A while ago, I was sauntering along one of our local beaches with a physicist. There are three outstanding things about this guy, he is very clever, very tall, and an excellent walker with whom I’ve spent many days in the mountains, winter and summer, and in all kinds of conditions.
We were talking about climate change and he told me that he had recently read a book by Professor David McKay on the subject of alternative energy generation which, not surprisingly, had done nothing to convince him that there might be a few problems with the orthodox view of AGW. His attitude was that, as a physicist, reading a book by another physicist, he was inclined to accept what this told him rather than any of the reservations expressed by sceptics who were not physicists. To a certain extent I could see his point and was happy to treat it with respect. But what happened next did surprise me.
As he trotted out the well-tried and tested mantras of warmist dogma, I offered alternative views that raised doubts. Finally he turned to me and said, “Look, there seems to be a risk, and what I think is that if you go out for a walk and you get to the edge of a pond that might have alligators in it, then you walk round the edge of it rather than go through the middle”. He wasn’t too happy when I asked if he often got his feet wet by walking through ponds, whether there were likely to be alligators in them or not.
This supposed ‘killer argument’ involving alligators had sprung up on the net a few weeks earlier and spread rapidly. I hadn’t expected to hear it used by someone whose views are usually well informed and carefully expressed.
Although well-chosen analogies can be very helpful when trying to explain something that is complex, they seldom seem to work well in argument. It is not surprising that ‘Faulty Analogy’ has its own place in the long list of rhetorical fallacies loved by students of rhetoric and logic. Here is a definition:
This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they necessarily are alike in some more important respects, while failing to recognise the insignificance of their similarities and/or the significance of their dissimilarities.
The ‘alligators in the pond’ analogy had a pretty short life – quite rightly because it was ludicrous – but warmists still seem to think that this kind of persuasion will gain converts. Perhaps it has something to do with their oft-repeated belief that the only reason that climate scepticism is growing among the public is because advocates of global warming are not explaining things properly.
Last Monday evening, a BBC Panorama report about the climate debate used an analogy that has proved far more durable than ‘alligators in the pond’, in spite of it being equally fallacious. Professor Bob Watson, one time IPCC chairman and all-round cheerleader for climate Armageddon, helped wind up the programme on a suitably evangelical note by saying:
What risks are we willing to take? The average homeowner probably has fire insurance. They don’t expect a fire in their home [but] they’re still willing to take out fire insurance because they don’t want the risk, and there’s probably a much better chance of us seeing the middle to the upper end of that temperature projection [from the IPCC] than of a single person saying they’ll have a fire in their home tomorrow morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00swp0k/Panorama_Whats_Up_With_the_Weather/
The expression on his face while he said this was that of a man who was generously sharing a great and irrefutable truth with the audience.
Next morning I was not surprised to find that there were references to this parable of the burning house on another thread at this blog. I therefor put up the following comment:
The fire insurance analogy, although it sounds very plausible, is in fact a very poor one.
Fire premiums are determined by actuarial analysis based on abundant historical evidence of the extent of the risk, and also cost determined by competition between insurers. This is not the case with the threat of AGW where politicians have granted the IPCC a virtual monopoly of ‘actuarial analysis’ and the same politicians are in a position to determine the supposed ‘premium’ on the basis of whichever economists they choose to listen to; a process that is also included in the IPCC’s remit. Competition, either between ‘actuaries’ or ‘insurers’, plays no part in this process.
We simply do not know the extent of the risk or the likely cost of indemnity. No reputable insurer would offer a policy on this basis and the analogy has no application to the climate debate other than to demonstrate the weakness of the arguments by which it is now being sustained.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=274&cp=6#comment-63328
This unleashed a barrage of questions from Harmless Sky’s star warmist contributor: would I say what degree of risk I think is posed by AGW? This was strange, because the last sentence of my comment makes it clear that I don’t think that there is an answer to that question. The inquiries about my opinion culminated in the following comment:
Your answer is nothing at all, isn’t it? You think the risk is zero (or the chances of the IPCC being essentially correct in their estimation.) Am I being unfair in suggesting that? I don’t think so.
If you don’t think it is zero, maybe you could tick one of the following:a) Less than 5% b) between 5% and 20% c) between 20% and 50%. d) between 50% and 90% e) greater than 90%
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=274&cp=6#comment-63530
Now there’s something rather obvious missing from that range of options, and its omission highlights one of the great divides in the climate debate. Sceptics are often willing enough to admit that they ‘don’t know’. For warmists such an admission seems to be an impossibility, and one that is becoming increasingly damaging to their cause.
