Bridging the Climate Divide
Climate bloggers belong to one of the more politically relevant subcultures in the blogosphere. It’s hard to quantify to what degree they influence the public discourse on climate science and policy. Suffice to say: they matter.
But I would argue that only the two opposite ends of the climate spectrum in the blogosphere are represented in the media and the public debate. That, in my view, has contributed to an oversimplification of climate issues and helped exacerbate polarization of the public dialogue. As a journalist who sometimes reports on climate change, I bear my share of responsibility.
But one of the benefits of having my own blog is that I can do my (small) part to rectify this blind spot. So in the last year, as I’ve dived deeper into the climate blogosphere, I have discovered a rich array of thoughtful voices and perspectives that are located across the climate spectrum. They deserve greater appreciation and exposure.
So last week, I reached out to two climate bloggers I have come to admire for their nuanced views and the way they conduct themselves. They occupy a nebulous middle ground in the spectrum, and while their blogs defy simple labels, I would have to say that their peers in the climate blogosphere probably place them on opposite sides of the climate debate, based on where they think their sympathies lie.
My objective here was to push back against such one-dimensional categorization (including my own), which is often reflected in the impolite comment threads of any blogs that delve into climate science or climate policy. I figure that if there is common ground to be established in the climate debate, perhaps two climate bloggers who are known for their civility and who, perception-wise, are considered to be on opposite sides, can help pave the way.
Bart Verheggen is a Holland-based atmospheric scientist, who is unfailingly polite and often quite insightful. In addition to his own blog, Bart is a frequent commenter at many climate blogs, where he often raises the level of debate.
Chicago-based Lucia Liljegren is a mechanical engineer who has worked at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (on projects related to remediation and storage of radioactive nuclear waste) and as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at Iowa State University. Judith Curry, a climate researcher at Georgia Tech, calls Lucia “probably the least controversial person in the climate blogosphere, because of her cheerfulness and sense of humor, honesty, and open mindedness.”
Several days ago, I chatted with both Lucia and Bart via Skype. After editing the transcribed hour long conversation, I asked both of them to look over my edit of the transcript and make any necessary clarifications. They made minimal changes. Below is part one of the exchange.
Keith: Stanford University’s Jon Krosnick has a new poll out this week, which he says reaffirms that a “large majority of Americans” believe that man-made global warming is happening, and that something should be done about it. Taking note, Roger Pielke Jr. wrote:
As I have said for many years”¦the battle for public opinion on climate change has been won by those who argue that there is a profound human influence on climate and action is warranted. This has been the message of opinion polls for as long as 20 years.
Yet in the climate blogosphere, there continues to be this highly charged battle between two sides, the skeptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and those who belong to that “large majority.” So why is there this endless warring if the battle for public opinion has been won?
Bart: I think the [climate] blogosphere is dominated by the extremes of either side, of those who very much downplay the [climate change] problem and those who are very much convinced of the problem and indeed in some circumstances overplay the problem.
Lucia: Definitely in terms of composition, you get both of those groups. My blog gets people who do think that there is either so little warming as to not matter at all, or that the warming we have is all natural. I don’t think they’re a majority on my blog, but there are some. And I know there are other blogs (such as wattsupwiththat) where there’s a lot of people who either think there is no warming or admit that there’s warming in the record but don’t believe it’s caused by people.
I think people on both ends just want to talk more.
Bart: Do you think so? I have the feeling that a lot of people on both ends are actually quite content talking to their own, because they each consider the other side””or at least the more extreme ones on either side””they feel that the more extreme ones on the other side are lunatics.
Keith: In a recent post, Andrew Freedman wrote that, “climategate”
helped foster the notion that climate science is controlled by a tight-knit cabal of experts determined to rig the science to suit their best interests.
Lucia, do you believe that?
Lucia: All of climate science, certainly not. The emails do show some people trying to control certain publications, and exerting a lot of influence in some of those discussions back and forth. There are many, many climate scientists doing research without regard to any sort of notion of what the right answer is. But I think there is some tendency for what Judy Curry called tribalism, and attempts to block certain types of information”¦maybe not block it, but at least make it very low visibility. So it can never be all of climate science, it just wouldn’t even happen. But things can happen that sort of make things lean in one way or the other and that’s kind of the way I see things. What do you think Bart?
Bart: I would express myself maybe slightly differently, but I don’t have a big issue with what you’re saying. I do think, indeed that climategate spread “the notion that climate science is controlled by a tight-knit cabal” who rig the science in a preconceived direction far and wide. And I do think that that notion is a very implausible conspiracy theory, which Lucia alluded to, and for which there is no evidence at all, neither in the emails or anywhere else.
That said, I do know there is a certain degree of defensiveness from the part of climate scientists and their supporters toward people who have criticism. (Just to also note: I have never been in any high profile climate research, and I have not been involved with the IPCC; I’m just on the sidelines here.) And that degree of defensiveness, that is what I agree with in Judith Curry’s analysis and I also feel kind of the same with what Lucia is saying here. To what extent that goes further into blocking other views, or diminishing their visibility on purpose, that’s something that I’m not so sure of and I would actually tend to think not. But to be honest, I don’t really know.
I do think that the defensive attitudes are basically the response of scientists being attacked by so many people. And a big portion of those people who have criticism””not everyone, I’d like to add””but a big portion of them do so with a totally incoherent set of arguments, like “oh, there’s no warming,” or “there’s a little warming and it’s good, and by the way, it’s due to the sun”¦”
Lucia: Well, you have to be a little bit careful when you put those all together, because there’s many different people.
Bart: Yes, true.
Lucia: Bart’s accusation is that one person individually holds many incoherent views all at the same time, and while there may be a few people out there like that, more often its one person has theory A, one person has theory B, one has theory C.
Bart: You are very right, and the criticism comes in many shades of gray. That’s absolutely correct. And I think that the climate scientific establishment and their supporters should indeed examine their sometimes overly defensive attitudes. To immediately ascribe any criticism to like, “oh, you’re a stupid skeptic or a denier,” or whatnot, well some of the criticism might actually have merit. (Even though on the internet, I think it’s a minority.)
Keith: Lucia, I know you see yourself in the middle of the climate spectrum. What blogs are closer to the far end of the skeptic spectrum?
Lucia: Obviously Anthony Watts runs posts that highlight the notion there are big gaps in the case for Anthropogenic global warming. And they’ll mostly be against the idea it’s anthropogenic. So that one is definitely more skeptical of warming than mine would be.
Keith: What blogger is on the far end of the AGW spectrum.
Lucia: I’d say Joe Romm. I would put him on the strongest AGW, advocacy/activist end of the spectrum. I do find his long, stream of consciousness screeds difficult to read.
Keith: Bart, how would you define the spectrum?
Bart: I have a different view of the spectrum than Lucia has. I remember Michal Tobis on his blog had a good characterization of the spectrum. I would say that mainstream science is in the “˜middle’, which in the blogosphere is represented by sites like Real Climate, and other scientists like James Annan, William Connolley, Michael Tobis, Robert Grumbine, SkepticalScience and others. That’s what I would characterize as the middle ground. Because it’s really a fairly good representation of what you also read in the literature.
The IPCC position is kind of the middle ground there. And then you have people who critique it with varying levels of intensity and with varying levels of evidence based, as Lucia is doing. And you have more paranoia-based ones, such as Marc Morano. That’s someone who I would put on the lunatic fringe on the skeptic side. And there’s definitely a broad range in between””including both paranoid and (more or less) valid criticisms. Of course, there is also a critique that the IPCC position is too conservative, which I discussed on my blog.
Then you have someone like Steve McIntyre, who sometimes has valid criticisms, but he packages it in such a way, that it goes against all my”¦ [searching for the right words]
Keith: Is it his tone?
Bart: It’s the hidden insinuations and accusations that he’s always putting down there. And the way he slams the climate scientists and put motives there”¦I don’t like it at all. It takes away from some things he might have a valid point in. Now I’m not actually interested at all in the hockey stick debate. So I’m not following things [at Climate Audit] in detail, but he might actually have some points there. I’m not saying he doesn’t.
