(For nearly a year now, Peter Martin has been a regular contributor to a remarkable thread which started at the New Statesman and is now, nearly 6000 comments later, hosted at Harmless Sky. By energetically representing a point of view that most of the other contributors disagree with, he makes sure that none of us get complacent. Thanks Peter!)
There are many thousands of posts on numerous websites, both arguing for and against the scientific consensus position on global warming, or climate change if you prefer. There is probably no precedent for such a scientific controversy. Previous disputes about smoking and health, or evolutionary theory seem relatively tame by comparison. There have been other scientific controversies over the years, which have been settled, as they should in the way that science should settle them, by a process of discussion and acceptance. Famously, Einstein had conceptual problems with the ideas of quantum mechanics that were emerging in the 1920s and 30’s. Schrodinger, himself a pioneer of quantum mechanical theory, was uncomfortable with some of the philosophical implications, expressed doubts, asked difficult questions and was happy to test his own theories against the general scepticism of many physicists at the time.
There are still unanswered questions. Scientific controversy on quantum mechanics still exists but to a much lesser extent. And yet, no votes have been taken. There have been debates but not in the sense that there are debates over political issues. Science does move along in the way that politics does not. It is hard to imagine that socialists and conservatives will engage in a process of give and take and move along to the next issue in a spirit of a new emerging consensus. It would be hard to imagine George Bush, for instance, even after he had just about nationalised all the US banks, admitting that perhaps he had it all wrong for years, and that maybe Marx and Engels were right, especially in point five of their Communist Manifesto, a call to nationalise all banks. And, equally difficult to imagine Fidel Castro giving a speech on the benefits that a controlled capitalism might bring to a more democratic Cuba.
The debate on the global warming issue, almost uniquely for science, has taken on very much the same characteristics. Trenches have been dug. Positions have been taken. It would be just as difficult to imagine a Lindzen or a Hansen making concessions to each other as a Bush or a Castro. Politics has taken over the AGW debate lock, stock and smoking barrels. On the left, those of an anti-capitalist persuasion have eagerly accepted the scientific evidence as it emerged in the late 20th century, and have very much sought to use it as a means of putting the brakes on a rampant capitalism. On the right, those who were very much enjoying the ride on the juggernaut were equally concerned that too much attention to environmentalist concerns of all kinds, not just the CO2 issue, could jeopardise a record period of continuous growth. Once it is accepted that it is this conflict which has fuelled the debate in the blogosphere, and elsewhere, rather than an intrinsic concern over whether Mann had it right with his ‘hockey stick’ graph or whether Spencer was correct to say that the clouds in general are responsible for a negative feedback effect, which acts to stabilise the climate against the effects of higher CO2 concentrations then the sooner some progress may be made.
It very much looks like the capitalist juggernaut which has flattened all before it in the last twenty years, or more, has finally run out of momentum. All by itself! Even the most enthusiastic supporters of the system have been unable to blame the so far limited introduction of carbon trading schemes, or carbon taxes, for the likely demise of their preferred system. Many are now asking where we should go from here. There are those who will be still hoping that late 20th century neo-liberalism, or laissez-faire capitalism, can be given a period on a life-support system and re-emerge stronger and more vital than ever. There will be those arguing for just about every conceivable alternative, from 20th century Maoism, to a return to a quasi-medieval lifestyle. We could look at moving to something that is totally untried and untested in the same way the post revolutionary Russians tried to implement what they considered to be Marxism but ended up as Stalinism. It might be safer to not experiment too much at this difficult time but look at, and choose, the political system that has worked the most consistently well in the 20th century. Yes, the European mixed economy model of the post war period and which enabled the continent to recover from almost complete devastation in less than fifteen years. On all measures of a healthy society: low crime rates, full employment, equal opportunity for all, an avoidance of too great a gap between rich and poor, but still allowing for those who would wish to set up their own entrepreneurial activities; that system scores pretty well and still survives, if in somewhat diluted form, in many European and other countries, including Australia.
That is not to say that there should be no attempt at improvement. Everyone will have their own opinion. I would suggest a much greater degree of industrial democracy to avoid the replacement of private capitalism with a kind of state capitalism. It has been difficult to resist the temptation to tease some right-wing Americans over the ‘socialism’ of their government’s actions in nationalising USA banks and insurance companies in recent weeks. And yet, no one refers to Singapore as a socialist state even though it is quite normal for Singaporean banks and industry to be government owned. Maybe that thought will allow some Americans to sleep a little easier at night!
If, and when, a new political consensus does emerge over the direction to be followed, as it did in the post war period, it should be possible to review the science in a much less partisan manner. If climate change is then considered likely to be on the higher range of IPCC predictions then it could very well be too late to prevent serious consequences. On the other hand if we are lucky, and the levels look to be on the lower side it is quite likely that a genuine worldwide consensus can easily emerge on that issue too and sensible mitigation measures adopted. It will probably displease the more backward looking greens and die hard sceptics in equal measure, and that in itself will be a good indication that we have finally got it right.