Here is what John Christy had to say when he recently appeared before the review panel that is supposedly investigating the practices of the IPCC:
A fundamental problem with the entire issue here is that climate science is not a classic, experimental science. As an emerging science of a complex, chaotic climate system, it is plagued by uncertainty and ambiguity in both observations and theory. Lacking classic, laboratory results, it easily becomes hostage to opinion, groupthink, arguments-from-authority, overstatement of confidence, and even Hollywood movies.
When climate scientists are placed in the limelight because this issue can generate compelling disaster scenarios, we simply don’t want to say, “We just don’t know.”
And
In February of this year, Nature magazine asked me for a brief discussion about the IPCC and a way forward. My main concern there was to define a process that would let the world know that our ignorance of much of the climate system is simply enormous and we have much to do. Mother Nature has a tremendous number of degrees of freedom up her sleeves, many of which we don’t even know about or account for.http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/christyjr_iac_100615.pdf
Another point that I raised in my comment about the fire insurance analogy was that it exhibited weak thinking on the part of warmists. A kind of desperation seems to be driving them to ever-greater extremes in the implausible rhetoric and propaganda that they are prepared to employ. There has been a superb example this week.
The American National Academy of Sciences has published a paper in its journal that purports to analyse the ‘distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers’ in the climate debate. Evidently the criterion used is the publication records of the dissenters: they don’t figure nearly so prominently in the peer reviewed literature as those who cleave to the orthodoxy and, in the eyes of the authors, this proves that they are not very good scientists.
Of course silly bits of research do get published from time to time, but you don’t expect them to turn up in one of the world’s leading science journals, or to be co-authored by someone of the stature of Stephen Schneider, who has been a leading figures in climate science for over thirty years. But what is more remarkable is that neither PNAS nor Schneider seem to have anticipated the extent to which this exercise would backfire. There were immediate accusations of creating a blacklist of researchers exhibiting politically unacceptable tendencies, with all the antipathy that is likely to engender, but worse, it has drawn renewed attention to the growing controversy over the way in which peer review is applied and the problems that sceptical researchers face over funding. Far from discrediting those who appear on the list, which was the obvious object of the exercise, it has made martyrs of them, and once again spotlighted the very worrying culture within the climate science community that Climategate first laid bare.
How could Schneider and the editors at PNAS be so blind to the pitfall of publishing a crass political attack on what they clearly see as their adversaries under the guise of scientific research? They are not thinking straight any more than Watson was when he trotted out a facile and obviously fallacious analogy at the end of the Panorama programme. Such actions are the cause of scepticism, not a remedy for it.
I do not know what risk, if any, anthropogenic climate change poses. What worries me is that, so long as the task of finding out is left in the hands of the IPCC – an organisation that is obsessed with persuading the world that it knows all the answers while downplaying uncertainties – we are very unlikely to find out.
_____________________________
H/T to tempterrain who, unwittingly, provided the idea for this post.
PeterM (#95):
You’ve advised us (#88) that you always make a judgement on whether you have a problem.
You’re sure that what you call “mainstream science” is right and the dangerous AGW is valid. Moreover, you’re clear that you think that, if action to curb GHG emissions is not taken immediately (as stated by James Hansen), the result will be “a world in chaos”. So plainly inadequate action now (especially by the developing economies) must, from your perspective, be a most serious and urgent problem. Therefore, any possibly of inadequate action must, for you, be the most serious and urgent problem of all.
So, to understand your viewpoint on this (for you) most serious and urgent problem, I asked (#87) you a simple question: what do you think is the percentage probability that the developing economies (by far the greatest emitters) will reduce their GHG emissions to a level and within a timescale that will overcome what Hansen and you perceive to be the dangers of AGW?
It would be truly remarkable if you declined to make a judgement on such an important question. Like Max, I await your answer with interest.
There are two typos in my #101 – second paragraph. In the first sentence, “hypothesis” should have been inserted after “AGW”. And, in the last, “possible” should have read “possibility”. Apologies.
Max,
So at last you’ve come out with 0% as your assessed level of risk. The science is certain there is no risk then? I don’t think so! That used to be be you line too.
Robin,
I’ll answer your question when you’ve joined Max is giving me your assessment of the scientific risk. We need to know that first.
PeterM
You wrote:
“My line” has not changed (although one must obviously always keep an open mind to new data, as they become available).
The “empirical data” available to date indicate that there is 0% risk that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, will present a serious potential threat to human society. I have never concluded otherwise, based on the data I have seen so far.
Can you show me some empirical data that would indicate otherwise? If so, please do so (as has been requested repeatedly in earlier posts by both Robin and myself).
