Reposted from the Fabius Maximus Blog
By Larry Kummer, Editor / 11 Comments / 18 January 2020
Summary: After 30 years of climate policy gridlock, we can decide to take an obvious path to a better future. Or we can continue the same stupid methods that have produced only futile bickering. A nation that cannot wisely make such simple choices has no future.
We will choose our path to the future.
A decade ago, I began watching the public policy debate about climate change, run by a constellation of major institutions – an example of America’s political system in action. Time has shown it to be dysfunctional (like so much in our America), resulting in three decades of policy gridlock. Summing it up, Steven Mosher of Berkeley Earth; said “We don’t even plan for the past.”
Three decades of gridlock, so advocates of policy change have responded by more loudly shouting their propaganda. The latest round began with activist George Monbiot’s November 2018 column in The Guardian: “The Earth is in a death spiral.” Of course, it is just a lie. The IPCC and major US climate agencies have said nothing like that. Worse, the leaders of both sides have become like WWI generals. Disinterested in political solutions, they only want victory – and no longer care about the costs to society.
How can we break the gridlock?
Policy-markers’ decisions depend on reliable forecasts of future climate change. For answers, they see debates about key aspects of climate change conducted in journals and blogs. Much like the current round of debates about models’ forecasts (see the most recent round at Climate Etc). This is stupid. Really stupid. The people involved are not stupid. Most are brilliant and knowledgable; many are volunteers. But the process is stupid.
Neither journals or blogs are suited for this job. The research for the Manhattan Project and Apollo were not done in journals and blogs. They were centrally-directed programs run with lavish funding, tapping a wide range of America’s science and engineering talent. The climate policy debate has tried a different and bizarre methodology for 30 years. It has failed. Let’s try something that has worked before – and can work again.
“Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”
— Not said by Einstein. Said by Alcoholics Anonymous, people who know everything about dysfunctionality.
A rational approach
Climate models are the center ring of the climate policy debate. Policy-makers need to know that models’ forecasts provide a robust basis for policies that will shape the economy and society of 21st century America – and the world.
That requries validation of models by experts. Human nature being what it is, those experts should be unaffiliated with the groups that designed and run the models (an insight from drug effectiveness testing). The cost of such a project would be pocket change compared to its importance.
America has a wealth of people and institutions capable of doing this. The National Academy of Sciences could be the lead agency in a Federal project to validate climate models. They could mobilize experts in the required wide range of fields.
Operational leadership could be provided by the Verification and Validation Committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). See their Guide for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics, their Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer, and An Illustration of the Concepts of Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics. NOAA and NSA could assist. There are probably other expert groups that could help.
This is the opposite of relying on blogs and academic journals to lead the policy debate (a process that would be considered primitive by a colony of cherrystone clams).
This is the opposite of the IPCC’s methodology. It is focused, not broad. It requires a review of climate models by experts unaffiliated with their creation and operation. It uses proven methods relied upon in science, engineering, and business.
Conclusions
The policy gridlock has consumed scarce political resources for several decades, diverting attention from other severe threats (e.g., destruction of ocean ecosystems). If climate alarmists are correct, the gridlock burns time needed for action. Even if they are wrong, these kinds of hot political debates can put fanatics in power – with horrific consequences.
If implemented, this project will not change the climate. But it could break the gridlock. If it shows that models are reliable guides, it could quickly make effective public policy possible.
Why would we continue to rely on the processes which have failed for so long when there is an obvious, easy, and relatively fast alternative? When you have an answer to this, you will have gone to the heart of the climate change debate.
For More Information
For more about this see After 30 years of failed climate politics, let’s try science! To learn more about model validation, Wikipedia provides links to a wide range of authoritative sources. See here and here.
Ideas! For your holiday shopping, see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.”
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change, and especially these debunking our mad policy client debate …
- Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
- Thomas Kuhn tells us what we need to know about climate science.
- Daniel Davies’ insights about predictions can unlock the climate change debate.
- Karl Popper explains how to open the deadlocked climate policy debate.
- Paul Krugman talks about economics. Climate scientists can learn from his insights.
