By Larry Kummer, from the Fabius Maximus website
Summary: Climate activists have begun to see the failure of their campaign to get public policy measures to fight climate change. Their actions follow the five stages of grief in the Kübler-Ross model. This helps us predict what comes next, and prepare. For example, stage four (bargaining) offers an opportunity to gain something from the expensive policy gridlock in this vital area. This is the third in a series attempting to understand the ending of this 26-year-story and find in it some useful lessons for the future.
“The time for debate has ended.”
— True words by Marcia McNutt (editor-in-Chief of Science, next President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, an editorial in Science, 3 July 2015.
The 5 stages of grief in the Kübler-Ross model
The final chapters appear to have come in the great campaign to enact public policy measures against climate change. Twenty-six years have passed since James Hansen’s Senate testimony and ten since Al Gore’s speech (predicting a “time of consequences” with, among other things, more Katrinas). Despite support from the Left, academia, journalists, and the major science institutions — yet after 20 years they had achieved only minor support from most developed nations and almost nothing from the emerging world.
Activists responded with ever-more extreme predictions of doom from climate change. The scientists working with the IPCC refused to support most claims of a certain coming catastrophe, most recently in their 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters and in 2014’s Working Group I of AR5 (e.g., about methane). Activists responded by denigrating the IPCC. From the “gold standard of climate science”, it became “too conservative” (e.g., Inside Climate News, The Daily Climate, Yale’s Environment 360, Naomi Klein). This too had little effect on public opinion.
Climate activists hoped for a boost from either a large weather event or President Obama. Obama did little until this year he then made only a small step with his Clean Power Plan (phasing out coal, but not addressing oil or natural gas). Activists attempted to blame CO2 for several large weather events, but were often frustrated by denials from the major climate agencies (e.g., NOAA about the 2012 Central Plains Drought and the California drought).
By 2015 climate change was moving off the center stage, as it consistently ranked near the bottom of the US public’s major policy concerns. Newspapers reassigned staff to hotter stories (the LAT in 2008, the NYT in 2013). Presidential candidates of both parties muted their climate change policies. The COP21 festival seems likely to produce few results (just like its predecessors).
The death of a large joint effort creates grief, best described (impressionistically) by the five stages of the Kübler-Ross model. This fits the recent actions of climate activists. First there is…
(1) Denial
Activists’ initial reaction was (ironically) denial. They believed that the public supported them, that action was prevented only by shadowy conspiracies and unethical journalists (who reported both sides of the debate), and that strong policy action would happen soon. For decades they hoped that action will come after a disastrous weather event (to be blamed on climate change), the next conference, the next IPCC report, or the next media event.
Most of the 40 thousand attendees at the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris work and party in denial about the state of the movement. Attendees who understand this bleak prospect might treat it as a wake.
But continued bad news erodes away denial, leading to…
(2) Anger
For some activists, denial has boiled over into anger. Most notably, James Hansen — who wrote a scathing essay overflowing with anger. Obama would not even meet with him, James Hansen — a star of the CAGW movement! Worse…
“Obama is not proposing the action required for the essential change in energy policy direction” {decarbonization} … How can such miserable failure of political leadership be explained, when Obama genuinely wants climate policy to be one of his legacy issues? … Get ready for the great deceit and hypocrisy planned for December in Paris. … I have suggested, asked, or begged lawmakers, in more nations and states than I can remember, to consider a simple, honest, rising carbon fee with all funds distributed to legal residents. Instead, invariably, if they are of a bent to even consider the climate issue, they propose the discredited ineffectual cap-and-trade-with-offsets (C&T) with all its political levers.”
Also see “Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless” by Oren Cass (Manhattan Institute) at Politico (a useful weather vane for opinion-makers’ trends). “The more seriously you take the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the angrier you should be.”
Anger feels good but accomplishes nothing, leaving behind only…
(3) Depression
People move through these stages at their own pace, often skipping one or more. Some climate scientists have moved into depression, and understandable reaction to the failure of the policy campaign to produce the measures they consider necessary for the survival of humanity — and, in many cases, to which they have devoted so much effort for so long.
