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.
TonyN,
“the IPCC – an organisation that is obsessed with persuading the world that it knows all the answers…..” ????
Can you supply one or two examples of the IPCC ever claiming that it knows all the answers?
If they are obsessed then there must be literally dozens to choose from , but I have to admit that I must have missed them!
PeterM (25):
If you’re unaware of the difference between Einstein’s theory and the dangerous AGW theory, your ignorance is profound. As to your comparing accidental nuclear war with human induced climate change, I refer you to Max’s comment:
“To compare this REAL threat with the computer-generated VIRTUAL threat from AGW is not only silly, it is totally absurd.”
Now answer this question. Thanks.
Peter M:
If you think that my characterisation of the IPCC is wrong then I think it’s up to you to show why. Other (perhaps) than Pachauri’s apparent deathbed conversion in his statement to the IPCC review panel a couple of weeks ago I think you’ll find that difficult.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10112136.stm
PeterM
Pachauri now tells us:
Duh!
Sure they are melting. Have been since 1850. Only at a much slower rate than erroneously trumpeted earlier by IPCC. All things being equal (which of course they are not) they should survive another 350 years rather than 35 years as IPCC predicted. Ouch!
If this had been a single isolated IPCC screw-up, it could have been excused. But the AR4 and SPM reports are full of exaggerations, false projections based on bad science, cherry-picked data and outright falsehoods, ALL going in the direction of making AGW sound more ominous than it actually is.
And then there is the “know-it-all” arrogance.
Check IPCC’s SPM 2007 for a good example of a report exuding false certainty of its knowledge on our planet’s climate (excerpts from the first two pages):
Talk about “an organisation that is obsessed with persuading the world that it knows all the answers” on climate and doesn’t mind arrogantly advertising how much it thinks it knows – you got it in the IPCC.
Pachauri’s “mea culpa” words are weaselly enough to try to keep up the image, but even he must realize just how big the IPCC fall from grace has been since the heady Nobel Peace Prize days.
Although Pachauri may not realize it yet, the key question now is whether IPCC will survive at all, and (if so) how it will need to be restructured and reorganized to regain some sort of credibility.
Sic transit gloria.
Max
TonyN,
If I use terms “obsessed” and “knows all the answers” about anyone on this blog wouldn’t you expect me to justify them?
Why should you be any different? If you want to make allegations you should either provide evidence to back them up or withdraw them if you can’t!
Much of the content of this blog has been concerned with the activities of the IPCC. I’m not about to waste time rehearsing several years of posts.
You might like to re-read the AR4 WG1 SPM plus the publicity campaign that launched it and count the caveats and expressions of uncertainty about the science of AGW that you find.
Pete,
Does fire insurance prevent fires?
PeterM
Back to TonyN’s 31.
What was clearly missing in the SPM 2007 report was an introductory statement indicating uncertainty (rather than emphasizing certainty), such as (bold type phrases added):
[Eliminate remainder of existing text starting with: “Scientific progress…” and ending with: “…exploration of uncertainty ranges.”]
PeterM:
Why are you so focused on assessing the risk of possible human induced climate change? Why is it so important to you? Why should it be important to us?
The reality is that, from the perspective of, say, the UK, the question has no serious relevance to a decision about future energy requirements. This question to you – which you seem determined not to answer – puts the reason for that into sharp perspective. I suspect that why you’re running away from answering it, preferring to go on living in your pathetic little dreamland.
Here are some more relevant data. But perhaps you cannot even see why they’re relevant. Do I have to explain?
Robin,
The questions that you put to me about how CO2 concentrations have a significant and an increasingly damaging effect on the World climate have been answered by the scientific community to the best of their ability in the last 20 years or so. I don’t have anything particularly new to add.
Yes there are potential problems with new coal fired powered stations being built in many parts of the World: China, India, South Africa. Yes there are problems in developing strategies to counter increasing CO2 and other GHG concentrations, as we can see from the recent disappointing outcome from the Copenhagen conference.