And then you have on the other side [of the spectrum], you have”¦yeah Joe Romm, goes sometimes”¦he’s a tricky case to characterize. I don’t like his style of communication. I think he’s a little bit too strong with language. By and large, though, he doesn’t stray far away from the science. He doesn’t often say things that are wrong. He does, however, put out a one-sided view. If you say, he emphasizes worst cases and de-emphasizes others, yes, that is something he does sometimes.
On the lunatic fringe of the alarmist side””and I don’t like that word, alarmist, at all””there are people who claim that the world is going to end in 20 years and humanity will go extinct if we don’t put down 100,000 windmills tomorrow. For me, they would be the equivalent of Marc Morano. Joe Romm doesn’t come even close to being such an equivalent.
Keith: Lucia, what about Bart’s contention that Steve McIntyre undermines his legitimate criticism with his insinuations or the way he goes about communicating them?
Lucia: Well, I’m not sure Steve does that. I can understand why Bart thinks it’s that way. It’s difficult to judge it without looking at some of the history. It’s not at all clear to me what the cause and effect of that is. It’s not clear to me because I didn’t start reading Climate Audit when the first hockey stick wars all started. But there’s a point of view out there that when Steve was presenting these things in the tone that Bart would think is the more appropriate one, he was still getting shot down and treated badly and was on the receiving end of the snide remarks and a lot of other things. So I don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg.
Bart: I don’t know either. I haven’t followed that from the start either. I have my suspicions, but I don’t really know, I haven’t checked it out.
Keith: Bart, on your blog you once wrote:
The more relevant discussion for society is about how to deal with climate change (rather than about Siberian tree rings or other scientific details). How do we act in the face of uncertainty, but with real risks of problematic consequences?
What do you make of that Lucia?
Lucia: Actually, Bart and I interact most often at Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog. That’s the kind of topic that Roger often brings up. I don’t even bring them up, because I don’t have as many ideas as to what we can actually get through in the political process.
But it’s absolutely true that the real questions are, what sorts of actions are we going to take? I tend to take the view that, people need to talk about actions we can take that would be beneficial whether or not someone believes climate change is happening and whether or not it was caused by humans. Because sometimes the whole debate about that discussion gets in the way of some issues that have to do with energy sources we need to access that we can resolve without learning whether or not climate change is true. Or at least you can get some line of agreement. You’ll never get 100 percent.
Keith: Along those lines, there’s a new paper out from Roger and other scholars–known as the the Hartwell Paper–that argues we should decouple climate change from energy policy. And then we can move on from this war over climate science, which I’m sure both of you would agree is, to a large degree, a proxy war over policy. Should we do that, should we just get past the climate science war and stop pretending what the real fight is about?
Bart: Not entirely. First of all, I don’t think we should decouple the climate change issue from energy policy, but I do agree that we should stop pretending what the real fight is about, which is: How to respond to climate change?
Secondly, If we leave the question totally aside of whether there is climate change and whether it was caused by humans, and only do what we would otherwise also do because of declining fossil fuel reserves and other concerns (geopolitical, environmental, health), I think in a way, then, we would be giving in to the people that don’t believe there is such a thing as anthropogenic global warming.
I think on the other hand, the more rational approach””how I see it””would be to take the broad scientific view of the [climate change] problem, with associated uncertainties and risks, and out of that view, then say, well, given what we know of the uncertainties and risks, what is the prudent action to do. I sometimes characterize this situation at my blog, as if it’s bad, it’s really bad, and if it’s good, it’s still pretty bad. In other words, our current actions are actually still too little in a way, even if climate change is less of a problem than we think it is, even if climate sensitivity is 1.5 or 2 degrees rather than 3 degrees per doubling of CO2, which is deemed the most likely value. Of course, things could also turn out worse than expected.
Lucia: But the question is, what if there is a way to make decisions where we reduce the amount of reliance on carbon types of fuel without necessarily resolving the issue of climate change. The issue of climate change can still continue to be discussed. But if we’re trying to decide whether we’re gonna encourage nuclear power, whether we’re going to encourage alternate energy methods, there are other good reasons that have to do that, which have to do with energy security, peak oil and other types of reasons. Is it necessary that we must have everybody on board, agreeing with the IPCC’s view of climate change?
Bart: I’m not saying that we shouldn’t discuss climate science anymore. If people who are so inclined, like you and I, who want to discuss those kinds of details, then sure, go ahead.
But the thing is, right now, a lot of the discussion that is purportedly about climate science, is actually much more about the different ideas people have on how to respond to an issue like this: those who want to do something about the problem, and those who don’t want to do something. That’s what the disagreement is really about, I think. In a way, the debate about climate proxies is just a proxy for the debate on how to respond to the [climate change] issue.
But I think you’re right. There’s a lot of other reasons to reduce our reliance on carbon-based fuels. But a lot of those reasons don’t have the same urgency, because fossil fuel reserves are declining slowly”¦and if it’s just about fossil fuels, then people will say, “we can do a bit more innovation of new technology, and that’s really it, there’s no reason to put solar panels anywhere.” I think climate change is still an important factor besides the other factors that make decarbonization a very important issue.
Keith: Well, we should talk about this, because that sense of urgency is something that is hotly debated across the climate spectrum. Here’s the thing: there seems to be wide agreement by scientists that the worst of potential consequences won’t be felt until later in this century, decades down the road. So if the average person looks out his window and doesn’t see any urgency, and he doesn’t feel personally affected by climate change, it seems a little problematic to have a policy debate on climate change hinge on the urgency argument.
Lucia: As a practical matter, if you’re going to persuade people about the urgency of climate change, that is problematic. When you have a democracy and you have to get people to make collective decisions, the fact that on a day to day basis, especially when you live in, say, Illinois or Minnesota, it’s hard to look out there and say, gosh, this looks urgent. Without doing extensive reading, it makes that a very hard sell.
So some of the other things would be easier sells to get things changed. People don’t like to see their energy prices going up. The notion that you could have more sustained progress and keep your energy bills down by trying to invest in alternative energy might be more attractive to some people. Of course, you’re still going to have arguments about whether or not it’s true. But urgency is a hard sell.
Keith: Leaving aside the practical hurdles that makes climate change a hard sell, what about the case for scientific urgency, which Bart was alluding to? I think what he was saying is that all these other reasons for decarbonization are important but they don’t come with that same sense of urgency as anthropogenic global warming. Do you agree with that Lucia?
Lucia: [A long pause] You see, on a blog I can just like, not answer that. I’m finding myself…I mean, I know the urgency argument is a very hard sell. There’s certainly the case, that if there is uncertainty, and the reality of AGW falls on the high side, combined with an uncertainty on the high side is correct, and heat capacity– the planet is big and responds slowly ““ then, if things are worse than we think, then there’s definitely a huge urgency and we would need to be doing stuff.
But the problem is that you have the urgency argument coupled with the uncertainty argument. [Note: In a follow-up email exchange, Lucia wrote: “I was thinking about the counter argument of what if the truth is on the low side of the uncertainty spread– well, what then?”] I think we need to do something now, and I would really like to see us going towards more nuclear options and I like alternative energy, if we can get people to put them in [KK: Lucia is referring to NIMBYISM.] As I said, I usually avoid blogging about this, because there’s a lot of hard questions that I just don’t have very good answers for.
Bart: I don’t have real answers to that either. But I think it’s true what you say, that the urgency is a very hard sell, because it’s kind of counterintuitive to the nature of the problem. [Global warming] is pretty much a problem in slow motion. In that sense, the word urgency is very counterintitutive. And I don’t actually know if those other reasons for decarbonization, like energy independence, declining fossil fuel reserves, safety, health”¦ I say they’re not very urgent but I don’t claim to know very much about any of those other aspects. So I’m not actually so sure about that part of my statement.
