Can Climate Catastrophe Sway the Public?
Last week, this quote from Harvard’s Robert Stavins caught my eye:
It’s unlikely that the U.S. is going to take serious action on climate change until there are observable, dramatic events, almost catastrophic in nature, that drive public opinion and drive the political process in that direction.
Over the weekend, I asked a number of veteran climate observers for reaction (such as James Hansen and Jonathan Gilligan.). Head over to Climate Central to see what they had to say.
Keith, do you ever try and contact any skeptics for this kind of article?
The productivity of coal mines east of the Mississippi river continues to decline. The per mile cost of transporting coal continues to increase(it’s a function of the cost of diesel fuel).
Hence, the geographic area where ‘Coal is King’ will decline if those two trends continue.
The electric utilities in the South Eastern US have all said they plan on migrating away from coal.
In the Pacific Northwest, Idaho,Washington,Oregon we already have periods where it’s all hydro,wind or nuclear. If the wind blows we have to export it. To add more wind we would need increased transmission capability.
Last June, Bonneville Power dumped 245,000 MWh of Hydro Power for lack of market(It was being offered for ‘free’) and our nuke plant was throttled back to idle.
http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/pubs/final-report-columbia-river-high-water-operations.pdf
Wyoming and The Dakota’s already have the equivalent of their ‘off peak’ demand worth of Windmill’s installed.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/installed_capacity_current.jpg
Since it is clear that ‘wind’ has unresolved grid integration issues and there are as of today no new nuclear plant designs licensed for construction what exactly would ‘action’ on Climate Change entail?
Would it mean passing a law with targets without any idea of how to achieve those targets or how much it will cost to achieve those targets?
Like who? And why would a climate skeptic (someone who doubts AGW) be a relevant source in this case?
I would think Patrick Michaels would at least offer a point of view. And he’s pretty available.
Tom,
What makes him a relevant source for this post?
Mind you, I have no problem talking/interviewing climate skeptics. After all, I do it often here. But why would I interview one for this particular piece?
Well, I would ask him what he would consider to be a qualifying event. He does accept the basic physics of greenhouse gas theory and global warming. He just thinks sensitivity is low. I’d ask him if there’s an event or series of events that would change his mind.
I tried to interview him at Examiner. He was pleasant but I only got canned stuff from him which I didn’t run. Who knows? Maybe you’d have better luck.
I got a very quick and substantive feedback from John Christy, though. A real gentleman.
Tom/Keith,
It seems to me that in researching an article regarding “observable, dramatic events, almost catastrophic in nature(floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, revolution in the middle east, increased prostitution or the myriad of other calamities pawned off as being caused by CO2)”, Roger Pielke Jr. would be a good source of information.
It’s hard not to be reminded of Sir John Houghton’s famous quote – “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.”
Hi Paul,
I agree totally, but he’s not a skeptic–I just thought their side deserved a voice in this.
The public is stupid. Climate scientists are very smart. Climate scientists are so smart that the public doesn’t understand them. Climate scieitsts must ehn speak in veryt simple terms and claim catastrophes. amybe then the stupid public will beleive them.
This is the classic climate science meme that can be traced back to Schneider at least. It keeps being repeated and will be repeated again and again into the future. Why is it repeated here as if it is something new?
Just one catastrophe certainly won’t do. For example, the hurricane season of 2005 was pretty bad but it wasn’t followed up by anything out of ordinary so it remains a fluke.
I don’t know what has to happen but it should be a series of unfortunate events stretched over a number of seasons and years such that a random accident would appear to be unlikely.
I don’t know what legitimate climate change related disaster that would do it at this point. The public has begun to discount the connection.
A change in tone would be more likely to have the desired effect. The public does not follow the scientific details of the debate, but they are very sensitive to tone.
I started following the debate around five years ago. I don’t pretend to understand the many details needed to have an informed opinion; but I quickly noticed that the AGW proponents behaved in a way that made me think that I was being conned.
I can cite two things in particular that affected my opinion:
1) The venom directed at anyone who doubted the connection between CO2 and catastrophe. My experience is that the most angry person in any argument is likely the one that is in the wrong.
2) The continued difficulties of Steve McInTyre and is partners in crime to obtain the data that he was requesting suggested that something was being hidden.
All that the climate community needs to do to solidify public opinion is to act more as if they actually believe what they are saying. Don’t hide data. Don’t exaggerate for effect. Respectfully disagree with dissenters.
Do this and they will get the action that they desire.
As Mike Hulme indicates in his book, people view the future with different discount rates. How much would one be willing to spend today to avert an issue (catastrophe etc.) in the future. This is done with teh knowledge that people 100 years from now will be much richer and have much more capable technology to cope with any issue.
The Stern report chose a very low discount rate to minimize current cost in relation to possible future costs. This was a deliberate choice based on values that the Stern report wanted to promote. It wanted immediate action and so a low discussant rate was chosen. Others may prefer a different discount rate. All of this “we need a catastrophe for immediate action talk” is an attempt to force people into accepting a lower discount rate than they might otherwise want to use. The people who are not in favor of the immediate actions promoted by AGW advocates may very well agree with AGW advocates prediction of climate change but have a higher dicosunt rate than they one the advocates are promoting.