These stories make anyone sad who has a shred of empathy. See some examples at “Climate depression is real. Just ask a scientist.” by Madeleine Thomas at Grist (October 2014). More recent are the stories at “When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job” by John H. Richardson at Esquire (July 2015) — “Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can’t really talk about it.” For a in-depth discussion with one scientist see “Is it ok for scientists to weep over climate change?” by Roger Harrabin at The Guardian (July 2015) — “The devastating impact CO2 emissions are having on oceans recently brought one professor to tears during a radio interview.”
Active people eventually recover from their depression, realizing that some valuable steps can be taken. This leads to…
(4) Bargaining
“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— Steven Mosher (member of Berkeley Earth; bio here), a comment posted at Climate Etc.
The Bargaining stage might prove fruitful, when activists see the clock running out (especially when funding begins to dry up) and change their tactics from mockery and insults (“Deniers!”) to bargaining. Both Left and Right can find common cause about many public policy measures to prepare for climate change — which both sides agree is inevitable (although in different contexts). Many such measures will require large-scale infrastructure projects, often popular in Congress.
The US public policy gridlock might break during this stage, although achieving on fragments of activists’ goals. See more details here. But the grand hopes for massive policy action will likely remain unfulfilled, especially for those using the threat of CAGW to change our economic and political systems (e.g., Naomi Klein
and Pope Francis). Eventually most activists will come to…
(5) Acceptance
Life goes on, even for activists. There is always another campaign, as the coming apocalypse from air & water pollution was followed by the The Population Bomb![clip_image002[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/clip_image0021.gif "clip_image002[1]"){kind=small}
(1968), which gave way to Limits to Growth![clip_image002[2]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/clip_image0022.gif "clip_image002[2]"){kind=small}
(1972), then nuclear winter (1983), then several more campaigns until peak oil, peak everything, and climate change.
Activists will enjoy the certainty that they were correct even though defeated by an ignorant public led by conservatives and oil companies. They will look forward — as did previous generations of such prophets — to the eventual apocalypse that results from the world’s refusal to believe.
Eventually the weather will decide whose science was stronger, that of the “activists or the “skeptics”. It might take years to see decisive results, or perhaps decades (see some scientists’ predictions here). Climate change is a commonplace in history, sometimes destroying entire civilizations. Our refusal to prepare even for the obvious — continuation of the two centuries of warming or, even more irresponsibly, for repeat of past extreme weather — probably will prove expensive in lives and money.
Other posts in this series
1. The bottom line: How we broke the climate change debates. Lessons learned for the future.
2. A story of the climate change debate. How it ran; why it failed.
3. The 5 stages of grief for the failure of the climate change campaign.
4. Next week: The climate change crisis, as seen from 2100 AD.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“It might take years to see decisive results, or perhaps decades (see some scientists’ predictions here).”
It might take 200 years. If CO2 needs to double from 400ppm to 800ppm and is steadily increasing at 2ppm/year that is 200 years for a 1C increase.
Science progresses one funeral at a time.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/the-death-of-the-agw-belief-system/
Pointman
Pointman,
You get priority for writing that in 2010. I’ll add a note about that to my post. Today that forecast looks quite prescient. Congrats.
Do I get any points for reading Pointman’s post in 2010? 🙂
What I’d really like to see is when the climate starts getting noticeably colder for extended periods of time that the true believers to realize that they have been had, used and disposed of. Then for them to get angry at those who lied to them not those who told them the truth.
Problem is belief is so strong that people have based their entire lives around it and to change that is beyond a lot of humans despite massive proof being in their face. If the AMO continues down into its negative phase, the PDO continues its negative phase (the el-ninos not withstanding) and the sun goes into a prolonged quiet phase what will they say? It will be obvious to most everyone that CO2 doesn’t control the climate. They will probably just buy into the “when the warming does return it will be way worse” meme that I see already appearing.
If that anger can be channelled at those who knowingly “didn’t tell the truth” (you know the word) then real change could be affected and we could force scientists to follow the scientific method once again. Dare to dream, dare to dream.