But the reason why I think climate science tells us climate change is more urgent than it seems at first sight is exactly those time scales you allude to. In order to change the energy system, that takes a tremendous amount of time. David Keith made an argument along these lines in some presentations.
There’s a big inertia in the energy system, there’s also a big inertia in the carbon cycle. If you reduce your emissions, it takes a long time for the concentration to actually go down, because it’s a long lifetime for Co2. The climate system has a lot of inertia as well: It takes time for the temperature to respond to a change in concentration.
So you have a large amount of inertia in the energy system, in the carbon cycle and in the climate system, which means if you start taking actions, it’s decades into the future until they start taking effect.
If you combine that inertia in those different systems, with uncertainty of the precise effect, and with some knowledge that it could go pretty wrong with a business as usual scenario, then you have to take proactive steps, and that’s where the urgency comes from.
In my view, it’s similar to a chainsmoker who gets told by a physician, “hey, you should really be careful, you should stop smoking if you care about your heath.” And the person says, “hey I can still bike to the town and I feel fine and my grandmother lived until she was 96 and died in a car accident.”
You can postpone dealing with smoking until you’re in the intensive care unit. But that’s a little late. That’s the line of argument in which I see the urgency of climate global warming.
Lucia: But whenever you have uncertainties in that chain of ifs, that’s where it’s extremely difficult to assess how urgent is it. It’s certainly urgent enough that we should be doing something. What exactly we should be doing, I’m not sure. I’m puzzled to figure out what would actually work.
**Postscript**
On Monday, I’ll post the second and final part of our conversation, which features an exchange on why the blogosphere is not conducive to nuanced debate on climate change.
UPDATE: Be sure to check out Lucia’s comment thread. Lots of good comments there, plus a visit from Steve McIntyre (Comment#45729), who slyly moves the pea under the thimble:
I’m puzzled as to Bart’s apparent antipathy for Climate Audit. I try to write accurately and to correct errors if they are brought to my attention. If I’ve made errors in any posts, I’d appreciate it if Bart would identify them for me so that I can make an appropriate correction.
In response, Bart lifted the pea (Comment#45749):
My issues with your writing is not in alleged errors you do or don’t make, but rather in how you package your message. It often reads as the noble detective trying to unravel some massive fraud, insinuating all kinds of things, mostly subtle (but apparently very clear to your followers nevertheless), sometimes less subtle (“try not to puke”).
[…] interview with Lucia Liljegren (that would be me) and Bart Verheggen of Our Changing Climate. (See Bridging the Climate Divide. […]
Thanks for inviting me to the interview. It was very enjoyable.
[…] between Keith, Lucia and me: The spectrum of opinions, uncertainty, risk and inertia By Bart Keith Kloor has a post up that is an almost literal transcription of a conversation we had between him, myself […]
Lucia: This is the old risk vs uncertainty meme. If there's a 5 % chance of rain you still hold your picnic. If there's a 5 % chance your plane crashes you don't get on the plane.
If the world's best climate science says 50% chance of exceeding 2 degrees C without major emissions reductions and that 2C+ is very likely a dangerous level of climate change what does a reasonable person do?
Of course this is the meme. And people don't have to work in the frame of your simplified metaphor and pretend that those two questions are the way to view the broader issues. We can add all sorts of examples starting with "if".
If Mary the palm reader in my town accosts you and tells you that there is a 100% chance your plane will crash, what do you do? If mechanics inspecting the bolts tell you there is little chance of crashing, but the plane should not take off with bolts in that condition,what does the airline do? If we accept that there really is a 5% chance of a helicopter crashing, but it's lifting you off from a ship that is about to go under, do you get on the helicopter? Maybe you do. If by rain, you mean enough rain to cause water to seep into your basement because you have a faulty drainage tiles, maybe you cancel the picnic and people stay home.
When answering the "if" question, I think it maters how much you trust the person making the prognostication. I think the alternatives matter.
You can't just edit out relevant complexity and present questions as if the answers must be foregone conclusions and then believe that others aren't going to notice that important issues have just been ignored in your "risk vs. uncertainty" metaphors.
Keith,
Thanks for posting this conversation/interview. Both Bart and Lucia are good choices…. but I expect (unfortunately) that most comments you illicit will be from those who are considerably less reasoned than Bart and Lucia.
I'll try not to prove Steve right, at least not immediately. I'm very pleased to see Bart and Lucia talking about this, and I hope the next part goes up quickly.
I do think there's a lot of black and white characterization about a lot of gray issues. I've no doubt I've been as guilty as anyone else about this, but I at least am anxious to move forward.
I'm doing a market analysis on green technology (gotta work for a living), and I think you all would be pleased at my estimates of increased take-up of clean energy generation and fuel efficiency improvements.
The one area where the world does poorly is in retrofitting existing structures for fuel efficiency. Just not sexy enough, I guess. I bring that up because in terms of decoupling discussion of climate change and energy policy, it's important to realize that there are differing sizes of megaphones out there. General Electric can keep wind power at the top of a lot of agendas. The IPCC can do the same with climate change. But without the spur of climate change who sets the agenda? I think we need to find an answer right away, because I do believe that the IPCC will lose control of the agenda, if it hasn't already.
There's an engineering faction that smiles at us all and says that a natural progression–converting from coal to natural gas and thence to nuclear–is inevitable and will solve the problem. The numbers add up that way, but it's very expensive going through two generations of infrastructure in, well, two generations. And talking about it as if it were manifest destiny doesn't make it sound very much like a policy, does it?
My personal belief is that solar power is going to grow in the same way that the computer industry grew, and that we are all going to be surprised at the level of contribution it makes. But again, that isn't a policy–it's an earthquake.
Candidate Obama I think had a very good policy–better than President Obama. But what we have now is a series of pie throwing contests at Cap and Trade and BP. Where are the conversations on energy policy, outside of climate change debates?
I notice the following parallel between the climate debate and general political debate:
It is conventional wisdom that both sides have "crazies". But only on one side can one easily name well-known crazies (e.g. Marc Morano, Lord Monckton in climate, Limbaugh and Beck in general politics). The other side may have crazies, but those crazies are marginalized. The well-known people on the other side who are often held up as equivalent to the crazies (e.g. Joe Romm, Paul Krugman) may be "shrill", but they aren't lying or delusional, which is to say they are not equivalent.
This asymmetry in the frame of the debate is well illustrated by Micheal Tobis's graph of public debate vs educated opinion that was linked in the main article. Responsible people who want the public to understand the issue and have a reasoned debate about what to do, or not do, need to clearly label the true crazies as such, and reject false equivalencies.
Keith – Well done again. Very nice to see a very nuanced, polite and reasoned discussion of some of the issues that climate science and the politics of climate science face. the world needs more of this type of discussion and less of the screeds that come from those that seem to believe, by their writings, that rants, exagerration, false umbrage, and insults are the appropriate means to reach a way forward on addressing both climate change and energy policy.
(end part 1)
(Part II)
As to decoupling future energy policy from the "climate change debate", I believe that may be the best way forward in terms of being able to do something to achieve some level of decarbonization with some level of concensus. As noted in Pielke Jr.'s blog on some recent polling results, the US public's support for action on climate change is broad but only if it doesn't affect lifestyles/pocketbooks too much. This is compounded, I think, because the potential for catastrophic consequences is outside of most of our lifetimes. Presenting the positive benefits of decarbonization that might be realized much sooner, such as energy security, less destruction of the environment (e.g., oil well blowouts, mountaintop coal mining, less ozone/smog), less need to be involved in middle east and other conflicts due to a reduced need for their oil and potentially a reduction in the threat of terrorism are all reasonable lines of argument for a change in energy policy toward decarbonization which may be more broadly acceptable than the CAGW approach.
You're misreading me. Let me re-phrase: The world's best climate science does conclude that there is a 50% chance of exceeding 2 degrees C without major emissions reductions and that 2C+ is very likely a dangerous level of climate change.
Is there science that says otherwise? There is some but not much.