Max
Max,
You do keep parroting the same nonsense about empirical data. This paper in the sea levels in the last interglacial period is empirically based,is it not?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/nature08686.html
You seem to think that if the scientific evidence cannot be verified to some impossibly high standard that there is no risk. Of course, that’s not quite the case. If it were we could protect ourselves from any and every danger by simply refusing to accept or even study the evidence for it.
PeterM (#103):
You’re beginning to look superficial – even shallow.
Throughout this long thread, you’ve never avoided an opportunity to tell us that, if Mankind’s GHG emissions are not at least stabilised, arguably reduced, the world is seriously at risk from dangerous, possibly catastrophic, climate change. If you’ve been honest about that and not just playing at debate, you must be anxious about and take a close interest in knowing whether or not the action you consider so vital is actually happening. But now I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps you haven’t given that much thought – or even if you’re not really concerned about it.
How otherwise am I to interpret your repeated attempts – by misinterpretation of others’ views, by answering a question you’d prefer to answer and now by trying to change the subject – to avoid answering the simple question I asked at #87?
Of course, another interpretation might be that you’re finding it difficult to cope with an uncomfortable truth – hardly the mark of a serious person either.
So I suggest you regain some credibility here by facing reality and answering the question.
In case you’ve forgotten, here it is again:
I await your answer.
Robin,
You’re asking me to predict which path, collectively, the countries of the world will choose to follow. I could say maybe its 50-50, but that’s what people do say when they really don’t know, and I wouldn’t claim to be any different.
I feel much more confident in assessing science and scientists than I do in trying to guess which way politicians are going to go. For instance, before George Bush was elected he was promising to all the right things, sign up for Kyoto and get serious about GHG emissions. He only showed his true colours after he was elected and I must say it wasn’t until then that I realised there was going to be a huge problem politically.
I certainly didn’t anticipate the level of denialism that would arise in the last ten years or so with contrarians accusing scientists of taking part in a hoax, a conspiracy etc; a sort of Communist plot even, which was all part of a “New Order” initiative to impose a world government via the UN. I didn’t realise people could be so stupid!
James Hansen is more optimistic that China won’t follow the US example and build its economy on fossil fuel consumption and that in ten years time the rest of the world will follow suit. I hope he’s right, but I do have to agree that maybe he won’t be, and it is indeed possible, maybe 50-50, that it will be a case of too little too late.
Pete,
“Plot” and “Conspiracy” may not be the correct terms…….I prefer “Global Warming Shakedown”………..
Better?
How about “fraud” or “Global Warming Confidence Scheme”?
PeterM (#107):
Thanks – interesting. I’m busy for several days so will comment later. In the meantime, you might like to think about this (an extract from this article):
Robin,
I haven’t checked but I’d say very likely your figures are correct. So what’s the way forward? In any case, they don’t make any difference to way the atmosphere behaves so it is still important to keep the two questions separate.
It also still doesn’t make any sense to say that AGW (and which I wouldn’t disagree was ‘dangerous!) can’t be real because it raises too many difficult social and political issues.
PeterM
Let me comment to a statement of yours:
You’ve got the cart before the horse here, Peter. Of course it “doesn’t make any sense to say that AGW” can’t be dangerous “because it raises too many difficult social and political issues”.
The empirical scientific data (not the political and social issues) show us that AGW is not a dangerous threat. Refer to my earlier posts for more specifics.
This is becoming increasingly apparent as more and more examples of errors, exaggerations, sloppy science or outright fabrications in the IPCC reports are being exposed, all of which go in the direction of making AGW appear more alarming than it is.
It appears that the large developing nations have made their own assessments, based on the actual needs of their inhabitants for a better standard of living versus the purported threat of the AGW paper tiger.
Had the populations and decision-makers of these nations truly concluded based on all the evidence presented that the doomsday forecasts of James E. Hansen, etc. were correct, stopping AGW would presumably have taken a paramount priority. But it did not.
So, although we are talking about a “chicken and egg” situation here, it is most likely that the science supporting the dangerous AGW postulation (or lack thereof) has come first, not the “difficult social and political issues”.
Would you agree with my logic here, Peter?
Max
PeterM (#110):
It would plainly be idiotic to say “that AGW … can’t be real because it raises too many difficult social and political issues”. That’s why no one here is saying it.
But, re your views (#107) on the likely action of the developing world, I will – as I said – comment later.
Robin
Your Grist article (109) points out:
This is probably correct, although the Chinese and Indians are catching up.
