Global Warming Flashback
Leo Hickman at the Guardian unearths a time capsule. He asks of his readers:
But does anyone remember this advert from 1993, let alone a resulting controversy? And if shown again today on primetime television, would it go uncontested?
In an update at the end of his post, Hickman reports that only two complaints were made against the UK government-sponsored global warming awareness campaign, which ran from 1991 to 1993. Hickman notes that one of the complaints centered on a link in the campaign made between more intense storms and global warming. Hickman writes:
Given the level of heated debate this subject generates today, isn’t it interesting that almost two decades ago people were arguing over much the same issues?
Will we still be arguing over these same issues two decades from today?
Yes.
Take a look at this 1979 interview with Stephen Schneider for another blast from the past. Well worth watching to see how the way the message is presented has changed over the subsequent three decades. “The best we can do is say, ‘Look out, there’s a chance of potentially irreversible change at a global scale based upon the benefits of the use of energy. And it’s very tough for us to know whether those benefits of energy today are worth the potential risks of environmental change for our children.’ ”
If we ignore the extremists, this is basically the same debate we’re having today. We understand much better the scientific basis for irreversible and potentially catastrophic change, but how those risks compare to the benefits of using energy remains a normative, not scientific, judgment regarding risk aversion, interpretation of uncertainty, and time preference.
In 1993, most of us had no idea the Scientific Method was being taken round the backside by those to whom it had been entrusted.
Fortunately, in 2011, folks like Simon are here to give the Scientific Method a reacharound.
…”Will we still be arguing over these same issues two decades from today?”
Hummmm…
If “today” is as it was in 1950, then I’d say “yes”.
If “today” is as it was in 1930, then I’d say “no”.
As luck (or whatever) would have it, World Wars –and even Great Depressions– do tend to reorder the priorities of the ‘carbon units infesting planet Earth’. Who knew?
Yesterday, I stumbled on a blast from the past that has turned out to be more of fart in a bottle. After messing up their coverage of the Brent Spar protests in 1995, BBC, ITN and Channel 4 each vowed to more sceptical of claims made by activists in the future.
“Will we still be arguing over these same issues two decades from today?”
No. The models, forecasts, predictions and WAG’s will be confirmed or discredited.
The extremists on both sides will crawl under a rock and if found say “We were not entirely wrong” and then point out any errors made by the winning side.
Anti AGW moderates will get hammered if wrong, calls for pitchforks and torches will be in the streets. Their defense will be “It was all about the policy not the science; that’s democracy for ya; or I donated to the Sierra Club. ”
Pro AGW moderates will probably make out the best if proven wrong. The public will give them credit for good intentions. Pro AGW moderates will look at the ground sheepishly say science is built on trial and error; and good thing nobody died. Then they will look the public straight in the eye and ask “Have you heard about the Greatest threat facing the next generation?”
I am pretty certain I saw that advertisement at the time, and I am a little suprised if it was the first.
Does any one know if “The Greenhouse Conspiracy” UK C4 1990 was the first full length AGW sceptical TV documentary. I watch it from time to time just to remind myself how entrenched several aspects of the debate have been for the last twenty years, and to see younger versions of many of the same faces.
If anyone looks it up on youtube, the Australian taping is perhaps the least distressed.
I suspect that by 2031 the debate will have been overwhelmed by the geopolitics of it all and that there will be a huge push towards sustainability from national not global motivation. On the global scale, the world may have woken up and realised that the ultimate problem will be dominated by Africa, Central Asia and South America. Hopefully Africa alone will be the China plus India of the later half of the 21st century.
Another prediction is that IPCC AR5 will be much more gloomy than anything that has come before and it will predict with some caution that certain named countries will face existential threats whilst suggesting (sub voce) at beneifical outcomes for others. Also that China will take the bull by the horns and dictate a sustainability policy that will amount to going its own way towards a future that makes long term sense for China, and it will be up to others to play catchup so as to be still on the bus.
Alex