Nine doctors tell you have an infection and prescribe antibiotics and one says you're just fine, what do you do?
As to complexity should I ask each of the doctors how they arrived at their conclusion? Maybe. Should I run the tests myself? Should I question the very basis of the science of bacteriology? At that rate I will be dead.
"Where are the conversations on energy policy, outside of climate change debates?"
Tom, I've been harping on this on my blog quite a lot. I suspect those conversations will only start again when it costs car drivers $75-$100 to fill up their gas tank. But I'm determined to try to get them going on my blog.
This is the one area where I've wondered if a gas tax was really needed. Because otherwise there really is no incentive now for the average person to get engaged with the energy issue (just like the lack of climate change impact to average joe is not a prompt.)
BobN–
So on that note, yes, I agree with your list of other reasons for decarbonization. The trouble with all that (eg. energy security, less dependcy on Middle east, etc) is that it hasn't really gained traction. And as I've noted on my blog several times, if ever there was a time for it to gain traction, it was in the aftermath of 9/11 (which Thomas Friedman was trying to do with many columns), but it never took hold.
On a related note, I'm susceptible to the peak oil argument. But there again, the timeframe (similar to climate change) is too far out for people today to get whipped up about (which Bart noted in our exchange).
Now, you might think that peak oil & climate change would go hand in hand as a nice one-two punch for the disaster meme crowd. However, as illustrated by this Davd Roberts post ( http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-03-why-do-pe… those two camps don't actually see eye-to-eye.
Stephen,
I don't think I was misreading you. Your rephrase now just tells me that the worlds best climate science says "X". You follow that by ask me if I know of science that says otherwise.
To answer the question, I'm not entirely sure I know that any best climate science has pinpointed there is an exactly 50% chance blah, blah blah. I suspect you are leaving out some caveats and/or you drew that precise number from something, it's a particular paper. But I agree that many climate scientists believe something in that vicinity and there are certainly good arguments for that statement being true.
But I don't know why you are asking me whether the science says otherwise because nothing about my previous answer was based on disputing that climate science seems to be pointing to the truth in the vicinity of that claim.
I think you are trying to ask oversimplified "if" questions that you think have obvious answers. Your rephrased if about climate scientists still doesn't include a compilation of possible actions, nor does it include information about trade-offs.
Now on to your hypothetical:
Nine doctors tell you have an infection and prescribe antibiotics and one says you're just fine, what do you do?
Is it Eurythromycin or Pennicyllin? I don't take the antibiotics because I'm allergic to those.
Out of curiosity, do I feel fine or do I feel poorly? How bad is the infection? Why did I go to nine doctors? Have I already taken antibiotics prescribed by the first 9 and found them ineffective? Is that why I went to to the 10th?
How is your asking adding complexity? You automatically eliminated complexity from the problem by leaving out what the actual infection is and how I, the patient, might respond to antibiotics.
I included complications above, but here are few more:
What's the infection? My understanding is many infections are viral; this observations does not question the whole science of bacteriology.
Also, what's the symptom of my infection? Is it acne? Am I prone to vaginal yeast infections often triggered by taking anti-biotics? Maybe I should explore non-antibiotic acne treatments. I probably have time to try something like retynol that before dying from acne.
If you want to explain why urgency is required, explain it. But trying to present oversimplified metaphors that you think must be answered "I do what 9 doctors tell me", without providing any information surrounding what I consulted 10 in the first place isn't particularly useful.
A while back I made a similar argument to Lucia's about the difficulties of implementing actions to thwart climate change from a control theory standpoint. When the system you are trying to control has long lags and your feedback is noisy and occassionally out of phase with your control input, then tendency to over control or under control is ever present. In simple terms, As we make changes to GHG levels, it's almost certain that the short term feedback will most certainly be at odds with that control input. People and politicians act and think on a short term basis, a political cycle basis. If we, for example, impose draconian cuts in GHGs and if by chance of weather the climate warms suddenly, how will people react? If it by chance cooled suddenly how would people react? Tough problem
Thanks for hosting and posting this excellent dialogue, Keith! There is room for a LOT more reasoned, thoughtful discourse like this. Looking forward to part two!
Keith, Lucia and Bart, well done! This is already generating thoughtful dialogue
GFW,
Indeed, I agree with that assessment. Perhaps to add, the crazies on either side are usually not climate scientists. The difference, as you note, is that the crazies on the one side are well known and given megaphones by the media and are hugely popular amongst certain segments of people, whereas the crazies on the other side are marginalized.
Thank Keith and Lucia for a nice conversation, that was fun.
Good to see many positive reactions here.
I never mentioned policy, I have only been talking about science.
Please. Do you really think this argument holds any water? It's nothing more than the counterproductive "I am right and you are crazy" argument so commonly used by CAGW advocates.
.
It addresses none of the legitimate concerns raised about the magnitude of danger posed by AGW or the relative costs and benefits of public action to address global warming. It contributes nothing toward reaching a reasoned consensus, and only makes reaching a consensus less likely.
Here in Norway a new survey came out today showing that 25% of the public would accept a 10% increase in their already very high electricity bill if the monies went to public investments in solar/wind energy.
They are also willing to pay extra taxes for public transit if they are guaranteed that those taxes are 'earmarked' for transit.
And this is a country that had a hard winter and wants warmer temps – and doesn't believe that CC will hurt their country
If you want to see more thoughtful dialogue, see the exchange between Prof. Richard Lindzen, MIT and Prof Hadi Dowlatabadi, University of British Columbia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY
Stephen,
"Lucia: This is the old risk vs uncertainty meme"
This is a policy meme.
Questions end with "… what does a reasonable person do?" and"…. , what do you do? " are policy questions, not science questions.
If you thinking asking those questions is talking about science and not mentioning policy, I would suggest you are mistaken.
The thoughtful discussion is appreciated. It would be good to include Lomborg’s ideas. Paraphrasing, if it is a long term problem, then rather than acting urgently, we should trust that human intelligence will come up with solutions in time that are outside our current thinking. Not Lomborg’s words but I understand that projections in 1900 were that New York streets were going to be meters deep in horse droppings, and the entire female working population of the USA would be telephone switchboard operators. Urgent action in 1900 couldnt allow for innovation. Thank goodness that no one acted urgently in 1900.
I thought it was more an observation than an argument. As for whether it holds water, well, apparently Bart thinks it does.
By all means provide some counter-examples. The worst that I *think* you can come up with would be Gore repeating Maslowski's 2013 without double-checking it.
Speaking of counter productive, labeling me a "CAGW advocate" is pretty slanted. I think the Charney sensitivity is pretty close to 3. That will not be catastrophic in my lifetime. Considering a 2100-2200 timeframe, it really depends on one's definition of catastrophic. I mean 2 meters/century of sea level rise (an upper bound possible if we go with maximal emissions and if pessimistic models of dynamic ice sheet processes are correct) would create a heck of a lot of problems, but it's still rather slow-motion to call it a catastrophe. We've already seen fishery collapses *not* caused by AGW (overfishing mostly) – those weren't catastrophes in the sense that we're all still here and Jerry Bruckheimer hasn't filmed "The Last Cod". So if AGW causes a few more fishery collapses, does the "c word" apply?
I think we need to get away from labels like "catastrophe", soberly assess likely impacts, and determine which ones impose costs greater than mitigation. Can you imagine a Morano, a Monkton, or an Inhofe making a productive contribution to that assessment?
Many people (including myself) fully agree with you that entirely independently of AGW there exist excellent reasons for decarbonization – indeed that if approached in the right sequence decarbonization could provide positive return on investment quite quickly.
However, the suggestion that decoupling the arguments and focusing on the non-AGW side would lead to greater support … strikes me as unlikely. There are high-ranking veterans of America's military, diplomatic and intelligence communities trying to make that argument, and they aren't getting much press. Separate the arguments or pile them up, the opposition is the wealthiest, most powerful industry to ever exist. As long as money = protected political speech, that's going to be a tough nut to crack.