As we can see, carbon emissions are related to average per capita GDP and affluence (Wiki):
46,400 USA
6,600 China
3,100 India
2,200 Nigeria
950 Ethiopia
China and India are obviously doing all they can to increase the per capita GDP and affluence of their populations though industrial expansion, which will result in higher per capita carbon emissions, as well.
Nigeria has large petroleum exports, but corruption and political violence have caused a recent reduction. Despite the large resources, the population remains relatively poor.
Ethiopia’s GDP is based on agricultural exports (primarily coffee), and there is little industrialization and a relatively poor population.
Grist is correct in stating that the economically (and industrially) developed world emits more carbon than the poorer agricultural nations, but this should come as no surprise. It is precisely the carbon-based economy that has given the industrially developed world of today its affluence.
We should all keep this in mind as Hansen rants about “coal death trains” and “irreversible tipping points”.
Max
Robin,
Yes of course “It would plainly be idiotic to say that AGW … can’t be real because it raises too many difficult social and political issues”.
but “that’s why no one here is saying it.” ??
Aren’t they? Who introduced the line of argument?
“If emissions are to be reduced (or even stabilised), what matters, above all, is whether or not action is taken by the developing world.”
Which you have told us many times they have no intention of doing!
Then later (although it could well be argued that these two statements are somewhat contradictory):
“The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.”
Australians wouldn’t come out of any comparison too well, either, which is why those who are the worst offenders need to take the first and biggest steps towards reducing their emissions. These shouldn’t be seen as purely altruistic. There are obvious benefits for all in moving away from a dependence on fossil fuel technology.
I agree that its important not to put the cart before the horse. If fact, I would go further and say that all arguments about the cart and the horse need to be completely separated, at least initially.
Firstly, we need to remove words like ‘dangerous’ from any consideration of the science of AGW. It is important to be absolutely politically neutral when science is involved. In the same way that the political left need to get their heads around the idea that nuclear technology isn’t all about nuclear weaponry and the Cold War, so too do the political right need to acknowledge that the science of AGW isn’t part of some left-wing conspiracy to impose yet higher taxes or attack the US constitution.
Secondly, we look at how the leading emitters of CO2 need to become the leading reducers in the coming decades and in the process share low CO2, and other GHG, energy technology to other countries who, as you say, need to develop their energy generating capabilities also.
Difficult? Yes Impossible? No
PeterM
Robin will undoubtedly respond to the rest of your 114, but let me respond to one paragraph. As is frequently the case, there is just a “bit of truth” in your statement (along with a “bit of blarney”):
There is no doubt that “there could well be “benefits for all in moving away from a dependence on fossil fuel technology”, provided, of course, that you refer to petroleum, which is largely imported from politically questionable regions at exorbitant cost.
“Moving away from a dependence” on readily available and relatively inexpensive domestic coal makes less sense, unless one “believes” in the postulation a) that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been a primary cause of past warming and b) that AGW represents a serious potential threat to human society. So the “horse” again comes before the “cart”.
No potential serious threat from AGW = no reason to “move away from dependence” on readily available and relatively inexpensive domestic coal.
“Worst offenders” means “most affluent”. Is it an “offense” to be “affluent”? Is it an “offense” if one has become “affluent” as a result of a carbon-based industrialization that benefited all of those involved? I think not, so this part of your statement is based on false feelings of self-guilt.
The most affluent nations have already taken major steps to improve energy efficiency and reduce waste, although there is obviously even more that can be done. It’s all part of improving the affluence and standard of living of their populations, which should remain one of their principal goals.
China and India will also go this way, thereby benefiting their citizens in the same fashion. It is clear that the alternate of growth stagnation simply to curtail CO2 emissions is not in the interest of these nations, so they will not accept this alternate..
The impoverished underdeveloped nations will hopefully also eventually follow the same path, improving the life of their citizens by building up a viable energy infrastructure and industrial base, hopefully based on a local basic source of energy. It is also not in the interest of these poorest nations to remain impoverished, pre-industrial societies.
It’s all about the “horse” first, Peter, and then the “cart”.
Max
Peter – I’m short of time. But nothing you have said (110) invalidates my earlier post:
Both sentences are accurate.
Being in a hurry caused an error – “nothing you have said (110)”, should have read “nothing you have said (114)”.
Robin and Max,
It’s just occurred to me that there is an ambiguity in your phrase “dangerous AGW hypothesis”
Just for the record, can you clarify if it’s the warming, or what you refer to as the ‘hypothesis’, which is dangerous?
I wouldn’t disagree about the first interpretation but: methinks you probably mean the latter! :-)
If so, can you explain how it is possible to come to a rational and independent judgement, by attacking the investigation of a problem rather than the problem itself?
