cooperation of our government bureaucracies in creating and promoting the Doom by Magic Gas, message, is there for all to see.
Follow the money indeed.
There is no reason to compromise, I did not set out to mug you.
I do not have a history of lying to promote my cause.
Nor do I live by parasitic means, at the expense of the taxpayer.
Nor do I advocate using the raw power of government force, to impose my belief in a future upon you.
I hold to the scientific method, belief is for religion.
Rational debate must follow the rules.
What the alarmed ones believe, in no way excuses their behaviour.
The Cultism of the believers in the power of the magic gas, has overflowed of late, in outbursts of vile projection and small minded vindictiveness.
Its group think and carries its own destruction from its inception.
Why agree or compromise with these failures?
The sceptics true skill has been holding up the mirror so that these believers, in the end justifying the means, may view themselves.
Of course some, like Racehorse Haynes, will still preen in this mirror as any attention is better than self reflection.
GOOD. For what it’s worth those five points are “agreeable” to me. Real science can in time figure out the gritty details.
Mike Hulme has already written a book titled
Why We Disagree About Climate Change
Climate change is not ‘a problem’ waiting for ‘a solution’. It is an environmental, cultural and political phenomenon which is re-shaping the way we think about ourselves, our societies and humanity’s place on Earth
http://www.cambridge.org/ca/academic/subjects/economics/natural-resource-and-environmental-economics/why-we-disagree-about-climate-change-understanding-controversy-inaction-and-opportunity?format=PB
Mike Hulme is living proof that possessing knowledge of what CAGW really is, i.e. a huge cultural phenomenon, does not neccessarily protect one from being simultaneously immersed in that culture. Check this quote
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/quote-of-the-week-cru-scientist-disses-cooks-97/
Lindzen quotes from Mike Hulme’s book “Why We Disagree about Climate Change”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/quote-of-the-week-cru-scientist-disses-cooks-97/
Do you realize how many careers of people with celebrity status would be destroyed if there were no “global warming”? Do you realize how small the market was for “climate scientists” in 1980 compared to today? There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars at risk. I will give one small example:
BLM goes into the solar energy business in Nevada with what are called SEZs (Solar Energy Zones) as part of the Western Project. Harry Reid is from Nevada. Harry Reid just had one of his closest advisers placed as head of BLM. Before he was head of BLM, the new director was head of the Western Project.
Warren Buffett buys the primary electric utility in Nevada. Warren Buffett is a huge megadonor to Harry Reid’s political party. Harry Reid’s son gets involved with solar energy projects being built in Nevada to feed power into Warren Buffett’s electric company.
Now lets have a look at one of those projects: Dry Lake SEZ. That area has a lot of desert tortoises Before they can build that project, they need to do something with those tortoises (or at least they THINK they do). So a mitigation plan is drawn up (don’t take my word for it, find the Dry Lake SEZ mitigation plan yourself, it’s at the BLM website) which decides to move all of the tortoises to Gold Butte (an area that has been used for cattle grazing for about 150 years and is considered to be the very best tortoise habitat in the state of Nevada). They plan to move the tortoises to Gold Butte (but they will miss some and the tortoise population is likely to rebound anyway at Dry Lake). But there’s a problem. There’s a guy named Cliven Bundy who grazes several hundred head of cattle at Gold Butte and he is a stubborn bird who has refused to stop grazing there. His insistence on continued grazing at Gold Butte is holding up the Dry Lake project and is delaying millions in revenue to political cronies of Harry Reid. The very day Harry Reid’s protege takes office as head of BLM, Mr. Bundy’s cattle are rounded up by BLM.
This is huge money and it all relies on the people believing that if they don’t do it, they are going to boil or drown their grandchildren. You are being lied to, manipulated, and robbed.
corrected links
Mike Hulme is living proof that possessing knowledge of what CAGW really is
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/quote-of-the-week-cru-scientist-disses-cooks-97/#comment-1558534
Lindzen quotes from Mike Hulme’s book “Why We Disagree about Climate Change
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/quote-of-the-week-cru-scientist-disses-cooks-97/#comment-1558581
Everybody agrees that humans are responsible for at least half of warming from the pre-industrial era? This is an extreme alarmist position almost unheard of before AR5. The “consensus” position of AR3 was that a human warming signal was not just theoretically expected but had become detectable (if enough unwarranted assumptions are made) .