TonyN,
This is it.
http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf
What do you mean by objective? Isn’t it more important to be right?
Peter
Thanks for the link.
If you are subjective and right, then you are relying on luck!
Peter Martin,
Reur 51, you link to an apparent PDF of a fax from a Randy Randol from Exxonmobil, to a John Howard at CEQ, dated 6 Feb 2001; signed in hand by Randy
Just a few of observations, based on a quick flip-through of only the first two pages of 18:
*This apparent discussion document, which Exxon are perfectly entitled to issue, if they wanted to put it into print, was before the IPCC TAR’s back in 2001. (However; don’t Exxon have some influential lobbyists, like in all big USA business, without need to put anything into print? Uh?)
* The apparent fax claims that Watson was hand-picked by Al Gore for the job. Given that Gore is a gross exaggerator, (deceiver) on AGW, it seems a reasonable request to replace him with someone that MIGHT be more rational.
* The AR4 IPCC reports that were issued in 2007, over six years after this apparent Exxon mischief, have been alleged to have been written by some 2,500 scientists, all holding the identical consensus conclusion on the AGW science. Do you think that these 2,500 dedicated scientists were in anyway influenced in their opinions by Pachauri? (A non climate scientist)
* Finally, who is John Howard at CEQ?
TonyN,
You’ve still not given me your definition of ‘objective’.
I would say that what you really mean is someone who might interpret the scientific evidence a little more to your liking.
You don’t really mean objective at all.
Peter
My definition of ‘objective’? I’m not a lexicographer, so the definition in any good dictionary will do.
What on earth have likes or dislikes got to do with the IPCC process? Either it produces objective assessments that are plausible or it produces subjective assessments that are not.
Of course I meant precisely what I said and your interpretation is subjective, isn’t it?.
I’ve heard of this ‘notorious’ memo before although this is the first time that I’ve seen it, so thanks for the link.
Maybe Tony will allow a more a little more scope on this thread, which I did intend to cover the more political aspects of the AGW issue.
Recent events in the USA have tended to confirm what I was saying last year. That the AGW debate is almost entirely political rather than about any particular points of concern about Climate Science per se.
It does seem that those very same people in the USA who are quite prepared to allow the homeless and unemployed to die for lack of adequate health care, and compare the British NHS to Hitler’s death camps, are also the ones who are most rabid in their opposition to measures to curtail AGW emissions.
Why do you think it should be like this?
Peter:
Try this:
How many people has ‘climate change’ killed?
But if you are going to try to drag health care into this thread too, forget it.
TonyN,
Well its not just me who thinks that the Haelth Care reforms are not OT on the AGW issue, though others have possibly different reasons. Guess who said this?
“Right now it’s (Obamas’s Renewable Energy bill) taking back stage to the health care plan. Are the two linked? You betcha!”
My question on why are they the “same people” is quite relevant.
Peter:
I’m not interested in suggestions that the ‘same people’ have said something or not said something. I it is a symptom of pigeon-holing views by assigning them to a group.
I was amused to see that the YaleClimateMedia website portrayed me as a conservative blogger a while back, apparently for no other reason than that I am sceptical about AGW. Very strange when it emanates from such an exalted place.
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/02/bbcnewsnight-editing-of-obama-inaugural-address/
Tony N,
A conservative blogger? Yes I’d say you were. Your campaign against the BBC would indicate that. I notice that you’ve widened this to include the Royal Society recently, which does, I agree, make some sense. You’ve no chance of changing the BBC’s line on climate change unless the Royal Society changes its line too.
You don’t like the Climate change blog becoming too political and, yes, it would be good if politics were kept out but that’s what drives the debate. It isn’t points of concern about any particular aspect of science. I’m quite open about my politics. I believe that the sort of “mixed economy” societies, with a mixture of socialism and capitalism, we have in Australia and in Western Europe(maybe Japan and some other countries could be included too) makes these countries better places to live in than the rest of the world. Does that make me a dangerous extremist?
I simply make the point that, with very few exceptions, global warming deniers tend to dislike the Western European model and would like to impose a political system more like that of the USA, or even one with more unrestrained capitalism than they already have, on us all. If that ever happened in the UK I’m sure you’d get your way on the BBC. It may even get bought out by Fox. Would you be happy about that? You don’t seem to have anything critical to say regarding them.
PS to TonyN
I’m just wondering why you’ve objected to the term “conservative”. I seem to remember Hayek and Friedman often used to deny they were conservatives and say they were Liberals (big L). Although in the American context, liberal tends to mean the same thing as Social Democratic in European terms. They were harking back to a 19th century definition of the term which advocated Free Trade, Minimum government, money on the Gold standard etc etc.
Its still made them pretty right wing though in today’s terms. So if you are a (big L) Liberal , you wouldn’t be a supporter of the UK’s Liberal Democrats , and you would be very much
opposed to a Western European style mixed economy.