Max,
Your phrase ” “Worst offenders” means “most affluent” needs some extra consideration on your part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
For instance you might compare Switzerland with Hungary. Who is most affluent? Who is the worst offender?
The UK did reduce its emissions up to 2006 Does this mean it became less affluent? Discuss.
Robin,
Merely asserting that the sentences are accurate doesn’t necessarily make them accurate.
Maybe the sentence “AGW can’t be real because it raises too many difficult social and political issues” is deliberately over stark, to illustrate the absurdity of the argument, but nevertheless it’s hard to avoid the conclusion , on reading several of your recent posts, that you are saying just that.
I’d just like to add some other fun facts………
United States: Life Expectancy 78.0 years , GDP/PPP (2009 est.): $14.26 trillion; per capita $46,400 Literacy rate: 99% (2003 est.)
China: Life Expectancy 72.88 years, GDP/PPP (2009 est.): $8.8 trillion; per capita $6,600. Literacy rate: 90.9% (2006 est.)
India: Life Expectancy 68.59 years, GDP/PPP (2009 est.): $3.56 trillion; per capita $3,100. Literacy rate: 61% (2005 est.)
Nigeria: Life Expectancy 47.44 years, GDP/PPP (2009 est.): $357.2 billion; per capita $2,400. Literacy rate: 68% (2003 est.)
Ethiopia: Life Expectancy 49.23 years, GDP/PPP (2009 est.): $76.7 billion; per capita $900, Literacy rate: 43% (2003 est.)
Did you know that the bubonic plague still ravages India? Leprosy is another disease that still thrives in these “carbon conscious” nations. Do a little research and find out about the other wonderful diseases that are commonplace in these arm pits of the world…..that were eradicated in the west generations ago…………all due to fossil fuel use.
Sanitation education and nutrition cost money and consume energy. Energy consumption benefits the human condition. The United States uses more energy per capita; however, also produces almost twice as much, (food/medicine/technology/etc), than the nearest competitor,(China)……much of it exported
If guys like Pete and “Jimmie” Hansen had their way, the western world would be reduced to running around in the wilderness like the naked savages of these “carbon conscious” societies.
I’ll go even further…………if it wasn’t for the “carbon spewing” nations of the west, the illiteracy rate and life expectancy of the “carbon conscious” nation would be even lower than the miserable cesspools that they are now.
Here ya go Pete……here’s a video about your “carbon neutral”, “pollution free”, Socialist Utopian paradise…………
Mekong River Catfish
http://vimeo.com/11817894
Brute,
Thank you for the information. I always like to give the full picture though rather than just cherry picking few cases to try to make a point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
I suppose it must be pretty galling that Cuba does better than the USA! But never mind, I’m sure that once Obama’s health care plan kicks in, you’ll jump up a few places. There’s not a lot in it.
PeterM
The perceived “ambiguity” (118) in the expression dangerous AGW hypothesis” is only in your mind, and this is only because you do not read posts from Robin or myself very carefully.
We have repeatedly referred to your premise a) that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and b) that AGW represents a serious potential threat as the “dangerous AGW hypothesis (or premise)”.
It is this hypothesis that you have been unable to substantiate with empirical scientific data, despite our repeated requests to you to do so.
Hope this clears it up for you.
Max
PeterM
Brute used the five examples cited by the Grist blog, to which Robin referred in 109 and I replied in 113. They were “cherry-picked” by Grist, apparently to prove a point about what you refer to as “offenders”, not by myself or Brute.
But I think the point is made that (in general) affluence and well-being of a society or nation today are lnked with the carbon consumption. Obviously there are other factors. Switzerland is blessed with abundant mountains with lots of water, so that hydroelectric power can be made readily available. It also has a relatively high population density with an excellent electrical rail system for transporting goods as well as people, both of which you in Australia (or Brute in the USA) do not have.
But, by in large, you have to admit that the data show that affluence has gone roughly hand in hand with the development of an energy and industrial infrastructure, which has gone hand in hand with carbon consumption.
Those are the facts, Peter, even if you personally may not like them.
It sounds like Grist was simply doing a bit of trendy “US-bashing” and not seriously proposing that US citizens return to the squalor level of Ethiopia or Nigeria any more than they would seriously advise China and India to stop the increase in affluence of their populations by throttling back carbon emissions. As they say in Hong Kong, “nevah happen”.
A real dilemma for those few, like yourself (or the Grist authors), who “believe” the “dangerous AGW premise” (see previous post for definition).
Max