Reposted from The Fabius Maximus website
By Larry Kummer, Editor / 12 February 2020
Summary: The climate policy debate ran for 30 years but produced little action (it ranks #17 of the public’s top 18 concerns). Now it has died. The autopsy reveals not just who killed it but also disturbing insights about America. This is post #404 in a series about climate change that I began 12 years ago.
ID 27423027 © Tom Wang | Dreamstime.
Bottom line: the climate activists are decisively winning. The science no longer matters in the public policy debate. Activists have moved beyond it and the major science institutions no longer defend it against the activists’ exaggerations and misrepresentations. There are rumors are that the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report will break with the past and fully embrace the hysteria. Meanwhile, skeptics are talking to themselves, like characters in Alice in Wonderland – vocal but effectively locked out of the news media.
The climate wars are in the “pursuit” phase of battle, during which the victorious side runs down and destroys their broken foe. Understanding how we got here reveals much about America’s dysfunctionality (i.e., its broken OODA loop). But first, know that this was not inevitable. See this remarkable op-ed in the BBC: “Science must end climate confusion” by eminent climate scientist Richard Betts on 11 January 2010.
“Of course, we know that these things {extreme weather} happen anyway, even without climate change – they may happen more often under a warmer climate, but it is wrong to blame climate change for every single event. Climate scientists know this, but still there are people outside of climate science who will claim or imply such things if it helps make the news or generate support for their political or business agenda. …
“{D}o climate scientists do enough to counter this? Or are we guilty of turning a blind eye to these things because we think they are on ‘our side’ against the climate sceptics? …Climate scientists need to take more responsibility for the communication of their work to avoid this kind of thing. Even if scientists themselves are not blaming everything on climate change, it still reflects badly on us if others do this.”
But Betts, and his fellow peers who are dedicated to science, remained mostly silent in the public policy debate – other than the occasional quiet remark. Of course, they were smart to do so. This is a moral panic. Once the leaders of society embrace it (for their own purposes), it becomes a virulent epidemic. Like a zombie apocalypse, those scientists in its path had only three good options: flee, collaborate, or hide. The ugly consequences to those (e.g., Pielke Sr. and Jr., Judith Curry) who chose a fourth option – carefully and selectively fighting the panic – are described below.
I have personally seen this dynamic play out as I have documented this increasing dysfunctional debate since 2008. But few cared in 2008. In 2015 I wrote one of the early critiques of the RCP8.5 scenario (perhaps the first): Is our certain fate a coal-burning climate apocalypse? No! I followed with Manufacturing climate nightmares: misusing science to create horrific predictions. Afterwards, I tried to find a climate scientist to coauthor an article in EOS or WSJ op-ed about the misuse of RCP8.5 – when it might have had an impact. But the ones I contacted were too smart to do so.
Now even Nature and the hard-core alarmist BBC says this. But RCP8.5 – and more broadly, climate science – no longer matter. The debate has moved beyond science to the exaggerations of the Climate Emergency and the fictions of the Extinction Rebellion. It is all politics and mass hysteria.
The climate policy debate is interesting as an example of our society’s growing dysfunctionality. Larger political forces (e.g., who wins the presidency in 2020) will determine who wins the debate. On a longer time horizon, the weather will choose the winning side. Meanwhile, the American people watch their screens and chatter.
An example shows how we got here
“The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.”
— G.W.F. Hegel in the Preface to The Philosophy of Right(1820). See Wikipedia.
Roger Pielke Jr. has written an article adding to my favorite genre: forensic pathology, examing the climate policy debate’s corpse to determine the causes of its death. His article describes the creation of shock troops for climate activists, using the Skeptical Science website (SkS) as their base. These people attack the opponents of activists – using lies and smears to discredit these eminent scientists. These are people whom activist scientists can support without getting their own hands dirty by smearing their peers.
The troops at SkS have been immensely successful in a narrow sense, helping activists dominate the public spaces in America. But when you read this, remember the big truth which explains the gridlock in US climate policy.
This is not what scientists do when they have
decisive evidence of an imminent global threat.
This is how they act when they do not have decisive evidence,
but for professional or political reasons want the public to believe them anyway.
Many Americans understand that, at some level.
“A Climate Blacklist That Works:
‘It Should Make Her Unhirable In Academia’”
By Roger Pielke, Jr.
Pielke describes the dramatis personae of this sad story.
The writers at Skeptical Science – A massive donation supported website. Like most good propaganda mills, it mixes useful information with misinformation. Very few of its authors are climate scientists.
Pielke describes its authors’ smearing of Roger Pielke Sr. and Judith Curry. See this debunking of the SkS page about Pielke. See his publications, also his positions held. His publications have an H-Index of 95. See Curry’s publications; they have an H-Index of 67. Compare that to media darlings James Hansen (96), Michael Mann (83), and Katharine Hayhoe (47). It is how science crashes during a moral panic.
Conclusions
“It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.”
— Voltaire in his The Age of Louis XIV.
Simple and sensible measures could have been taken long ago with broad public support to prepare for a better future and break the policy gridlock (perhaps gaining support for bigger bolder actions). But that requires our involvement to make it happen – since neither the leaders of climate science nor US elites have any interest in either. We do not appear to be up to this challenge.
