(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.
Please try to keep comments focused on the climate debate and resist any temptation to stray into more general political discussion.
The key thing about climate change which differs from any other scientific controversy is the existence of the IPPC. This is the reason why we are in this mess.
The role of the IPPC is essentially to select papers and viewpoints from the peer-reviewed scientific literature which confirm its viewpoint (and the IPPC defines its role as scrutinising “the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”) This is not a proper scientific scrutiny, rather a foregone conclusion which was also present in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 where climate change was defined as:
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
These definitions are both non-scientific and their inherent assumption of cause is the reason why the debate is not over.
All good scientists were taught to state their assumptions, define terms and show their working. I wish more of them would scrutinise the IPPC a little more.
The Royal Society (Motto, nullius in verba, which it translates as ‘Take nobody’s word for it’) has asked us to take its word in press release form that climate change is real. The Royal Society’s own publication “Climate change: what we know and what we need to know” also doesn’t define climate change, a basic error which would have earned a fail from my school physics teacher.
Peter: I’d like to comment on this but cannot as I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Although the article’s supposed to be about the “Anthropogenic Global Warming Debate”, it falls, I suggest, at the first hurdle when you define that debate as being an argument “for and against the scientific consensus position on global warming”. Leaving aside the obvious point that science does not proceed by consensus, to what “position” are you referring? I’d be surprised if all climatologists did not agree that the globe’s temperature has warmed somewhat over recent (say 150) years. No debate there then. Equally, although I have no evidence either way, I’d be surprised if most climatologists did not agree that the emission of CO2 contributed to that warming. No significant debate there either. Again, although I have no evidence either way, I’d be surprised if most climatologists did not agree that mankind’s emission of CO2 formed a part of that contribution. So, again, no significant debate there. There are, I accept, ongoing scientific debates about whether mankind’s emissions were an important part of that contribution, about whether, if they were, any resulting warming constitutes a threat to mankind and about whether anything useful can or should be done about it. But, as I am unaware of any “consensus” on these points, your definition doesn’t help.
It would be useful if you were more specific about what you mean. A good start would be to complete the short survey I offered to you recently. Then, as most of those with whom you disagree on this site have completed it, we can establish clearly where you think the line is drawn between the “consensus” and those who are “against” it. Then we can understand better what you mean by the “debate”. You’ll find the survey here.
The IPCC was set up in 1998, largely as an initiative of the Reagan administration in the USA. There have been those such as Spencer Weart of the Institute of Physics who are of the opinion that it was set up to fail:
The Reagan administration wanted to forestall pronouncements by self-appointed committees of scientists, fearing they would be ‘alarmist.’ Conservatives promoted the IPCC’s clumsy structure, which consisted of representatives appointed by every government in the world and required to consult all the thousands of experts in repeated rounds of report-drafting in order to reach a consensus. Despite these impediments the IPCC has issued unequivocal statements on the urgent need to act.
It is also possible to argue that Pres Reagan deliberately wanted to associate the global warming issue with the UN, which just about guarantees its unpopularity in some US right wing circles.
Of course, it may be that President Reagan genuinely wanted to the right thing and involve as many international leading scientists as possible to emphasise the importance of the issue.
Peter, I believe it is a bit simplistic and naïve to suggest that the IPCC was set up by the “Reagan administration in the USA” to “fail” as you indicate that Spencer Weart of the Institute of Physics may have opined.
The role of the IPCC is clearly defined in item 2 of its document “Principles Governing IPCC Work”,
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”
You will note that its role is not to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding changes of climate per se or to understanding non-human-induced climate change. Its role has been defined to assess the “risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”.
By definition, if IPCC cannot demonstrate that there is, indeed, a “scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” with some significant “potential impacts” on our world, there is no reason for the IPCC to continue to exist.
I am sure that you will agree that essentially all bureaucratic committees have one thing in common: they want to continue to exist. They do not want to disband or die for lack of a valid reason to exist. In other words, their “raison d’être” must be validated.