Why do AGW advocates always write and speak as if the people who oppose them are stupid? Why don’t they just explain the possibilities with the uncertainties; identify the choices and let people make the decisions democratically with the discount rate that they chose to use. The publie make similar decisions on pensions, mortgages, healthcare all of the time. They are not stupid.
A major reason why the AGW consensus promoters cannot reach the public is that they think that they are very much smarter than the public and that they are smart enough to stampede the public tinto taking action by empty rhetoric. The evidence of past years is a definite indication that these climate scientists and others are most certainly not smarter than everyone else.
Bishop Hill,
is there any reason why you leave out the REST OF THE QUOTE, here as well as on your site??? It’s a reflection on human nature, not an advice how to do PR as you spin it at your site.
Let me help you out:
If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.
The spin was covered e.g. by The Policy Lass, amongst many others.
re 14
Please see my post at 13. The public is quite capable of seeing through arguments like this. They are not stupid. They can understand the issues of safety.
The argument could be turned the other way. is the public being stampeded into wasteful and counterproductive environmental proposals by scare stories?
Bluegrue
I’m not sure what difference you think the extra bit makes. The argument last time round was between the misquoted version and the actual version.
Bishop Hill,
you know the spin that quote was given on denialist sites. It was used to convey that Sir John Houghton advocates using excaggeration to get public attention focus on climate change, in short that scientists are hyping natural disasters for political ends. The two sentences you chose to omit however make it clear, that the supposedly damning quote is in fact just a reflection on human nature, not a recipe for PR.
You chose to specifically link the quote to your site, where none of the above is covered. Anyone reading only your site will be left with the impression, that Houghton advocates hyping disasters for PR. Why did you not link to a complete version or alternatively to a site, where the distortion is acknowleged?
Bluegrue
The misquote, which as you note was widely disseminated, had a whiff of “let’s exaggerate/make stuff up”. The true quote, with or without the extra bit, doesn’t.
The true quote still carries a whiff of “when a disaster comes along let’s use it to our advantage”. I don’t think this is a good basis for public policy.
Oh, yes! Let’s focus on “an almost imperceptible sign of something” (Merriam-Webster dictionary) and wilfully ignore the pervading intended message of the passage in question: “It is human nature to ignore risks, that are perceived as being an abstract possibilty, until the risk manifests as a life-threatening incident, such that it can no longer be ignored” (my paraphrasing).
If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.
Prior to a disaster, purveyors of safety equipment/procedures recommending a five or ten fold increase in expenditures because they claim events that have always occurred in the past as well as currently “might”, “may” or “possibly” will increase in frequency in the distant future are not taken seriously. The public is not stupid.
When accidents on public transport do occur, the public demands actual investigations and answers. Radical conclusions by self-interested parties produced in a vacuum with supporting data kept under seal, are considered suspicious at the very least.
With the continued lack of compliance of CRU on FOI and the IPCC’s refusal to enact its own reforms recommended by its own investigations until after AR5, the chance of the public falling to their knees begging the purveyors of CAGW for salvation is a long, long way out.
Dear Paul, I take it you consider anything touched by the CRU suspect and you want to verify. How about clearing things up in revolutionary new ways? Approach the individual metereological services and get the temperature data directly from them instead of trying to get that data by FOI from CRU. Then you can do your own temperature product or have it done by the blog scientist of your choice. You don’t have to beg on your knees. Just do your homework, if you think the scientists are not to be trusted.
have you tried to get the temperature data from the individual national metereological services instead of trying to FO
The last paragraph of the preceding comment is a leftover from editing.
“How about clearing things up in revolutionary new ways? Approach the individual metereological services and get the temperature data directly from them instead of trying to get that data by FOI from CRU.”
That appears to be the canned reply and a poor excuse for shoddy work. Our taxes pay for government research into our climate. My need to do the research myself is unnecessary as I am already doing it by proxy. I expect value for public investment in research. I also demand supportable conclusions so that I can vote on various programs that are proposed.
Papers rubber stamped by peers which can neither be verified nor be reproduced by those outside of “the circle of trust” are not science.
The continued lack of openness, exaggerations and minimization of uncertainties by some of the most vocal members of the CAGW community tars “climate science” as a whole in the eyes of the public.
Canned? Why? It just happens to be my opinion. Unlike myself, you assume shoddy work and are convinced, that the investigations are shoddy, as well. So you trust neither. What options are left to you now, other than doing it yourself? That is, in case you are actually interested in the outcome.
I predict, that you would get to the same result that Muller seems to have found: Much ado about nothing. It wasn’t really a surprise, given how many bloggers like Zeke Hausfather or the Clean Climate Code project came to basically the same conclusion. Given the number of bloggers who reproduced the work (not by rerunning a turnkey code, but by developing there own, which helps to spot coding artifacts) the “which can neither be verified nor be reproduced” claim seems to be ill-supported by reality.