- Milton Friedman’s advice about restarting the climate policy debate.
- We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models.
- A climate science milestone: a successful 10-year forecast!
Activists don’t want you to read these books
Some unexpected good news about polar bears: The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened
To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change
The models already have been invalidated because observations show they run too hot. Additionally, they are programmed based on the premise that human causes are the driver of climate change which makes them defective for investigating natural causes.
Mr Kummer says “That requries validation of models by experts.”
Of course they are validated, in time, by the lead expert – nature.
The problem is that the usual response to a failed model is to “dis” the expert…
“..and just where did this “nature” person get there doctorate…” etc.
Mr Kummer’s way forward will only happen if it is made law.
(and both sides are prepared to accept the outcome – don’t get me started on referendums)
The problem with climate policy is that the climate models, even in an alternate universe where they are 100% reliable and validated, are NOT sufficient for climate policy. There’s still two legs necessary to defend a mitigation-related climate policy:
1) The *impact* models must be validated and accurate. This isn’t remotely the case.
2) Mitigation policy must produce better outcomes than adaptation policy, considering both the cost of the policy and an appropriate discount rate for the time the cost is incurred. This isn’t remotely the case, either.
The obvious solution to the “climate policy crisis” is to recognize that current proposed mitigation policy is both expensive and ineffective, and that the climate impacts current and future are not at all likely to be catastrophic. Even the inflated RCP 8.5 impacts only project a world *far* richer than our own will just be less rich. Climate change is slow, we have plenty of time to adapt later if needed.
Climate contrarians cannot win this war. Climate establishment (=the IPCC and the scientists supporting it) has the science on their side because they can define what is the correct climate change science. The tide will turn only then when the mother nature drives the temperatures downward. Then the media will turn 180 degrees.
What makes you think climate policy gridlock is a bad thing?
Climate action in any form is as morally unacceptable as it would be futile.
“That reqiries validation of models by experts …”.
Only Mother Nature can validate the models.
How are those Global Climate Models validated? The GCM’s are evalated by how well they reproduce the global surface temperature record. The bogus, bastardized global surface temperature record.
Garbage validating Garbage. Garbage being manipulated to validate Garbage.
The real global temperature profile is where any investigtion ought to be focused. We need to use the real global temperature profile (as warm in the recent past as now) before we can validate the GCM’s First things first.
From the above article under “A Rational Approach”: “Policy-makers need to know that models’ forecasts provide a robust basis for policies that will shape the economy and society of 21st century America – and the world” and “(Such methodology) uses proven methods relied upon in science, engineering, and business.”
Uhhhh . . . since when has any model of any given, largely-stochastic process such as CLIMATE forecasting (let alone Wall Street forecasting, business trend forecasting, technology forecasting, political forecasting, societal changes, etc.)—looking forward in excess of 20 years—ever been demonstrated to be “robust”? Obviously, the existing raft of IPCC-touted, supercomputer-enabled, science-based climate models have failed miserably in this regard.
The best any such models do is basically curve-fit past data and then perform a relatively short-term (2-5 year) extrapolation into the future. This approach does not come close to being “an obvious solution” to anything.
“Futile bickering” is another name for speaking truth to power. If consensus was desirable, we’d still be living in Dark Age Feudalism.
The models have been discredited; it’s already happened. The Warmistas are led by an austistic dropout who cannot read or write – there’s your “scientific” expertise!
The problem is not global warming. Warmer Is Better. The problem is the amoral kleptocracy and the sheeple who follow them obediently. The solution is rationality, revolutionary rationality, even if the rational people are greatly outnumbered. Never give an inch. If you don’t like it, tough.
PS – The irrationals are losing. They know it. The Warmistas are a failed movement heading toward the dustbin of history. That’s why the Larrys of the movement are begging for debate now, even though they declared the debate over 25 years ago.
No, this is just wrong. You can see it is wrong by two things. One, that the activists commonly demand policies which will have no effect on what they claim to believe is the problem. Wind power, Paris, electric cars… Two they refuse to demand things which they should believe are essential. Demolishing the suburbs and malls, abolishing cars, China reducing on a grand scale, India stopping increasing emissions.