GFW, well said.
Steve F, you characterization of "I am right and you are crazy" is a strawman. I didn't read it as meaning that at all.
Richard Hill, I don't agree with Lomborg's reasoning in that respect, as I explained in my last remarks:
"So you have a large amount of inertia in the energy system, in the carbon cycle and in the climate system, which means if you start taking actions, it’s decades into the future until they start taking effect. If you combine that inertia in those different systems, with uncertainty of the precise effect, and with some knowledge that it could go pretty wrong with a business as usual scenario, then you have to take proactive steps, and that’s where the urgency comes from.
In my view, it’s similar to a chainsmoker who gets told by a physician, “hey, you should really be careful, you should stop smoking if you care about your heath.” And the person says, “hey I can still bike to the town and I feel fine and my grandmother lived until she was 96 and died in a car accident." You can postpone dealing with smoking until you’re in the intensive care unit. But that’s a little late. That’s the line of argument in which I see the urgency of climate global warming."
Richard (cont'd): I commented on Lomborg's 'eternal postponement' reasoning in more detail at my blog: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/09/1…
Be sure to also read Judith Curry's OpEd on Lomborg (linked at various places on Keith's blog)
Bart,
There's something you said in our conversation that I'm surprised no one has picked up on yet:
"Secondly, If we leave the question totally aside of whether there is climate change and whether it was caused by humans, and only do what we would otherwise also do because of declining fossil fuel reserves and other concerns (geopolitical, environmental, health), I think in a way, then, WE WOULD BE GIVING IN TO THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS SUCH A THING AS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING."
(Sorry for the CAPS, I just haven't figured out how to bold or ital words in this new comment system.)
Bart, this notion of "giving in" is what I believe is at the heart of some of the churlish behavior and white hat/black mindset of AGW proponents who are frequent participants in these comment threads. The irony is, you otherwise distinguish yourself for your civility and open-mindedness. So I think this last part of your statement is a variation of the kind of tribalism that keeps this debate in a battle mode.
It's been a futile endeavor for me to try and get this point across over at Stoat http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/on_tribalis…
and elsewhere, including this blog.
So I think your statement reflects this locked-horns battle mentality that we have to get past if we are to advance the debate. Frankly, who cares what hardcore skeptics that deny AGW think if you can accomplish your goal (decarbonization) through other means?
Keith,
I also think the notion of "giving in" is interesting. I honestly don't understand why someone who thinks switching to less carbon intensive forms of energy is more important should care whether the switch was accomplished for what they consider the "right reason".
We know the response of the earth's climate system is to the level of CO2 and other ghg's. It doesn't care what Joe down the blog believes about the effect of CO2 or ghgs. If Joe the AGW skeptic is willing to accept nuclear energy instead of a coal fired plant, that switch to less carbon intensive energy will result in lower CO2 and the planet will respond. At least with regard to the choice of energy source, why should any scientist care about Joe?
I also suspect that if we start building nuclear baseload, many people will become less fearful about the possibility of a future without the comforts supplied by energy. This itself might lessen the resistance to people making commitments to further reduce fossil fuel use. So, in this sense, "giving in" and letting those who don't believe in AGW continue to believe it while we create alternative energy sources might actually be the way to "win" both the more important battle on what we do and the somewhat less important battle of getting as close to 100% so uninterested in climate science that as far as an scientist is concerned, it will seem 100% of the public accepts what they say. (The real truth will be what happens in most fields. Most people have no opinion on any scientific topic. For example: Most people have no opinion on Bernouilli's equation and when it applies.)
Just use html to highlight and make things bold. (A preview feature would be nice. )
In my opinion, carbon/energy policies are best considered in a broader framework of sustainability, similar to the way ICSU is framing their grand challenges http://www.icsu-visioning.org/wp-content/uploads/…
This clearly spells out the complexity of the challenges.
Risk vs uncertainty is also science. I had not gotten to policy yet. I think you have to first make a decision to act or not act based on the evidence then and then policy. But this is hair-splitting.
Keith I agree there are powerful arguments for decarbonization irrespective of climate change – at least for some countries. Surprisingly it's still not happening. It is simplistic to blame this paralysis on the current debate over AGW. It is a factor especially in the US but there is plenty of other resistance — ie the attempt to move some of the oil company subsidies to green energy failed.
That is why it is really climate change (the original term), not global warming. Education on the issue would help ie weather and climate aren't the same thing. And increasing public awareness that the rise in extreme weather events are what is to be expected when more heat energy is trapped in the Earth's atmosphere.
Risk versus uncertainty is not the science. It is risk, which includes uncertainty, versus cost. In classical risk assessment (not science), great uncertainty should only be addressed when a greater benefit/cost ratio is indicated than less costly, less uncertain other actions. In the interview (and at Roger Jr’s site), Lucia’s approach does follow what a risk assessment would indicate. Lucia’s comments in the replies, also follow the procedure correctly. The assessment has to include your certainty and also possible adverse effects, such as the potential of efficacy of treatment if one is allergic, or side effects that could include vaginitis. She is not hairsplitting. She is showing that your simplistic approach is, well, simplistic. Your comment was not a risk assessment, nor a proper ranking of actions nor alternatives.
This is a good exchange. To me, it teaches two things.
(1) The Precautionary Principle is one of many considerations that should be factored into thinking about AGW policy responses. It is not a card that trumps all others.
(2) Simple metaphors have limitations as teaching tools when discussing complex issues at the interface of science and policy. They can also be unhelpful as far as thinking carefully about a range of questions, as many of them won't fit into a metaphor's paradigm.
This is along the lines of Steven Mosher's comment above. Take for example, the concept that 2C is going to be unacceptable. If one is going assess the risk and consider the uncertainty, then Tebaldi and Knutti's works where they state that it could be 130 years for us to know if a 100 year computer model prediction is actually correct are relevant. The assessment now becomes very low order, even if the assumed risk is great. Upon examining whether the 2C is unacceptable. Who is it unacceptable and why? If the net effect, is that mankind will benefit from the increase at the expense of the biosphere that is evolved for low temperature conditions, this puts the acceptability or unacceptability back into public domain.
All,
This is a really good thread. I hope we can keep it going through the weekend, but I ask you all to be patient if your comments are held in moderation for up to an hour. I'm in transit today and have yet to figure out how to set this system in automatic approval.(Still working out the kinks.)
So I'll be checking in as often as I can via my i-phone (from which I can approve comments) and will be contributing again to the thread later today or tonight.
Stephen, I think you are being unduly pessimistic about our efforts to decarbonize. My head is full of mind-numbing statistics about the reverse being true, as I am writing a report on the market state of green technologies right now. I don't think very many people understand just how much is being done, and how much is committed to being done in the future.
It's very much as if everybody started reading Ray Kurzweil at the same time, were magically convinced about exponential development of technologies, and went out and started trying to make it come true. And although that sounds facetious, I'm really serious.
If decarbonization is in fact the appropriate response to a variety of sustainability issues, we should all take heart. It is happening and will accelerate over the coming five years.
Agreed that when it's utterly important to do the right thing, that it's ok to settle for doing it for the wrong reason. However, it does set a bad precedent counter to the "everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts" concept that a shared understanding of reality is important to a democracy.
As for nuclear … hey, I'm all for a level-playing-field competition between nuclear, fossil-fuels with effective sequestration, wind, solar pv & solar-thermal. I just think it's pretty clear that if that playing field was truly level in terms of direct and indirect subsidies, the currently-being-deployed nuclear reactor designs would lose badly. Nuclear plants require huge capital investment, a supporting mining industry, a specialized waste storage infrastructure, high security …
Anyway, my point is that just because we could get some more people on board the decarbonization train by indulging their reflexive DFH-bashing, doesn't mean we should make bad decisions about how to decarbonize based upon such reflexive DFH-bashing.
Heh, "plenty of other resistance" you say. That's an understatement. The problem (IMO) is the vast political power of the fossil fuel industry. They've achieved regulatory capture and lavish subsidies with that power. Of course they will attempt (usually successfully) to block any support of any possible competitor.