Therefore, it is logical that the IPCC should undertake everything possible to demonstrate (a) that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change”, (b) that “its potential impacts” are significant enough to warrant serious attention by the world’s “policymakers” and (c) that there are “options for adaptation and mitigation”.
This motivation of self-preservation sets the stage for “agenda driven science”: if the underlying “science” demonstrates a “risk of human-induced climate change” of significant “potential impact”, it is embraced enthusiastically; if, on the other hand, the “science” demonstrates that there is no risk of human-induced climate change of any significant impact, it is rejected, ignored or simply not accepted as relevant. There are many examples of this in the latest IPCC reports, which I will be very glad to demonstrate, if you are truly interested.
If one reads the IPCC reports, in particular the more “political” reports intended for (non-scientific) “policymakers”, this becomes very apparent. “Human-induced climate change” is projected to cause increased floods, droughts, heavy precipitation events, tropical cyclones, heat waves, extreme weather events, melting of ice sheets with resulting accelerated sea level rise and extreme high sea levels, without any sound scientific bases for any of these projections.
Your rationalization that there were hidden “political reasons” on the part of (U.S.) “conservatives” to create an IPCC doomed to failure from the start are speculative, conjectural and unsubstantiated.
What’s even more important, Peter, they are totally irrelevant.
IPCC exists today. It has an “agenda” (supported indirectly by a very large budget funded by tax-payers). This “agenda” is to continue to exist by convincing the world at large (and particularly the political and bureaucratic “policymakers” who will influence the budget) (a) that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change”, (b) that “its potential impacts” are significant enough to warrant serious attention by the world’s “policymakers” and (c) that there are “options for adaptation and mitigation”.
Seems pretty simple to me, Peter.
If you can counter the logic in this assertion, please do so.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Maybe you are right and that the IPCC was set up for the noblest of reasons. I don’t know for sure and it may well be that Spencer Weart was unjustifiably sceptical in his comments.
If that was indeed the case, how about we all agree to stop criticising the IPCC? At least on political grounds and with constant references to their UN (New World Order?) connections?
Hello Peter
I am inclined to think that the original top level purpose of the IPCC was to be seen to be doing ‘something’ and was initiated by Thatcher and Regan. In that the decision was political, but charitably the original IPCC structure wasnt.
However it has certainly aquired an element of politicisation over the years, through the nature of some of the people involved in the three working groups, and the overall direction of the climate change debate by such people as Al Gore.
If the IPCC were to have been set up 10 years later as an independent non political body it is tempting to think they would have quickly disbanded through lack of evidence.
Having said that, few organisations volutarily wind themselves up and subsequently cast about looking for a new role.
TonyB
Re: #6, Peter
This is rather like suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury should not be criticised on religious grounds.
If you haven’t seen this, and not many people seem to have done, then you should read it carefully. It’s the nearest thing to publicly available official minutes of the Feb 2007 plenary in Paris that finalised the AR4 SPM.
You will find numerous attempts by the political representatives to ‘sex up’ alarmism in the report, some of which were thwarted by the scientists present on the grounds that they were too blatant to go unnoticed. All this happened against a background of the observers at the meeting, most of whom were from the ENGOs, briefing the press with stories about how the Americans were sabotaging the report by watering it down.
I was particularly interested in the repeated attempts by UK government representatives to ‘strengthen’ references to co2, just a month before a budget introduced higher taxes on road vehicles and fuel.
And in case you jump to the conclusion that the IISD is a right-wing think tank, try googling them.
Spencer Weart is not an objective chronicler of climate science. My favorite explanation of why the IPCC was set up, and there are many, is as follows:
In the late 1980s the WMO was in a backwater, its only pupose being to try and persuade meteorologists worldwide to use standard metrics; a worthy but hardly world-shaking activity. UNEP had recently been created and no one really seemed to know what it was meant to be doing. Jointly they set up the IPCC, and since then they have never looked back.