The public mood looks to me that it is more a case of wanting to put the problem in the “too hard” basket rather that any serious doubts about the mainstream scientific consensus. At least that’s the way I read the recent dithering on the issue by the Australian government. Although I suspect that your argument that the science can’t be right because the implications are just too profound is gaining ground, nonsensical though it is.
So, this brings me to my question of how we assess the risks? What are the chances of mainstream science being wrong? If no effective action is taken, isn’t that the 64 trillion dollar question?
Brute,
You ask “Does fire Insurance prevent fires?” If you are thinking just about insurance of the paid policy type then obviously not.
However, if you consider the wider meaning of the term term ‘fire insurance’ to include the provision of smoke alarms and extinguishers etc then it does. The wider meaning is also included in the dictionary definition of the word.
For example the best health ‘insurance’ is to give up smoking and take regular exercise!
PeterM (35):
The question I put to you was not “about how CO2 concentrations have a significant and an increasingly damaging effect on the World climate”.
The question I put to you was the same question that you asked TonyN. It’s this: What you would do if you were in charge of reducing UK CO2 emissions?
Please answer that question. Thanks.
PeterM
You asked Robin (35):
Robin may have other thoughts on this, but here are my answers, as a rational skeptic (in the scientific sense) of your dangerous AGW postulation:
To part 1: “Mainstream science” (as you have described it) is 100% sure to be at least mostly “wrong”, since it ignores too many factors that lie outside its field of competence or current general scientific knowledge. The unknowns are far greater than the knowns. What John Christy describes as the “mainstream” is that rather small but influential group of climatologists who have hijacked the IPCC process and who actively endorse and support the premise that AGW is a serious threat, as opposed to the others who do not ascribe to this opinion. As there are no empirical scientific data in support of this premise one can conclude that it is simply a hypothesis, based on theoretical deliberations and model simulations using assumed inputs designed to arrive at a specific answer. Again, the “chances” of this group being at least principally “wrong” are 100%.
To part 2: So far there have been no proposals for “effective action” that are actionable. Those specific proposals that have been made (ex. stop new coal fired plant construction in USA after 2010 and shut down half of existing coal fired plants by 2050) have been shown to have no discernable effect on either atmospheric CO2 levels or average global temperature (even if one accepts the inflated IPCC climate sensitivity of CO2), yet the cost would be around $1 trillion. Doing this “64 times” (to arrive at your cost of $64 trillion) would still have no measurable impact. The net “cost” saving of the thereby averted, but not even measurable, AGW would quite obviously be insignificant compared to its “cost” of implementation.
Hope this answers your question.
Max
Robin,
You ask what you would I do if I were in charge of reducing UK CO2 emissions?
The UK as part of the EU has already implemented and is a part of an Emissions Trading Scheme. I’d be working towards persuading countries like Australia and the USA to take part! I’d also like to review its workings to address criticsms made by people like James Hansen to ensure its effectiveness.
I’m not singling out the UK to be a particular villain. Australia’s record is pretty poor – especially as the present government have clearly broken one of their key election pledges. So, I probably should work on persuading them to set up their own scheme first. Again there was quite a bit of criticism of the one that has been ‘postponed’ – there’ll be plenty of loopholes that will need to be closed.
Once these schemes are established in the EU, Australia, the USA, Japan etc there will inevitably be justified complaints from certain business sections that their competitiveness has been unfairly disadvantaged by compliance costs. In those circumstances it will be justifiable to add import duties to products from countries outside the scheme and naturally countries will find themselves at a disadvantage by staying out. This probably will be the mechanism by which the scheme will be expanded to include all countries -worldwide.
I just hope it happens quickly enough.
The insurance analogy is silly.
As Brute pointed out, fire insurance does not prevent fires – it just pays out afterwards.
So fire prevention would be a better analogy. A kind of fire prevention that only works if everyone everywhere does similar fire prevention.