As I said upthread: The opposition is the wealthiest, most powerful industry to ever exist. As long as money = protected political speech, that's going to be a tough nut to crack.
I agree strongly with your points that we are mostly ignoring one of the best opportunities (retrofitting existing structures) and that a "natural" progression of power generating industries guided by short-term motivations is likely to be considerably more expensive in the long run.
On that second point, you're right – that's why we need long-term analysis and policy. I *hope* you're right about unexpected growth in solar, but I'd like to see a policy that makes that more likely.
Back to the retrofitting point, I think the trouble is that people can't "see" where their structures are poorly performing, so they have less motivation to act, and even if they generally want to, they don't know what to tackle first. My idea is this: if Google can drive trucks around to get a Street View of darn near every location in the country, surely the government could produce street level (and maybe aerial) thermographs of darn near every building in the country. Make them all viewable (in say, Google) and let people at it. You'll have homeowners understanding that, for example, their insulation is fine but their weather-stripping is terrible. Better, you'll have contractors trawling the data for potential customers – "Hi, Mr. Smith, did you know that 50% of your heat loss is through just six of your windows. Maybe I could interest you in these …" Anyway, you get the idea.
Education does not seem to help those on either side. The over reaction to short term events that confirm global warming are just as ill informed as the over reaction to short term events that dis confirm global warming. If for example, we saw 10 really hot years do you honestly think people who believe in AGW would say it was just the weather. Or would they say "its worse than we thought, do more drastic action. IF you believe the science, the n the science says you wont see the feedback signal from your actions for DECADES. It's not a process that will respond in measurable ways over the political term of those making the decision. And politican like to take credit for making things better
Just about every country has agreed that 2C is unacceptable even the US — for many 1.5C is too risky. There are a host to of studies supporting this but essentially it is the risk of positive feedbacks such as we are seeing in the Arctic.
It is astonishing you could say mankind could benefit at the expense of the biosphere – we are utterly dependent on the biosphere. Where do you think oxygen comes from or water or food?
It makes a huge difference if those ten years are globally warmer (which they have been) or just in your city. The former is climate the latter is weather.
I agree the results of taking action will be long term and not obvious. This is a different order of crisis than humans have ever faced. I have heard policy experts telling climate scientists to change their recommendations because they were politically unrealistic.
Physics doesn't play politics and it doesn't negotiate.
Keith,
That's a good point, about the "giving in" part. I wasn't happy with my phrasing of that at all.
There is nothing against emission reductions for other reasons than climate change (and there are many good reasons). What I did try to point out was that I think the climate change issue has more urgency to it than many of the other reasons for decarbonization (though I made a qualifying statement that I don't know the ins and outs of all those other issues of course). Or at the very least that it's a very important reason. (to be cont'd)
(cont'd)
The risk of doing something for the 'wrong' reasons (or for other reasons than the major reason) is that maybe another solution is found for the 'other' problem and then the problem that really needs addressing, but that was strategically left out of the reasoning, is left unchecked. That's the way in which I meant "giving in" to only doing what needs to be done for other reasons than climate change: It carries the risk that not enough is done, or not fast enough, or that it will be stopped if other solutions are found for the 'other' problems (eg new fossil reserves; better filters for pollution; improvement of the geopilitical situation, etc).
I did not mean that even though people may be entirely correct, I'd loath to "give in" to their PoV just because I don't like them, or because they;re in another tribe or something. But I do how it can come across that way, and I phrased it very poorly indeed.
Thanks for clarifying, Bart. I have to think, though, that decarbonization for those other reasons, would also address climate change.
I think the more salient question, related to this, is which presents itself as more an urgent prompt to the public body: the distant dangers of AGW or the near distant geopolitical/sociopolitical dangers associated with peak oil, etc.
Keith I continue to point out to you that impacts of CC are already here. Millions already affected. I mean just look at what is going on the Arctic. Extreme events have already increased – weather records are constantly being set. This is not some far off problem, it is here and now.
De-carbonization is absolutely essential, and I hope you are right but I am not seeing many signs of it. Mostly we've been 'decarbonizing' by buying stuff from other countries like this laptop I'm writing on. A significant portion of China's emissions are because we are buying their stuff. All that matters from a climate physics point of view is the total global emissions.
Here's an article I wrote on this based on some new research on global consumption patterns. http://ipsnews.net/newsTVE.asp?idnews=51710
Stephen, you keep pointing it out because I don't completely buy into it, for the same reason I don't by into this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment…
It's not as cut and dry and you make it out to be. Disentangling socio/political causes from AGW-affected impacts is complicated. History tells us this, too (e.g., untangling environmental change, such as catastrophic drought with socio/cultural influences).
It is cut and dry as far as the Arctic is concerned. The entire region is 2 to 3C warmer than 30 years ago and sea ice, the dominant feature of the region is is rapidly melting. Last winter's freeze up produced a layer of thin ice which is why it hit a record low melt for the month last May.
There are dozens of examples like this, not to mention the fact that the last decade was the hottest on record and this year likely to be the hottest year on record. Why wouldn't there be impacts?
I've read the Global Humanitarian Forum Report and it acknowledges the difficulties you suggest and even more but concludes a very conservative estimate is that CC is responsible for an additional 300, 000 deaths per year.
Just because its complicated doesn't mean it doesn't exist. One of the fundamental conditions of our global climate system has been altered — much more heat energy is being trapped every year. Of course there are impacts.
Keith,
Which issues are more urgent is a valid questionf course. About the fossil reserves (and the associated 'peak oil'), it's worth noting that the conventional supplies of oil will likely still last for, what is it, between 50 and 100 years or so, according to different estimates? There's still plenty of coal (which could technically be transformed into a liquid, alleviating the problems of 'peak oil', though it would be environmentally and climatologically disastrous). Then there's unconventional fossil fuels, including oil. I don't see how the fossil reserves could carry the same sense of urgency that I think climate change has. Socio-economic impacts of peak oil, maybe, I don't really know. Declining fossil reserves are an important motivation for technological innovation, but not so much for starting seriously with emissions reductions.
That they have agreed to the iPCC, I note, at IPCC meetings. The difference is that many have agreed to it based on the IPCC assessment. This does not make their assessment correct. As you alluded to the risk assessment in a post above, I reccommend you read at RPielkeJr's blog the economist who points out the errors of AR4. This means the monetary assessment of AR4 is wrong and yes one can make a case for 2C being beneficial. You cannot do it with the iPCC report. You may be able to do it with a corrected IPCC report.
Judith Curry posted a link at another blog with his actual report. No need to hunt at RPielkeJr's site at all. Thanks Judith. The economist is Richard Tol, contributing lead on several, and selected for the new IPCC report. http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/2010/05/submis… Part of the unacceptability of 2C has been the cost estimate of mitigation versus adaptation. Tol shows that the numbers are wrong. I need only assume a different cost ratio and yes 2C would benefit mankinf if for no other reason than being cheaper with better food production.
To avoid making it personal… the problem is that "we are right and they are crazy" is exactly what is assumed. On both "sides."
The fact that one group is generally in the driver's seat right now automatically means the other group is seen at best as "the opposition."
Thus, Romm is viewed as generally correct if a bit excessive… while McIntyre is seen as potentially correct yet making nasty insinuations.
I don't know what it will take to "fix" this.
The real problem: science has been politicized and policy-ized (i.e. biased towards certain political or policy views.) And those on the majority side of the politics/policy naturally make it hard for the "loyal opposition" to be heard.
If we could remove the politics and policy biases from the science, I think ideally there would be a scientific bias in favor of skepticism, simply because that's how science best moves forward.
Science improves best when we're all doing our best to poke holes in the latest idea. That is NOT what is happening right now.