So, whatever anyone shows about the models will be irrelevant. The demands will continue. It will have zero effect. This is not about climate at all. This is about finding bad reasons for policies we want to do on instinct. The desire will not go away just because some learned body pronounces.
In fact I think the more obvious it gets that the climate hysteria is delusional, the stronger will be the belief and the more bitter the agitation of the believers. Read ‘When Prophecy Fails’ for an explanation and example of why and how.
Making a nuclear bomb or “validating” climate models (whatever that might mean) are problems in technology. The issue of what we should do about our warming climate is political. In a sense IPCC AR5 WG1 lays out the technical capabilities of the models used, it is the other WGs where the issues really arise.
So independent validation simply becomes another, not particularly new, input into an already highly charged political debate. IMHO it will just be another footnote along the way, and won’t change the politics.
Part of the issue is the politics talks to a popular belief system (particularly in the west) about our relationship with nature and the environment. It can be seen in the confusion between clean and renewable energy. If the only worry was GHGs then the focus would be on the former, but in many circles its not (come to NZ where we are curtailing NG exploration when coupled with CCS/U it is the way to low cost clean H2 for our long-haul transport fleet – we have to be renewable).
It is therefore difficult to see a silver bullet, but I comfort myself that either as the cost of mitigation bites causality will come under political pressure, or that mother nature will refuse to oblige with the worst of the prognoses.
“Climate models are the center ring of the climate policy debate. Policy-makers need to know that models’ forecasts provide a robust basis for policies that will shape the economy and society of 21st century America – and the world.”
The problem is that the climate models have been universally wrong at predicting temperatures. The only model that has come close, (see Roy Spencer’s blog) has been the Russian model. Imagine that The Russians are conspiring to interfere in our elections by debunking climate alarmism with a climate model that actually does a reasonable job of predicting temperatures.
A second problem is the temperature record itself. We only have satellite data going back to 1979. And ground based temperature data is full of holes. Major parts of the world still without reliable data and the historical record is full of gaps around the world on land and sea. Furthermore, the raw data shows that the mid 1930’s were as warm as today, until the Alarmist’s at NOAA get through with their adjustments (well documented by Tony Heller). So before any conclusions can be made about long term warming, we need an honest look at the temperature record by a variety of scientists, evaluating all of the adjustments for their credibility. One example documented by Tony Heller – NOAA modified Iceland temperatures to favor a warming trend without any consultation with climatologists in Iceland. When they were exposed, they restored the original data. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but the ground based temperature data is managed by gatekeepers with a distinctly alarmist bent. They believe that they are making the right adjustments, but they are blind to their own biases which lead to flawed justifications.
Larry
I appears to me that you are hoping for a scientific consensus from an ‘expert group’ that will ultimately result in beneficial policy. The problem is consensus is a truly a political paradigm for managing diverse opinions. Consensus in science is not a particularly good thing and probably impedes scientific advancement as much as it helps it. I know, you’re “glad I have an opinion”, but it doesn’t help solve anything. Maybe it helps in uncritically accepting expert scientific consensuses!
The way ahead is clear but is being addressed by none of the participants in the present lucrative Climate Free-for-All. It is simply to continue to prove again and again that ‘man-made climate change’ is fake and a stalking horse for socialist control. Doing nothing is the most useful contribution to ending this false and malevolent fraud.
The problem with this approach is using computer models of the predicted future to make the decisions. There is ample evidence that most computer models of the climate, when run using 1980 as a starting point, have over-predicted the actual observed temperature rise over 40 years by a factor of 2 or 3. By the scientific method, a computer model that failed to predict the recent past cannot be trusted to predict the future.
Until a computer model can be developed that does accurately follow observed temperature trends (and can be demonstrated over a period of 10 years or more), predictions from computer models should not be used to affect major policy decisions.
Another reason for the current “gridlock” is that many of the supposedly disastrous effects of a warming climate (rising sea levels, increased frequency and strength of hurricanes, floods, and droughts) have not actually occurred. Every time some localized natural disaster (such as a strong hurricane, snowstorm, tornado, flood, or wildfire) occurs, alarmists loudly warn about “climate change” to a compliant media, but those who compile the long-term average frequency of occurrence of weather disasters also take into account the lulls, when most people go about their business without paying much attention to the weather.