Your headline post laments the politicisation of the climate debate, and so do I. This situation cannot be addressed by appeals not to criticise the IPCC on political grounds. It is a deeply political organisation.
Tony N, Max,
I should have said that the IPCC was set up in 1988. (Not 1998). At the same time Mrs Thatcher in the UK set up the hadley center. Both of these bodies have turned out to present some political problems for their instigators.
Would you say they turned out to be political own goals? Or, were their creators smart enough to foresee what actually eventuated?
Robin,
I’m not sure what there is to be gained by filling in a questionnaire. I’m sure that it won’t tell you anything that I haven’t already.
The consensus scientific position does not necessarily imply that there is no room for disagreement. If I could suggest a definition: it is that AGW is real, is a danger to humanity, and needs to be addressed seriously.
Of course, you can divide the mainstream opinion up into those who would suggest that the warming will be on the lower end of the IPCC scale and those who would place it on the higher end. I’m of the opinion that it is more likely to be mid range.
Those who are outside the consensus tend to identify themselves with denialist websites, derogatory phrases about mainstream science ( hoaxer, charlatan etc) and the consistent use of cherry picked data such as the change in Arctic sea ice from one year to the next. This is such an obvious misrepresentation that it scarcely deserves comment. The correct scientific approach is to always show the long term trend by means of a graph, even when, as in 2007, there was a large decrease in sea ice from one year to the next.
Re: #9, Peter
It would be quite interesting to gather together all the many and various explanations about why the IPCC was set up, and there would seem to be enough of these to suggest that no one really knows the answer. So we appear to have an organisation that has enormous influence on policy worldwide, but no clear idea of why it came into being. What we can be certain of is that it could not have been set up in response to robust scientific evidence of AGW. Our knowledge of climate systems was far too rudimentary twenty years ago.
You say:
Oracles can always be lucky. The question at the moment is not whether the IPCC are right or wrong, but where the balance of probability lies. As I have said before, the scientific evidence has become so contaminated by politics that it is impossible for anyone, scientist, policy maker or layman, to distinguish fact from fiction. The IPCC is largely responsible for this.
So far as ‘political own goals’ are concerned, the politicians who were around in 1988 have long since left centre stage and, as it is likely to be decades before scientific research progresses to a point where the climate debate can be definitively settled, the present political cheerleaders for the IPCC process face no greater risk than their predecessors. They may, in the near future, loose the support of the general public, but that is an everyday peril for politicians and is quite different from being proved wrong.
TonyN and Peter
“Why” IPCC got set up in 1988 is a moot point today, although its charter does indicate that its reason for existence was to identify a human impact on climate, to quantify this along with secondary repercussions on our planet and to come up with suggestions for adaptation or mitigation if these seemed advisable.
All seemed innocent enough.
I personally believe it all went awry when the political concept was introduced of “forcing” a reduction in man-made CO2 emissions through carbon caps or taxes.
For the first time, we were no longer talking about an interesting scientific study, but we were talking about hundreds of billions of tax-payer dollars to be administered by bureacrats and politicians in a massive power grab.
Money corrupts. Big money does so in a big way. And VERY BIG money does so in a VERY BIG way.
All of a sudden we had a political agenda, which required a scientific justification.
This has led to the “agenda driven science”, for which the IPCC has become famous (or notorious) and to the blatantly one-sided or even false reports (such as its latest SPM 2007).
We are no longer talking about unbiased and objective “science” endeavoring to find the “truth” about what drives our planet’s climate, we are talking about providing a “pseudoscientific” justification for a political agenda involving obscene amounts of money.
OBSCENE amounts of money corrupt in an OBSCENE way.
Regards,
Max
Peter: re #9.
Re the survey, as I have said, it would enable us to understand clearly (not broadly) where you think the line is drawn between the “consensus” and those who are “against” it. It’s straightforward enough – why are you so nervous about completing it? You’ll find the survey here – go for it!