“Then for them to get angry at those who lied to them not those who told them the truth”
That isn’t how people work. They don’t get angry at the people who lie to them; they get angry at the people who show them the lie. It may not seem fair, but yes, they got angry at you because you told them about how people have been lying to them for years. Then they will get angry again when they finally realize you were right.
Oh, and by the way, pretty much none of the activists have moved past the denial stage. They are still making up fanciful new theories about how they were right all along. COP21 is about nothing as advanced as acceptance. It is about exhorting the world into ever more extreme measures to stop something that advanced people can see isn’t even happening.
TRM writes: ” we could force scientists to follow the scientific method once again.”
I’d venture that no force is necessary. Scientists have and always will follow scientific method. The problem isn’t scientists, it’s the people who pose as scientists and the only defense against them is critical thinking and rational thought on the part of the listener.
TRM,
”we could force scientists to follow the scientific method once again.”
Scientists have always followed the scientific method in a more or less fashion. Stephen Jay Gould’s books document a century of not-quite scientific behavior by scientists.
“… when the climate starts getting noticeably colder for … the true believers to realize …”
I think you used the key word: “believers”. CAGW is a religion. Religions seldom collapse because of an erroneous prophecy. Instead, believers rationalize, and invent ever more elaborate theologies.
Actually, you’re more correct about the “one funeral at a time” than you may realize. Too many bi name scientists with big reputations to protect still occupy research positions.
As they naturally die-off, they make room for newer generations who are not reputationally invested in the CO2 apocalypse scam. Then the Progressice apocalypse paradigm machine can change and move past the current anthro-CO2 alarmism to a new “end-of-world” scam.
“Science progresses one funeral at a time.”
Very true.
Within a few days we can expect to see the funeral of one of the architects of the entire CAGW edifice, the odious Maurice Strong.
Will that make a difference?
Its been created by New socialism/Cultural marxism. Environment and climate are just Tools to have a radical change of Western society, destroy it actually.
“policy campaign to produce the measures they consider necessary for the survival of humanity”
How many of them truly believe this though? I honestly hope the number is very low despite the headlines we often see. I mean if I thought my actions threatened life on earth I sure as heck would change my lifestyle in accordance. The token changes many make while denigrating others who dont even think the issue is pressing blows my mind. I happen to be a frugal homesteader. My lifestyle is much “greener” then most in western countries. Yet many times Ive been told Im the problem by people who use much more energy then myself. So you are evil and greedy if you dont think the science proves that co2 is a major climate driver, but its totally fine to think the science supports this but continue to release as much as you want anyway, until laws force you to stop? that takes twists and turns of logic my brain isnt capable of.
Randy,
“How many of them truly believe this though?”
I too have wondered about this. Not so much about their personal lives, but about how activists’ have run the public policy campaign, As so many have noted, they often act as if the cause was secondary to “hidden” goals — such as more government control over the economy and changes to our political and social systems.
This post contrasts the climate campaign with public expectations for how scientists’ act when warning about an existential threat to the world:
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/08/04/climate-science-public-policy-broken-87951/
interesting read. thanks
Randy, the answer is, they do believe it, but they don’t let it actually rule their lives beyond token gestures. George Orwell (observant and prescient as ever) called it doublethink. Psychologists call it “cognitive dissonance”. You see it in many other aspects of life. Here’s a couple of the more obvious ones:
Smokers, who know damn well their habit is probably going to kill them, who don’t quit and give wholly spurious justifications for not quitting. Well there’s a physical addiction involved that can twist your thoughts into weird shapes. I know from my own past experiences before I finally gave in to the smoke police.
Religious preachers who preach about the virtues of monogamy and the evils of adultery, and have a stable of hookers to take care of their bodily desires.
I’m sure we can all add examples of doublethink. It helps us cope with the stresses of life and anyone who says he or she is totally free of it is probably lying.