But fires do exist – we have seen them. So it’s not fire prevention. It’s preventing a new, totally unprecedented phenomenon with a prevention scheme that only works if everyone follows suit and is horribly expensive.
… and as tempterrain pointed out, the word ‘insurance’ can and does have a wider meaning and, yes, it can and does prevent fires!
You guys need to either invest in a dictionary or learn to look up words on the internet!
For example:
Insurance is “6: any means of guaranteeing against loss or harm: Taking vitamin c is viewed as an insurance against catching colds.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurance
PeterM (39)
Dream on…
Let’s talk about preventative measures.
What actionable measures are you proposing to slow down the increase of atmospheric CO2 (in the UK, for example)?
How much will each of these measures cost to implement and by how much will atmospheric CO2 be reduced by their implementation?
By how many degrees C will anthropogenic global warming be slowed down by these measures?
Please do not simply state emission reduction targets (i.e. x% of year y) as these are not actionable measures to reduce CO2, only empty goals.
Also please do not list carbon taxes (direct or indirect through cap and trade schemes) as actionable measures, as these will also have no impact on reducing CO2 whatsoever.
Ball’s in your court, Peter.
Max
Max,
You claim that “cap and trade schemes ……will have no impact on reducing CO2 whatsoever”
The meaning of “cap” is to set an upper limit. This upper limit can be adjusted from one year to the next to either keep emissions level or reduce them.
So, by definition, they must reduce them if the cap is set correctly. I’m just wondering if you understood that?
PeterM
No problem with my understanding of what “cap and trade” means.
But you seem to lack an understanding of what “actionable programs to reduce atmospheric CO2 and global temperature” means.
Please explain to me a) by what specific mechanism these cap and trade schemes will result in lower CO2 emissions, b) what the specific cost to the average citizen will be for these action programs, c) by how many ppmv atmospheric CO2 increases will be averted as a result of these specific action programs and d) how many degrees C of global warming will thereby be averted.
The rest is all idle talk, Peter.
Max
Max,
You still don’t seem to grasp the idea of how cap and trade works. The scheme doesn’t dictate in detail how CO2 levels should be reduced it merely puts a cap on what the maximum level should be.
A permit to a tonne of carbon acquires a value on the market, according to the process of supply and demand, in exactly the same way as, say, an area of land.
Those types of energy which generate high CO2 emissions, as a by product, become relatively more expensive and, conversely, those which generate low levels become relatively cheaper.
The cost to the citizen would depend on the value that those permits acquire in the marketplace. It would also depend on how the money raised was spent. It wouldn’t just disappear off to Mars! It could be used to finance the building of schools and hospitals. I suppose you right-wing types would think that was a complete waste of money and would rather it be spent on foreign wars! It would, of course, depend on the political priorities which may be prevalent at the time.
PeterM
You are repeating yourself (45).
Of course I “grasp the idea of how cap and trade [supposedly] works”, but it appears that you do not.
For your information, some comments on the cap and trade scam by John Truman Wolfe, author of the book Crisis by Design, which covers the causes of the worldwide economic crash.
http://www.crisisbydesign.com/blog/tag/carbon-credits-are-a-vicious-scam/
It explains how a few, well-positioned individuals and corporations will get very rich from this scheme, which will be paid for by average citizens of the developed world in higher energy costs, (but it does not explain how our planet’s temperature will be influenced at all by this scam).
So far you have been unable to do so, either, despite repeated requests from me.
Max
Max,
So the penny has now dropped with you? I hope so. You’ll now, I hope, be able to answer one your own questions: “How many ppmv atmospheric CO2 increases will be averted”. In case, anyone else has a problem the answer is “as many as you like”! Or, to put it another way, if there are only 80% of the permits available in one year, as there were in the previous year, the answer is a 20% reduction in emissions.
Max,
As you seem to be a big fan of his, I was just wondering if you knew that John Truman Wolfe is actually the pseudonym of Bruce Wiseman? A well known Scientologist, apparently.
They do believe some odd things, those Scientologists, you know.