It’s remarkable that, after nearly a year of largely intelligent and productive discussion on the NS+ thread, your mind is still dominated by the concept of an undeniable scientific consensus holding its head up against a ragbag of misguided and ignorant critics – and is completely closed to any other interpretation. The point of my comment above on your opinion piece is that I reject your most basic premise: except for the observed fact that the world has warmed since 1850 and that CO2 may have contributed to that, I do not accept that there is a “consensus scientific position” on what’s happening and what might be done about it.
In any case, claims of consensus are, in my view, a refuge from the reality of the absence of definitive science. Scientific truth is not established by counting heads.
Robin,
“….undeniable scientific consensus holding its head up against a ragbag of misguided and ignorant critics”.
I probably haven’t used this phrase about you, before but: well said Robin!
What is it with you and this survey? I’m sure that I have made it clear that the answer to your questions is an ‘a’
Luke Warmer, Reur 2
I greatly enjoyed your succinct comments!
HEY WHEREFORE ART THOU?
Please continue to contribute!
I read this stuff, even if I’m not sure what this thread is about yet!
Regards, Bob_FJ
Peter,
Here is an easy question for you concerning but a smidgeon of the “activities” of the IPCC:
You will be aware that in the TAR (IPCC 2001), the Manna “hockey-stick” was blazoned in many parts of their various reports. It then had many elaborations in the media and by Al Gore etc.
Could you please explain to me why you think that 2001 magnificent portent to policy-makers and whatnot around the World, was dropped in the AR4 (IPCC 2007)?
I could elaborate in detail, but I’m trying to keep the question as simple as possible for you.
Things move on but fortunately the past is still available on the net.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/milloy080905.htm
It appears Mann and his GLOBAL Hockey stick rely heavily on TWO SMALL areas of the planet. Remove Tiljander Lake proxies in Finland and Graybill strip bark pines located in the southwestern US (both in the northern hemisphere) and there is NO hockey stick. Both Greybill and Tiljander have stated that that these proxies should not be used for temperature yet Mann et al use them.
Mann concludes that the medieval warm period is a LOCAL event yet the Tiljander lake proxies and Graybill strip bark are according to Mann a global temperature indicator in their own right, it appears they are the only two proxies in the whole series that provide the up tick.
Pete,
As your unpaid tutor, I have set you some homework here, (15) on YOUR self initiated blog-thread, and also across at the long-running thread of the great progenitor Lynas, (pie-man), but you do not seem to be responding to those tasks.
PLEASE; Your homework…. It is important if you want to be able to adequately discuss scientific issues!
AGAIN: the homework:
Can I have the answers in by first thing tomorrow morning please?
(For both threads please)
I don’t want to have to make you go and stand in the corner with a silly hat on your head!
Neither do I want to ask that I should charge a fee for my services!
Dear Bob_FJ,
Do I detect a element of plagiarism in your phrasing and tone? We should all be keen to learn , of course. What credentials do you possess?
Just on a point of information: this thread wasn’t self initiated, but rather on the invitation of Tony N. The idea of the thread, at least as far as I understand it, is to allow a discussion of some of the more political aspects and motivations which lie behind the AGW debate.
Maybe you could have a bit of a think about Robin’s line about science, “holding its head up against a ragbag of misguided and ignorant critics.” I would add that there are at least an equal number of critics who could be better described as conducting a campaign of disinformation. They are well aware of the science and the dangers of global warming, but for mainly political reasons, and using very similar tactics to the tobacco companies in trying to discredit scientific warnings on the health impacts of cigarette smoking from the 60’s onwards, have chosen to try to discredit and cast doubt on well founded scientific evidence that CO2 emissions have an adverse effect on the health of the planet.
TonyN: This comment originally appeared in the name of Bob_FJ
Peter
You are right that I asked you to contribute a post so that some of the political aspects of the AGW debate could be opened up for discussion on a separate thread.