For More Information
Ideas! For some shopping ideas 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 see The keys to understanding climate change, all posts about the RCPs, and especially these …
- About the corruption of climate science.
- The noble corruption of climate science.
- Climate science has died. The effects will be big.
- After 30 years of failed climate politics, let’s try science! – A proposal to break the policy gridlock.
- The guilty ones preventing good policy about climate change.
- Toxic climate propaganda is poisoning US public policy.
- An obvious solution to the climate policy crisis.
- A demo showing our broken climate policy debate.
Activists don’t want you to read these
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This;
“The climate policy debate ran for 30 years but produced little action (it ranks #17 of the public’s top 18 concerns).”
seems to be in considerable tension with this;
“Bottom line: the climate activists are decisively winning. “
Tax money was officially meant to solve ‘tragedy of common’ problems.
But once pile of stack of cash grows, it turns to be tragedy of common: groups of thugs start fighting for access by any means necessary causing destruction and mayhem to anyone but few psychopaths win.
Solving the root problem would mean drastic reduction of taxation rate.
But even on that forum nobody crosses that line: without tax slaves, who would finance NASA and their “pale blue dot” photos?
Odd to describe an autopsy of something that never was living. What policy debate? Prior to Trump the world leaders monotonously all proclaimed their devotion to Doing Something, while confining themselves to fairly expensive and extremely ineffective virtue signaling. And at no time in the past few decades have alarmist shown the least bit of interest of actually debating any shade of skeptic.
Nor is “the science no longer matters” some new development. The science has *never* mattered, from the time that 2C from “pre-industrial” was pulled out of someone’s hindquarters. For decades the alarmists have been pushing public policy that they find desirable independent of climate change, without scientific support for said policy being a better option than simple adaptation.
“Major science institutions no longer defend [science] against the activists’ exaggerations and misrepresentations”. No longer? They never did. For decades now, major science instutions have routinely weighed in with their belief in the “consensus” against skeptics while turning a blind eye to exaggerations and misrepresentations. Climate scientists as a body not only have ignored reckless exaggeration, but many themselves engage in it, framing climate change as an existential crisis when the science (such as it is) says nothing of the kind. Practically every impact study I’ve looked at has a press release going far beyond what the paper shows, and an abstract significantly more alarmist in tone than the contents actually justify.
Perhaps there would be a more healthy situation now if alarmists actually had been willing to debate, and if scientists actually did step up and speak out against reckless alarmists. But that’s not the world we live in, and that’s *not* the fault of the skeptics.
The bottom line is that the activists are “decisively winning”? Well, they’re decisively winning in the mainstream media, but that’s *always* been the case. The adulation given to St. Greta today is not fundamentally different than the praise for Al Gore decades ago. The alarmists were awarded the gold medal before the race ever stated. And yet, the sort of radical changes Greta is demanding is still not happening.
The 2020 election will determine whether the President will be skeptic or alarmist, and will govern how much money will be spent virtue-signalling in the next four years. But it’s telling that *not one senator* was willing to *actually vote* for the Green New Deal when McConnell put it up for a vote. If you want to know what a person really values, it is not what they say but what they do that is most telling. No one is *acting* like it is a crisis.
Including mother earth. If AR6 embraces full alarmism (the SPM has *always* been significantly more alarmist than the actual contents) it will hardly matter as long as mother Nature doesn’t play along. In a world where the actual warming we’ve had hasn’t even inconvenienced anyone, apocolytic hand-wringing becomes its own refutation.
No, you haven’t added anything new. In fact, your various pontifications have probably hurt more than they’ve helped. Here’s the real story (I’m going by memory, so some details may be slightly off).
The projected CO2 emissions in the RCP 8.5 scenario are essentially no different from the CO2 in the A1FI (A1 “Fossil Intensive”) emission scenario:
https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/emissions-concentrations-and-temperature-projections
The A1FI scenario was introduced way back in 2001, as part of the Third Assessment Report (TAR). I think I recall that there were some shenanigans, such that the A1FI scenario was actually added at the last minute after the review process had been completed. But my memory is fuzzy on this issue. I’m pretty sure Pat Michaels knows the details, as my hazy memory is that he protested the late addition of such and extreme scenario.
In any case, there were papers by Stephen Schneider in Nature in 2001 and by Tom Wigley and Sarah Raper in Science in 2001 that both tried to actually establish probability distributions for emissions and resultant temperature increases. If “climate science” were really science, those pathetic attempts would have been quickly improved upon. For example, in probably less than 40 hours of work, I was able to come up with predictions that I think will be clearly better than Wigley and Raper’s paper in “Science”. The trick is that Wigley and Raper assumed that all scenarios had equal probability of occurring. But even a decent college student ought to be able to puzzle out that all scenarios can’t possibly have the same probability of occurrence.
https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/complete_set_of.html
https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2017/07/mark-bahner-vs-wigley-and-raper-science-2001-vs-ipcc-rcps.html
The reason your commentary has actually probably done more harm than good is that you have mistakenly insisted that the IPCC and the climate change “scientific” communtiy put forward the RCP 8.5 and other RCP scenarios in good faith, when they clearly haven’t.
So thus far, you have been more a part of the problem (failure to call out climate change scientists as engaging in massive pseudoscientific fraud) than a part of the solution.