You’re not one yourself are you? That might explain a few things!
PeterM
I am not really interested at all in Wolfe’s religious leanings, nor am I “a big fan of his”. I simply referred you to an op-ed piece he has written on what he refers to as the “cap and trade scam”.
But since you are apparently having problems grasping how this all works, let me use a simple example (or fictitious “case study”).
Let’s say that I own and run an electrical power company in the USA that generates power from coal, and supplies it into the grid where it is sold primarily to domestic consumers.
My residential price for power is 0.11 $/kWh today, with coal priced at 2.30 $/million BTU.
Each household, which I supply, uses an average of 12,000 kWh electrical power per year, for which it pays me $1,320 per year.
My plant uses 275 kg coal per MWh and generates 1,000 kgCO2/MWh generated.
My plant generates 700 MW, had a total investment cost of 2500 $ per installed kW and I make a 6% return on my total investment. I have just installed an incremental expansion of 10% to supply my growing customer demand.
My “carbon cap” was established based on my capacity prior to expansion, and is scheduled within three years to be 25% lower than my capacity at that time, in order to “de-incentivize” my CO2 emissions (and reduce my “carbon footprint”).
I have put in all the major efficiency improvement steps that are possible, so am forced to either cut back production and curtail sales to my customers or purchase carbon credits on the market in order to keep supplying my customers’ demand.
A cap and trade system, with auctioned carbon credits is being installed globally, with each nation receiving carbon credits. Under this system, the “carbon cake” is divided up among all nations based on the amount of CO2 they are “allowed” to emit, with each nation able to sell carbon credits if it pollutes less than this allowance, so that underdeveloped countries can receive pollution credits worth tens of billions of dollars,
I am told that the “value” of a carbon credit is influenced by the amount of tax levied on the carbon emissions, the penalties provided for exceeding an agreed upon emissions target, the cost to achieve the reduction, and traditional demand and supply of the reduction product. Credits have been set at a starting rate of around 50 $/ton of carbon, but are expected to rise to several times this amount as a universal carbon cap is set for all nations, including the USA. My financial advisors tell me to count on 250 $/ton of carbon over the medium term ($68 per ton of CO2 emitted). [I think they may be optimistic, but what the hell…]
In order to be able to continue to supply the growing demand of my customers, I will continue operations as usual (continuing to install incremental efficiency improvements as these are identified over time), and purchase the credits on the open market.
While the source of each credit bought and sold is not known, it is known that the government of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe (for example) is selling a large quantity of credits his nation has amassed due to its low energy infrastructure and resulting carbon emissions, so, in a way, my credits are being purchased from the Mugabe regime to reward them for keeping the residents of Zimbabwe without energy and in poverty.
The added cost to my operation: 35% * 700 * 1 * 68 * 8,000 = $134 million/year or
35% * 1 * 68 = $290/year per household, which I supply. I will pass this on to my customers, thereby increasing their power bill by 290/1320 or 22%.
Some of this money will go to the money-shufflers who are carbon offset providers, such as CCX, etc. (of which Al Gore will get a piece), but the greatest part of this money will end up in the offshore bank accounts of Mr. Mugabe, thereby supporting a good cause.
Maybe (being a basically nice guy) he will, as you have suggested, use this money “to finance the building of schools and hospitals”.
But the amount of CO2 generated and emitted will not change by one milligram.
Maybe you do not like my picture. If so, draw me another one, but be sure you address the question of specific actionable proposals to reduce atmospheric CO2 increase and global warming, with some quantitative estimates of cost and benefit (in reduced ppmv CO2 and degrees C warming).
Max
Peter said;#47
‘…the answer is a 20% reduction in emissions.’
You forgot to add ‘…for those involved in the various carbon schemes…’ which, as Robin has been trying to point out, comprises an increasingly small percentage of those involved in creating the emissions.
This type of scheme will make our energy and manufacturing even more expensive in future. To whose advantage is that?
tonyb