Those clamoring for replacement of fossil fuels with wind or solar or some other “renewable” energy rarely consider the huge cost, both in economic terms and in terms of disruption of people’s lifestyle. The other question becomes, if we don’t change our lifestyle, how do we know that an increase of 1 to 2 degrees Celsius of the average temperature is necessarily bad? Ask a resident of Canada or Scandinavia or Russia, and they would probably welcome a warmer climate, while any temperature increase would be minimal in the tropics. People are not willing to make a huge sacrifice in their lifestyle for minimal “gain”.
The current gridlock, where lots of wannabe policy-makers fly to exotic resorts to discuss climate change, but generally agree to disagree and meet again next year without taking any concrete action, is probably beneficial to humanity. After a few more decades of no major climate disasters, people will get tired of the paranoid “shepherds” crying wolf every year, and learn to ignore them, while the extra CO2 in the air will make the Earth greener and more fertile.
The so-called “surface station data” are packs of lies, not fit for policy purposes. The books are cooked to a crisp by agenda-serving gatekeepers.
The land “data” are “adjusted” beyond recognition. Then the “SST data” are further “adjusted” because they don’t agree with the baked land “data”. And of course the sea “data” are even more fictional than the land “data”, having been collected by radically different methods from varying depths, then subjected to unlimited tampering.
The land “data” are fictional, while the sea “data” are pure fantasy.
The CACA corruption of science reeks of political corruption. All one needs know is the extent to which the CACA Team has gone to keep real science from being practiced.
“Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”
Also called “practice”.
There not only is no climate crisis, but Earth’s present climate is the best in about 800 years.
The effect of perhaps 200 more ppm of plant food in the air over the next 80 years will only contribute to making things even better, however slightly.
But with the greening of the globe thanks to more plant food, states will need to clear fireprone vegetation.
Indeed the solution is obvious. The data already proves the effect of CO2 on the environment is either small or negligible. Thus having access to abundant, inexpensive an reliable energy is Paramount. It is the lifeblood of any modern economy and provides the greatest ability to adapt to any changes in climate, either warmer or colder… or none at all. Plus the increase in CO2 is great for plants and our food supply.
The Manhattan and Apollo projects had simple goals. The first in response to a real and immediate threat and the second a fixed goal with a finite end point. Even putting a man on the moon nowadays would involve deciding whether it should be a woman of colour or some other from the alphabet soup. Don’t even think of sticking a chimp onboard and should the astronut’s diet be meat/gluten/preservative/sugar/salt free organic with no pesticides and fair trade? What about the emissions and Environmental Impact Study and who is going to be on the International Planning Committee and from which countries for starters bearing in mind the aforesaid concerns about a representative cross section of humankind?
How’s Elon going tacking SpaceX onto the EV thing and tapping the billionaires for tickets?
CAGW the idea, is a threat to our civilization.
Money corrupts. There is more and more money and political power, connected with CAGW and more paid NGOs staff who push/lobby CAGW policies in our politics and our news outlets.
…there are now ex-senior EU/UK/US government officials that have been hired for newly formed divisions, in major brokerages/banks, who are working to get a piece of the CAGW justified world taxation, carbon trading, and money distribution.
CAGW is the idea .. is being used as justification for a world tax…
… starting with aviation. EU wants a carbon tax, Option 1: calculated for all planes travelling over EU territory/another, Option 2 for all planes landing or leaving from EU.
… a second EU tax, is calculated on how a country is preforming to meet their climate commitments.
…and of course, there will need be an EU/UN super bureaucracy, to hand out the money.
We need to stop CAGW the idea, stop the fighting over the science, mitigate the damage on our countries and start addressing other problems, including planetary change.
… CAGW the idea does not change the fact that socialism/fascism does not work as it leads to institutionalized corruption.