As I understand what you are saying, a new world order with far greater state control of economies, will be required in order to implemented mitigation measures. This suggests that that you do not expect these ends to be achieved by persuasion. It is reasonable to ask why this might be so when, according to the AGW advocates, the evidence that human activity is altering the climate is so obvious and incontrovertible, and the predictions of massive problems ahead are reliable and irrefutable.
As Robin has pointed out many times, politically correct rhetoric and pious platitudes will not reduce co2 emissions, and no effective measures are being taken to achieve this goal on a global scale. Nor can we expect carbon free economies to be created in the short term without real economic pain, and more economic pain is not something that anyone is likely to go looking for in the foreseeable future.
Your view that the climate debate can be won by the warmers on the back of global economic collapse certainly merits discussion.
TonyN,
It has turned midnight here, so this is a quicky:
#18 although it was in my blogo-name, was NOT authored by me, but I strongly suspect, given the context and whatnot, that it was authored by Peter Martin.
I will respond accordingly perhaps tomorrow
Bob
You are right, but from what I can see behind the scenes, this was cockup and not conspiracy. I’ve made various edits to try and get things back on track. I guess it was his bed-time too.
TonyN,
Yes posting #18 was from me. Apologies, if I put Bob_FJ’s name in the wrong place.
“a new world order with far greater state control of economies, will be required in order to implemented mitigation measures.”
AGW is a problem which will occur regardless of the state of the world’s economy. The usage of fossil fuels may fall slightly during an economic recession but, as the price of coal and oil falls, not by anywhere near enough to make much real difference.
The climate will respond equally to carbon dioxide emissions whether they are from state owned industries or privately owned ones. On the other hand, it will benefit equally if the controls are are applied by the private sector or by the government sector.
“New World Order”? Didn’t Timothy McVeigh set off an explosion in Oklahoma to prevent that? Its just a term used by certain nutty right wing types to describe their own paranoia. It may seem somewhat idealistic to suggest that international conflict should be replaced by international co-operation but who can argue that it shouldn’t be our aim?
I’m not sure why you think the change over from fossil fuels to a low carbon economy requires “economic pain“. On the contrary, it is economic inactivity, generating high levels of unemployment, which causes the real problem. The economic depression of the 1930’s only ended when it was required that industrial production be maximised to sustain the war effort of the 40’s.
We are not in anywhere near so bad a position now even if the forthcoming downturn does turn out to be comparable. Instead of using a war between peoples to reinvigorate the western economies why not a war on CO2 and other GHG emissions?
Peter Reur 18, you wrote in part:
Since you apparently wrote the lead article, and have clarified its purpose, perhaps you would be gracious enough to respond to my simple on-topic political question in my 15 above. BTW, this is my second follow-up, further to my 17.
Re: #22, Peter
I wasn’t aware that this term is particularly associated with either end of the political spectrum; both Woodrow Wilson and HG Wells used it in the 1940s. But there does seem to be an increasingly vocal minority who are using AGW hysteria to advocate world government. The idea that this might reduce conflict is facile, unless you can convince yourself that such a new world order can be introduced with universal consent.
The point that I made in #19, and which you have avoided, is that those who are now advocating increased government control of economies as a means of reducing GHG emissions are, by doing so, acknowledging that the mitigation measures that they would like to see implemented must be imposed, rather than adopted with the support of public opinion. This calls into question the plausibility of the evidence that human activity is changing the climate.
Lead me to an alternative that is not significantly more expensive, and less reliable, than fossil fuels; with the possible exception of nuclear.
Peter,
Reur 18, you wrote in part:
Since you apparently wrote the lead article, and have clarified its purpose, perhaps you would be gracious enough to respond to my simple on-topic political question posed in my 15 above.
BTW, this is my THIRD follow-up, further to my 17 and 23.
I hope I don’t have to go asking terzo to quartro!