Partial justification for it in the case of global warming: if you really wanted to give up fossil fuels, how could you possibly do it? No plastics, no electric light (unless you live in hydro-rich Norway, Quebec etc.), nothing made of iron or steel (they are made with coke), same goes for most other metals, no clothes made with artificial fabrics, no home heating or cooking unless you use wood or animal dung. It would be really, really tough, probably a lot tougher than quitting smoking (or even giving up sex!).
‘4. Next week: The climate change crisis, as seen from 2100 AD.’ – What? A newer, better model?
Greg,
I’ll give no spoilers! But here’s a hint.
10 years since An Inconvenient Folly. I expect someone will make a video – ten years later and fact-checking all of Al’s points. It should be fun, like watching a comedy (of errors). The Keystone Cops could not have handled the issue of Changing Climate any worse, IMO.
Larry Kummer….disagree with you use of the phrase ‘climate change’.
“Both Left and Right can find common cause about many public policy measures to prepare for climate change — which both sides agree is inevitable (although in different contexts).”
The basic premise is CAGW and both sides do NOT agree is is inevitable.
You are conflating Natural Climate Change with CAGW.
Kokoda,
That’s what I meant by “although in different contexts”. Both are climate change to the people on the ground experiencing them.
But nothing needs to be done.
A few tenths, or so, of more warming, more greenery due to C02, and sea level rise at around 1.5mm per year. What is the problem with that?
Quite frankly, it is difficult to see what adaption is needed, although I do not rule out the need for limited and targeted adaption in some micro regions..
Given how slow sea water is rising, and isostatic rebound, the sea water rise issue could be solved by extracting sea water, using desalination plants, and to use the water extracted for the needs of Africa and other drier countries who experience low rainfall. Just think, if we were to withdraw half or three quarters of a millimetre per year that would largely cancel out sea level rise and at the same time solve problems faced by drought ridden countries.
Why people fear a warming globe is one of life’s great mysteries; it would be a godsend if the globe were to warm a few degrees, but that looks extremely unlikely as we are making our way along the downward slope of the present inter glacial back towards the deep throes of the ice age which the planet is currently in.
What the world wants now is cheap and abundant energy, and then we should concentrate on the real issues, namely getting people out of poverty and being able to enjoy a better quality of life.
I’ve seen Kubler-Ross in action, many times in business, as a project manager or company sees a major initiative crash and burn. The only problem is that they never fully get to Stage 5, “acceptance.” It’s always something like “the market changed in an unpredictable way,” or the always famous “we didn’t do a good job of communicating to our clients.” There’s seldom a a clear acknowledgement that some of the basic assumptions or premises were wrong, which often leads to re-hashed second attempts that are equally horrific.
I agree, many of them will never accept it.
I argue for only 1 stage.
Activists will only go through grief… when their paychecks stop.
I thought I had read that the Kübler-Ross model had been discredited. If so (I can’t seem to find that article), it seems fitting to apply it to the Global Warming model.
katherine,
It has been discredited as “the” model for how people experience grief. People go though these stages in different sequences, or skipping some stages — or just skipping grief in any usual form. It’s a useful model, but not like the law of gravity (as true of most psychology).
The K-R model is useful operationally for therapists and the people affected by grief as way to understand what they are experiencing. In this context it is useful to describe the crash of the campaign as I said: “(impressionistically) by the five stages”.
Actually, not unlike the Law of Gravity, then. We can use the inverse square law to predict the positions of planets and satellites with respect to another body sure, but things start to diverge when we include influences of multiple bodies, quadrupole and higher moments, molecular collisions, photon interactions, and relativistic effects, not to mention self-actuation (e.g., satellites with propulsion systems). You have an underlying model, you project forward based on the model, and then you correct based on observations.
“Activists will enjoy the certainty that they were correct even though defeated by an ignorant public led by conservatives and oil companies.”
Utter nonsense. Oil companies joined big green etc long ago and conservatives have simply been along for the ride. Scepticism is indeed grass-roots. A true silent majority that no amount of marketing and bamboozling could assuage.
TrueNorthist,
I described how activists will feel. I didn’t say their feelings were correct.