Sorry but the position taken in this post, that the only point of contention is what the best policy response to very substantial human caused global warming, is NOT correct.
Harry Reid also has another trick up his sleeve to get the cattle out of Gold Butte so that the solar energy projects that will enrichen his political cronies can go forward if the BLM can’t get the cattle off the land.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/water-environment/reid-introduces-bill-create-gold-butte-national-conservation-area
@Michael Larkin 9:14
Exactly.
Bargaining with bandits.
Or negotiating with parasites.
Must be a real good time inside the TEAM, ™ IPCC.
Over at Jo Nova, a posting on the times, some of the media has actually noticed the money trail, that odd fact that the propagandists have far more money than their critics..
When the media starts their retreat from alarmism and their search for a scapegoat for they complicity in this charade, this theme will dominate.
ahhh. more with the synthesis and compromise, is it? because half a shaft is better than none?
“You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. But if you take the purple pill, you get a strong, powerful erection and can go make more policy”
do not let the policy camel’s nose under your tent.
global warming is the red flag for the bull- and that’s why the matador almost always wins – the bull has no idea he’s he’s chasing a cape while looking totally stupid until the sword slides between his shoulder blades and rewards his perspicacity.
What is great is that the troll showed up to derail the thread, did a typical climate obsessed trash-without-reading bomb toss and found out that the skeptics are largely ignoring his bs, when they are not giving him the laughter and ridicule he deserves.
Kip,
The more I think on your post, I do sympathize with your sentiment, but now is not the time to give the climate kooks half: They will steal it all.
There is no reason to believe that the CO2 we have added has done anything unusual or dangerous to the climate.
There is every evidence that the climate obsessed and fear mongers have lied and misrepresented the evidence, in a rent seeking and moral hazard display of historical proportions.
They are backing off.
Until the climate obsessed start openly admitting that their boorish bigotry and self-deception is real there is no reason to agree on anything.
And yes, despite Nature’s warnings, the billion dollar fossil fueled doubt machine grinds on. Their army of flying monkeys is ever on the attack, and suicidal morons dismiss our most trusted messengers (NASA, NOAA, every science academy in the world, Nobel Laureates by the score) to carry water for the fossil industry. Go figure.
Deniers/delayers/scoffers are complicit in the climate change deaths of hundreds of thousands per year, 88% of them children (World Health Organizations).
crosspatch says:
May 18, 2014 at 10:40 am “Harry Reid also has another trick up his sleeve to get the cattle out of Gold Butte so that the solar energy projects that will enrichen his political cronies can go forward if the BLM can’t get the cattle off the land.”
Nevada and the BLM are also involved in trying to build a $15 billion water pipeline** in Northern Nevada, on Indian land, to bring more water to…wait for it…Las Vegas.
In the same area, a potash mine is being blocked by environmentalists over a historic wagon trail:
“This group the (OCTA) reminds me of all the others that want to dictate how to manage our ancestral land,” said Jason Walker of the Northern Shoshone….Indeed many in the native American community liken environmental groups efforts to maintain “wilderness” as just another form of colonialism or as one Ely Shoshone said after a coal fired electric plant was shut down: “The whites are telling us again what to do in our own country.” http://www.coyote-tv.com/2013/12/13/goshutes-join-fight-for-new-potash-mine-jobs/
**ref: http://www.goshutewater.org/index.php/las-vegas-pipeline.html
“The Southern Nevada Water Authority, the water agency for Las Vegas, Henderson, and N. Las Vegas has applied to pump up to 200,000 acre-feet annually from eastern Nevada and send it through 300 miles of 8 foot diameter pipe to support the area’s uncontrolled growth. The cost is currently estimated at $15 billion dollars. Just how much water is 200,000 acre-feet annually? It is more than 65 billion gallons of water – every year.”
Thanks to John Bowman for clearly stating what needed to be said.
Jim