I approach this whole thing from the caution of recognizing that humanity has a horrible record when it comes to environmental intervention. Our historical tendency is to presume we understand the issues, presume we know what to do, presume we know the impact of our intended action, and to go ahead… only to discover that our course of action had some pretty awful unintended consequences. This is not universally true of course; sometimes do do the right thing for the right reason in the right way.
But right now, what I see is yet another example of people assuming we know what is going on with carbon and climate… yet we keep discovering major contributors to ghg's and major influencers of climate…and clearly don't have a solid handle on paleoclimate.
And we assume we know the impact of potential solutions … yet we keep discovering unintended consequences, and gotchas related to various green energy outcomes. So far, I've seen severe downsides to current wind and solar energy. Which leaves me in favor of nuclear but (I assume) that has issues as well.
People are notoriously bad at predicting the future. In general, things work out much better than pessimists assume, but not as perfectly as pie-in-the-sky optimists hope for. And we have close to zero ability to correctly guess what kinds of inventions will be helpful in 10, 25 or 50+ years.
(BTW, Keith if you're interested I'll attempt to make my "CA Assistant" compatible with this site, next time I update it… it's in use at Lucia's and CA's sites…)
"CA Assistant" is a very useful software add-on. Among other things, it adds a "Preview" feature, and makes basic html formatting (bold, italics, links) much more commenter-friendly. It also seems to be pretty bug-free: it's never caused a hang or crash on my system. Keith, it might be worth looking into something like that.
I would agree with this: "Thus, Romm is viewed as generally correct if a bit excessive… while McIntyre is seen as potentially correct yet making nasty insinuations."
And that's because Romm, since he is viewed on that "majority" and "correct" side, is given a wide berth with his slashing style and rhetorical excesses. I've previously criticized this ends-justifies-the-means tactic–many times on this blog, which eventually prompted just such a response from Romm at his site.
I'm interested in doing anything to make this new comment system more user-friendly. I've asked the guy who runs my site to look into it. If it's compatible with Intense Debate–this system–I'm all for it.
2C does not translate into better food production, just the opposite as many studies show. I don't see how there are many benefits with a climate subject to more extremes. The warming is not evenly distributed as you suggest.
Tol and most other economists know very little about ecology and economics does not value ecological services like clean air. Moreover destructive events like Hurricane Katrina increase the US's GDP. That's not much of guide to make decisions by.
The 2C target has little to do with economics in any case. It's about avoiding tipping points in the climate system that would be irreversible and generate positive feedback loops like we are beginning to see in the Arctic.
First, my appreciation to both our host and the two participants for a most interesting discussion. I have been a commenter on the blogs of both participants, and found them both very open, inquisitive, and supportive.
I do have an issue with Bart's comment, viz:
In my experience, this is a totally false dichotomy between "do something" and "do nothing". There is a third way, which I call the "no-regrets option".
This is to take those actions which will be of value whether or not CO2 is an issue. All of the projected catastrophes of increased CO2 are with us today. We already have the floods, and the droughts, and the diseases, and the rising sea levels, and all of the myriad Biblical plagues foretold by AGW adherents. If an increase in those is the issue, and we are facing those same issues today, to me the reasonable path is to work on those problems today. If increased drought turns out to be a problem in 50 years, we should start working on solutions for drought today. That way, whether CO2 is an issue or not, we have a fifty year head start on the drought problem. I discuss these issues further at "Climate, Caution, and Precaution".
Keith, you have presented a very interesting interchange. My thanks to Lucia, Bart, and yourself.
w.
Mr Pete,
I agree with your argument, but not the conclusion.
"only to discover that our course of action had some pretty awful unintended consequences."
So when the science starts shedding light on the "pretty awful unintended consequences" of having burnt so much fossil fuels, it makes sense to me to try to remedy those consequences and try to prevent them from growing worse.
Well GFW, soberly assessing impacts and evaluating potential costs and benefits for mitigation is a whole lot more productive than suggesting people are either lying or delusional.
I was not suggesting that you are a "CAGW advocate". I was saying that I found your first comment reminiscent of the typical argument offer by Joe Romm and the like, and counterproductive… if your goal is the kind of consensus needed for any significant action. The sober analysis of impacts and costs that you suggest is NOT in any way unreasonable.
While I suspect that the climate sensitivity is significantly lower than you do, there is for sure enough uncertainty to justify careful continued study. And I completely agree that a worst case sea level change of 1 or 2 cm in a year would unlikely to be "catastrophic" to humanity. But I think is prudent to keep in mind that 1 to 2 cm per year is an upper bound, not a best estimate.
Projections of total economically recoverable carbon fuels suggests to me that even the BAU projections of atmospheric CO2 are unlikely to be close to correct. By the time atmospheric CO2 approaches 2X the pre-industrial level, emissions will almost certainly have already been falling for some time, and the age of fossil fuels will be ending. Preparing for that certain eventuality is a better argument for conservation and energy research today than is the need for immediate mitigation. Alarm need not be (and I think should not be) involved, since alarmed people too often make alarmingly bad decisions.
The interesting thing is, it doesn't require any changes to the site (although sometimes that helps.)
No promises as to when (I'm as overloaded as anyone) but I'll add this site to my goals for the next version 🙂
Correct. So, we are quite certain that pollution is a bad consequence, and have been mitigating it.
Personally, my bent is toward caution: if we know of a mitigation strategy that will likely solve a real problem, and will not harm a lot of real people, then great. But if our mitigation strategies are not known to work, are not known to address a real issue, and have a significant likelihood of causing great harm… I'm not going to jump for joy.
Problem is, we really don't have a good handle on the CO2 thing. We keep discovering major new ghg sources (cf bovine methane etc.) We haven't settled whether growing new forests / cutting down forests is a good remedy. There's lots of evidence that climate was warmer than this not all that long ago (cf arctic treelines far north of today's treeline.) And most of the recommended solutions are known to be costly not only to Western economies but even more damaging to developing world peoples, particularly in the Global South. (I do a lot of work in those parts of the world…)
[…] I’m whistling Dixie with this modest attempt to bridge the climate divide. Consider what Nicholas Kristof wrote last year, in an op-ed column titled, The Daily Me: there’s […]
[…] Reflections on climate discussions in the blogosphere between Keith, Lucia and me, part 2: The role of blogs By Bart Keith Kloor has posted part 2 of the conversation we had with the three of us (i.e. him, Lucia and me). The topic of discussion here is the role of blogs in fostering reasoned discussion (or rather staunch debate, see e.g. Bob Grumbine’s discussion of the difference). This one is much shorter than part 1. […]
MrPete, all of these observations are as much an argument FOR decarbonization as they are AGAINST it. Doing nothing is doing something.
Willis, as I understand your linked post, it talks about mitigation, not carbon reduction. It rests on the assertion, presented without attribution, that "proposed remedies are estimated to cost on the order of a trillion dollars a year."
What about carbon reduction strategies that cost far less than that, or are actually cost-saving (increased efficiency, job creation in new industries)?
Isn't the dichotomy between "do nothing" and "a trillion dollars a year" another false one?
Richard Hill was right about the predictions of horse manure being meters deep on NYC streets—there was no way for them to know ahead of time about automobiles, the consequent US obsession with them, or the way that obsession has altered how we live in the US. But we can’t assume that technology and innovation WILL solve the problem and go on acting however we wish. (I think that will be the eventual outcome, though.)
Bart’s comment about giving in reflects the Least Common Denominator approach that is so very common in political circles and organizations in general. One side wants the moon, the other side isn’t prepared to give an inch, and we get a low value policy as the outcome that neither side is happy with, but that all agree is better than nothing.
Why we all tend to agree about these mediocre policies is something I don’t understand. Seems to me that you need to give each side something significant, something that they can latch on to as a victory. These can’t be mutually exclusive things, either, but they have to both at least lead toward the eventual goal.
Bill
we really don't have a good handle on the CO2 thing
Which "CO2 thing?" I think the fact that CO2 is rising due to human activity is fairly broadly accepted, even Willis agrees. You may be referring to climate sensitivity, where there is at least a greater degree of uncertainty, though not so great as to include the idea that it's wholly benign to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So some greater precision here would be of value.