That’s a fact. Politicians will no doubt take credit, but the real heroes are the intelligent skeptics, on the blogs and in the street, who bravely faced down the mob of ignorant lemmings which had been fooled by a socialist agenda that hides behind manipulated data, half-truths and about a dozen other logical fallacies.
nggme,
I agree with you about the bravery and work of the skeptics. Professionals like Roger Piekle Sr. and Jr., Richard Tol, Judith Curry, and Anthony Watts. Amateurs like Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. And the many others.
Counterfactual histories provide stories that help us better understand the dynamics of history. Imagine if there had been no pause in warming and if Atlantic hurricanes had not gone quiet. My guess (emphasis on guess) is that the climate campaign would have achieved some of their major policy goals in the developed nations (China and the others required stronger evidence).
The weather has decided the policy debate so far, and will continue to do so. Ironically, since climate science is attempting to harness nature as physics and astronomy did before.
Roger,
+1. Got to be a winner for Best of Thread!
The reports of the death of CAGW are greatly exaggerated. Paraphrase of Mark Twain.
Its not dead yet! Paraphrase of Monty Python.
The game isn’t over until its over. Yogi Berra
Don’t get cocky kid. Han Solo
As you say, the fat lady has yet to sing.
Like all drama queens, she’s taking her time preening herself in her dressing room wanting to look good for her last hurrah, desperate that she goes out with a bang, and not with a whimper.
In the end, we don’t know where climate is headed. Most of what is called “climate change” is basically just weather, some of it cyclical. The fact is, despite all the hoopla about a small (despite tamperature data sets) warming and ginned-up fears of a future, catastrophic warming, we may actually be headed for cooling in coming decades. Indeed, the cooling may have already begun. So how do we prepare? For starters, what we most emphatically DON’T do is harm ourselves economically by switching to far more expensive, less reliable forms of energy. Only healthy economies are able to respond and adapt to whatever Ma Nature throws our way. That much we do know.
We learned several years ago that this whole global warming, and now climate change, thingy has absolutely nothing to do with climate/weather. “Climate change” is, and apparently always was, a vehicle to get the CAGW activists where they really want to go – world political change and apparent global redistribution of wealth; some form of socialism. CO2 is a non issue, except for plants which desire more of it. Bottom line, CAGW is about politics, not science; there is no science in it.
I very much agree with Randy. I have a relatively low co2 emitting lifestyle too. I don’t fly much, I cycle a lot, I don’t do excessive consumerism. Climate delegates jetting around the world on their annual save the world junkets are ridiculous.
Imagine if in 1980 a major political organization had declared a need for food rationing in all western countries and an end to relief to Africa based on the ‘Science’ of Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome. Further image that they were still filling the media with the doomsday predictions that had already failed to materialize and simply extended the date of disaster out a few more years every time they failed. Would anyone but the true believers be surprised when the public looses interest or simply stops following their pronouncements?
By now the ‘Climate Crisis’ has become more then a failed prediction. It’s become a joke. Worse, it’s a running gag. A funny religion that you can’t take seriously, because what it claims to be true simply never comes to pass. And the people can see that no matter how the faithful scream and rant nothing ever changes. They can see that the proposed solution are disasters in there own right and couldn’t really help even if the predictions were true. Most importantly they can see that the high priests of Climate don’t live like CO2 is the doom of us all.
Maybe the Climate faithful really are going through the stages of grief. But it’s not grief over the failure of their silly beliefs, it’s grief that the world is DOOMED without the blind subservience of the people to their green religion. You won’t see the acceptance that their beliefs were false until those that find them useful idiots no longer have a use for them and abandoned the cause. And some never will accept it.
Along the lines of this post, comes an hilarious post from the Bishop Hill blog.
“Climate talks progress”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/12/5/climate-talks-progress.html
“An agreement that cardboard for recycling will be put out on a Tuesday night has been reached at the UN climate summit in Paris.”
🙂
Gentlemen forget the science, it’s entertaining but only helpful when shining the light on physical reality. The real story is a story of the ‘anti-capitalism’ movement, it NEVER sleeps. And it happens that the AGW theory is the most effective vehicle its adherents have yet devised — spread fright over an apocalypse that can be staved off only through central control, and distribution (by the wise and benevolent) of all the worlds’ resources (including wealth).