This is fascism.
https://news.grabien.com/story-john-cusack-we-have-10-12-years-save-planet-climate-capitali
“And Bernie respects us enough to tell the truth, the hard truth: We have a ten to twelve year window to radically transform our energy systems, or climate change, predatory capitalism, and endless war economies will rob us of the right to any future at all.
“And as we can see literally every day, the house is on fire. But as Bernie tells us, this is no time for despair, it’s no time for anything but action. Because if we stand together, with him, the future is still indeed unwritten. And there’s nothing more powerful than a movement whose time has come. We have never had a movement candidate this close to power with a revolutionary movement he’s led and built, ready-to-go, all the way to change the country and help heal the world.
P.S.We can stop the climate wars with science. Models are useless when there are physical assumption mistakes based on know observations.
We need to find something first, however, to discuss with the CAGW thinkers and blogs that is more neutral and that is real/not scientifically complicated/controversial.
… the fission device breakthrough is the subject to start with. There is a game changing new fission reactor design, that is as cheap as a coal plant to build, mass producible, no catastrophic failure modes, containment vessel not required, walk away safe on loss of electric power/control equipment, control room staff, and so on.
Simple subject, game of thrones infighting to keep the status quo, emotions at 11, and a disruptive civilizational changing breakthrough that was built and tested 50 years ago, which there is now a joint US/Canadian regulatory team working on..
We can only win the Climate war with science IF WE GET A SEAT AT THE TABLE !
Somehow, Trump must commission an AUDIT of the temperature records. Temperature data is being altered in a way that *just happens to exactly reflect the consensus CO2 effrcts*. That ain’t no accident.
After that audit, there should be wholesale terminations of science contracts of the fraudsters and their Univetsities.
The idea that the National Academy of Science is capable of nonpolitical oversight of a scientific debate is wishful thinking. I spent 4 years contributing to the conceptual design of a 200 BEV Accelerator that eventually became Fermi Lab near Chicago. At the time,1965, the project was considered the “scientific prize of the century”. Several States were in competition to land the project. The NAS was designated by DOE to oversee the site location. There were no standing group of scientific experts at NAS so it broke down the project into a number of 3 person subcommittees, selected non NAS members, & put 2 scientists favoring the Illinois site on each sub committee. The fix was in aided by the National Academy of Science.
2nd attempt Mods there is no foul language in this
Larry,
the problem with your “solution” is you are assuming there is no negative impact from believing in the seriously bad climate models and lets just believe they are true…..
This is just another spin on the precautionary principle from one biased view only.
even if the climate keeps doing what it normally has been then lets look at the consequences of the current policies due to this belief.
People are dying as a result of the policies now. We have just seen examples here with the fuel loads for bushfires here in Aus. and like Germany we have record numbers of people unable to pay their electricity bills having to choose between heating and cooling & eating. Germany is having the same problems with winter time deaths increasing.
So your toe the line will just make this worse killing more innocents, placing more money in pockets that don’t deserved it , making the poor poorer, business and home energy unreliable. Money that could have been spent on say building a water pipeline from our northern territory (tropical wet season) down our east coast drought proofing the country, or research into viable baseload power sources.
Now take the next step. it gets colder and all the countries have turned to unreliable wind and solar and no planning for cold events so millions more stave and bankruptcies go through the roof and of course those unreliable energy sources perform so much better in the cold.
To me the downside of going ahead is far greater than any upside in giving in and going along with this scam.
So fight this scam and demand proof in reproducible data and facts before believing anything to do with this cult.
I have news for you. The climate models have been validated already, many times. They’re wrong.
Anyone who relies on them for forecasting is either a zealous climate alarmist or intellectually challenged.
Two possible sceptic pathways could be:-
1.Offer to help. I am an engineer I want to help. Let’s look at the options. Let’s analyse the problem and then make decisions how to address the problem.
Take sea level rise – if analysed correctly from a Engineer or town planning point of view there is not really a problem due to the lead time.
2. Accept climate change is real and put it together with all other problems. Once again let’s help.
Ok let’s look at education of women in developing countries and compare with climate change- which should we fund?
Huge admiration for the homage to Harvard Lampoon’s “Bored of the Rings.”
Well played, sir. Well played.