We keep discovering major new ghg sources (cf bovine methane etc.)
If by "keep discovering," you mean "have known for a long, long time," why then yes.
We haven't settled whether growing new forests / cutting down forests is a good remedy.
Please share with me the research indicating that deforestation is "a good remedy" for atmospheric CO2. I was under the impression that the opposite was fairly well established.
And most of the recommended solutions are known to be costly not only to Western economies but even more damaging to developing world peoples, particularly in the Global South.
Again, this needs to be discussed in greater detail. I'm heartened that you at least allow that some "of the recommended solutions" are not "known to be costly." Perhaps the discussion could begin there.
I find I have a similar mindblock from the opposite camp:
I'm extremely skeptical that the scientists can make any claim whatsoever from the scanty data and pessimistic, one-sided interpretations and extrapolations presented by the IPCC. My skepticism of scientists heightens with a) all the world-ending scares that were plain wrong and b) the amount of sheer bad science. One good example that falls in both categories is the Gulf-stream shift myth.
And yet….. I've always been 100% for green, alternative energy sources and this CO2 scare has undeniably boosted those efforts in a good way much to my surprise.
And I also detest the "this will cost trillions" mentality from people whose record of economic prediction is just as dire as the predictions of doom from over-enthusiastic scientists but I can't deny those hard-line skeptics have a point that in the short term hiking energy prices could hurt many more people than might die later from any postulated climate change. Too many people in the CAGW camp just gloss over that idea, often unethically implying that tomorrows children are more important than todays and that we need to suffer short term pain for long term gain. I think they really lose the moral high ground there.
And let's sort out the CAGW from AGW. The latter may well be beneficial. If you believe some scientists then we may have actually staved off an ice age. It's undeniably to anyone with a sense of history or logic that warm is better than cold, the only question is what is the limit? And that's 100% guesswork. In short, if you take out the C from CAGW then there is no problem to solve. So Bart is in the CAGW camp and so are realclimate.org, Annan and Connely. The true middle ground is Lindzen and the rest of the lukewarmer camp who accept the 1 degree sensitivity but not the 3 degrees that relies hugely on pessimistic guesswork.
I suspect both sides (excluding wingnuts) could easily make big concessions if they drop their linear thinking. Probably most folk see nothing much wrong with any reasonable carbon tax as long as it goes towards green energy research (like the Swedes). Most folk also seem to have big problems with cap and trade and carbon credits for the same reasons that Jim Hansen hates them, in that it will only enrich financial institutions and do nothing for the environment. As for targets on CO2 reduction. Let's have them. They are meaningless without an energy plan anyway and the whole world knows we need to plan to move away from fossil fuels at some point. I'm not sure about marching down the wrong path with nuclear (speaking as an ex nuclear engineer). I'm frankly amazed that intelligent people see less danger from nuclear proliferation than from fossil fuel use. But that's another issue that would come out in any proper energy debates as opposed to the futile carbon limit summits.
The “rational” sceptic position is really not very far from the alarmist position, in fact it sits within the “consensus”, and could be summarised as “AGW is probably real, but I’m a bit sceptical that sensitivity is as high as that stated by the IPCC”. This is a position which we should be able to work from, the uncertainty is high, but so is the potential risk, so the precautionary principle should come into play – we should seek out ECONOMIC solutions.
But AGW is really a trojan horse for other agendas: sustainability, social justice, environmentalism; so we are not really arguing about the science on its own merits, but to try to get the upper hand so we can justify the higher economic costs of our personal agenda – and of course this then has its associated reactionaries.
Politicians muddy the waters further, their support for AGW is to garner specific support and bolster ideology – usually a mixture of environmentalism, socialism, market protection etc.
So we need some rational and pragmatic thinking here. Expecting the populace to sacrifice their prosperity or freedoms isn’t realistic, it won;t happen, so change tack. Insisting we support “renewable” technologies up front (picking the winner), generates enormous resistance, and rightly so. Energy subsidies should be economic and in return for useful power and overall reductions in CO2 – anything less is little more than a scam at the expense of the consumer.
Finally the realistic solutions to reduce carbon intensity simply don’t exist today (possibly nuclear excepted), that fact needs to accepted so we can dispense with cap and trade and start funding basic R&D, particularly in energy storage.
Gary,
I think you make some trenchant observations here. I do agree that the climate agenda appears to be as much a trojan horse for those other agendas you cite. I also think this is a fact of life and equally applies to the positions taken by all political and ideologies persuasions. Subtexts for the Iraq war (Bush WMD's), for "starving the beast" (conservative exploitation of deficit for budget cuts) are wielded no less fervently than subtexts for U.S. population restrictions (by enviros who exploit anti-immigrant sentiment) and yes, climate change (by eniviros who see a golden opportunity to advance their own sustainability platform).
I suspect the latter is also why some are reluctant to decouple climate change from energy. If the larger purpose by greens is to get society to make lifestyle changes for env (e.g. sustainability) purposes, than yes, climate change is your meal ticket, since that's the issue that is the one "green" issue that is at top of the scientific, political and policy establishment's agenda.
And if this remains the case, then we have to have a much more meaningful debate over the definition of sustainability and the individual role in creating a sustainable (whatever that means) society.
Hence my spoof from yesterday was as much about Friedman as it was about Romm. I wish people took more note of that.
Keith, Gary,
I agree that some of this may be at play, esp within rabid environmental circles. But for the vast majority of scientists, that's not what guides their scientific insights, as it would be antithetical to the scientific method.
Also note the reasons that I provided up thread for not decoupling climate and energy policy. I think they are valid reasons, and have nothing to do with using climate change as a convenient vehicle to reach other goals.
JamesG, lots of good points here, esp the much overlooked "proliferation" aspect from potential nuclear build-up. That strikes me as a significant danger this is glossed over by Hansen, Stewart Brand, et al. Frankly, that would concern me more than another Chernobyl.
Bart, I thought you reiterated that argument nicely. However, I still don't think the "urgency" card is going to work, not unless that urgency has a much shorter timeframe. Which is why I think we're going to see more and more posts like this http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/14/ncar-trenbe…
What's your take on that argument? Can that one carry the day?
I think that this is true to a very real extent. I think that a lot of the general media coverage of climate is "alarmist" in the sense of grasping onto bad news to the extent that it comports with a political agenda.
It also seems to me, though, that a lot of the push-back from "skeptics" to climate ,i>policy ends up being misdirected at all climate science. They're not the same, even though there are scientists who express policy views.
Policy critiques can be expressed as arguments, including "there's no warming" or "the science is wrong and here's why." Scientific critiques, however, should be rigorous.
Willis Eschenbach does great policy critiques, as do Mosher and McI. It'd be so much more fruitful if we could have those arguments – what sorts of energy policies should be adopted, at what cost, on what timetable – rather than airy assertions about sea ice and temperature stations.
PDA, I agree with you 100% on this: "It'd be so much more fruitful if we could have those arguments – what sorts of energy policies should be adopted, at what cost, on what timetable – rather than airy assertions about sea ice and temperature stations."
The problem is that many people (on both sides of the polarized climate spectrum) want science to be driving that debate.
Personally, I think we might make faster progress and get much bigger buy-in if you decouple the science from the energy policy debate.
Well I also want science to be driving that debate, but that's not going to happen.
"Giving in" or not, half a loaf is far, far better than none in my opinion. We may get malnutrition from half a loaf, but if we'll starve to death on none, give me the half.
Andy Revkin @Revkin 9 Jun
Inventor of “cli-fi” label for climate change science fiction @leinadmoolb explores genre on @JudithCurry blog: http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/09/cli-fi-takes-off/ …
Bridging the Climate Divide AND HOW CLI FI AS A NEW LITERARY TERM MIGHT HELP BOTH SIDES COMMUNICATE BETTER
Bridging the Climate Divide
By Keith Kloor | June 11, 2010 REPRINTED 2013