Bob. I think you summed it up the best I have seen. I have read a lot good summaries. I have always wondered if the USSR was behind this at least in the beginning. If they weren’t they should be kicking themselves for not thinking of it.
I take it they are still collectively at Stage 3 (depression).
John,
Based on what I have read and my conversations with activists on Twitter, my guess is that most are in stage one (denial, expecting that their victory is certain) and anger (lots of that). Anger is “trending”; lots of that among climate warriors — as they see their victory (and its rewards) “stolen” from them.
John maybe they are individually at different steps. I thought that an invitation that Anthony received a while back to a dinner party by some CAGW activists that wanted an agreement to tone down the mudslinging was step 4 bargaining.
Climate and weather: there are cycles upon cycles upon cycles, some long period and some short, some feed back on each other and some do not. An ice age every 100,000 years, wow!
Wow, if I were involved in the IPCC I’d go straight to STEP 6: Seppuku. The draft agreement is little more than an acknowledgment that they agree to cooperate. It’s actually a step backward from Bonn.
http://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/draft_paris_outcome_rev_5dec15.pdf
Mark,
Thanks for posting this. It’s fascinating reading. The opening is bonkers.
I thought that we already at 1°C, and most experts believed that holding the increase to 2°C was an unrealistic goal. The scale of action required for a 1.5°C limit would be drastic.
More evidence that most of the delegates at COP21 are in stage one: “denial”.
Also look at the fact that 1) They use Warsaw as a framework for enforcement, which effectively allows the U.S. Congress to reject the whole thing … 2) Look at Article 25, any party may unilaterally withdraw after 3 years, …. 3) Look at several paragraphs in Article 3 that effectively allow a country to define its contributions without conditions, (i.e., China: We agree to do absolutely nothing) …
It’s just a difficult read because they allow so many hedges that it would allow an international law judge to refuse to rule on anything because it’s sufficiently vague.
Mark,
That’s the tell showing a loss of belief in the campaign: they set maximum (unrealistic) goals AND minimalist means. This allows them to declare success, in a let’s-pretend way.
If they were serious about the project they would set achievable goals, with means roughly proportionate to the goals.
Regarding the future, the obvious seldom happens and we should know by now.
It is called climate change because it changes, and the next change will be to cooling. Nobody knows when it will take place. It could take place after this El Niño.
The issue isn’t ‘climate change’. The question is whether human CO2 emissions cause any measurable difference in global temperatures.
Since no one has been able to produce any measurements quantifying AGW, the climate Null Hypothesis remains un-falsified. QED
Even more fundamental than “…cause any measurable difference…” is the postulated “positive feedback.”
Unfortunately,the AGW cadre’s means of preparing for additional warming is akin to a shaman preparing for the eruption of the volcano by ordering the sacrifice of virgins.
For some, the anger is taking a dangerous turn.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/12/03/faz-commentary-warns-of-growing-impatience-among-democracy-hostile-scientists-intoxicated-by-knowledge/#sthash.zwweYH9r.dpbs
“Both Left and Right can find common cause about many public policy measures to prepare for climate change — which both sides agree is inevitable (although in different contexts). ”
The climate has always changed and always will change. Since we don’t know how it will change in the future, it is difficult to prepare. The kind of infrastructure projects that could be done are those that everyone already knew we should do but funding constraints or worries about environmental impact prevented them from being done. Such as improve storm systems to handle large hurricanes. Another thing that could be done is to improve interstate highway bridges to handle such things as strong earthquakes and higher water when they are not build above the 200 year flood.
“(5) Acceptance”
I would be careful about this one – rather than acceptance, Step-5 might be totalitarian take-over.
They (the warmunists) are so close to their dream of leftist world governance they can taste it.
As their good buddy mao said: “political power comes out of the barrel of a gun”.
So in the conversion of CAGW-ers to skeptics, they are all at stage 1-3, and most fanatics never make it past stage 3.