Why has Hansen become an 'Advocate'?

One of the reasons its been quiet here is because yours truly has been busy mixing it at the Guardian. Occasionally, the odd little gem has poppped out of the cabbage patch and been reasonably well received.

Just now, someone else left a post on a John Abrahams article (here) which I felt the need to respond to. I'm quite pleased with the result, so here are the two comments:

Smith1867

05 September 2014 5:23pm

Recommend

0

In truth, I prefer the harder science, but frankly these do not get as many page views as the debunking posts.

Is how many page views your blog posts receive what you are interested in? Is that the primary reason for your participation in this blog? If so, then by all means follow more closely to your colleauge's approach. But beware that that is not a scientific blogging approach so much as it is a publicity approach in a sciency genre. Not really science communication in even a loose sense of the term.

A problem for all science communicators and the public who are their target, is that their scientific credentials are often projected onto their activist writings. Take Dr. Hansen for instance, a brilliant and well qualified atmospheric physicist he may well be, however his advocacy for, or protest against any given solution to the technical problem which is high atmosheric CO2 concentrations is no more qualified than any other intelligent layman. He is not a politician or an economist and solutions for the CO2 problem all require considerable expertise in these arenas. However, more often than not he is awarded the respect he has earned as a scientist for his socio-economic/political solutions. We are told we are not listening to "science" if we do not agree with his proposed solutions. Yet when discussing his solutions his scientific credentials hold no more weight than anyone else who accepts the concensus scientific position on AGW.

So you have to ask yourself, is this blog about science communication, which you are well qualified to author? Or is this blog about advocacy for or protest against highly complex socio-economic/political solutions, which you are no more qualified to author than any other intelligent layman?

If you choose the later, just remember that you are not communicating science and cannot project your scientific expertise onto your opinions about other matters.

• Reply
• Report
• Share this comment on Twitter
• Share this comment on Facebook

• 

  Fergus Brown Smith1867

  05 September 2014 6:01pm

  Recommend

  0

  First, I think it is important to point out that the blog is a part of John's journalistic work, into which his science work feeds. As a journalist, he needs to earn his crust by bringing an audience into the Medium that pays him, so hits matter.

  On the main points you make: Let's say for arguments' sake that you, a scientist, along with a number of colleagues, spend several years working on a hypothesis and reach the conclusion that it really is likely to change the World as we know it, and furthermore, that the consequences could be devastating, and beyond this, that a certain course of action could reduce risks and harm considerably.
  So, of course, you publish. Then, for twenty years, nobody does anything about your findings apart from whinge and get abusive. The evidence mounts up, but the clock is ticking. Your original conclusions have been validated many times over, but still nobody seems to want to do anything to stop the harm or the potential devastation.
  So, what do you do?
  Firstly, as a scientist, you keep on proving your point, testing your work, and keeping up to date. You develop some kudos. Then, as a human being, you start advocating loudly and publically. Because talking about it scientifically and reasonably didn't work. But it still matters. It matters more than ever. So you shout, you protest, you publish, you lobby, and you do everything in your power to get the message across that this is serious, and it ain't gonna go away.
  No, bollocks. If it was me, I would have lost my patience years before Hansen did. Any normal, rational human being would do the same.
  Along with which, I'd get really pissed off with people who told me I had no right to meddle in politics or that my opinions had no validity.
  I think I've made my point...

On the impossibility of dialogue

In the busy thread below, this extended comment appeared. It contains some thinking which requires extended response, so I’ve done a lift and here it is up front.

The context is that the correspondent is a regular presence on the internet, commenting on climate change and global warming. His view and mine are different.

In the comment, he tries to explain why he thinks the way he does, to which I offer my efforts to understand.

Please note that his first language is not English, and make allowance that some of the expressions, which might sound abrasive, may be a function of linguistic difference, not necessarily aggression.

Here we go:

Let me suggest something: Pull back and consider that I am convinced you act in good faith and are honest, but you have been brainwashed.

I too have been brainwashed. The only difference is that I´m aware of the brainwashing and you seem to be oblivious (like 99 % of the population).

This is not a promising start. You set out by claiming your intellectual superiority to me, in that you have a privileged (and superior) epistemic status, because I am not aware that the world as I understand it is relative. I might be inclined to disagree with this.

The brainwashing isn´t the result of an overarching conspiracy. Some of it is genetic, some of it is deeply ingrained culture, some is early education, and some of it is impressed on you by the media, your friends, and your enemies.

Being brainwashed seems to be a positive survival trait in homo sapiens. Although many brainwashed populations were defeated and driven to extinction, others which practiced brainwashing as a higher art form, or got a bit luckier seem to have survived more often thanks to this brainwashing, which aligned most of society with the leadership, and moved them to perform as requested.

This is somewhat helpful. You are trying to describe your hypothesis, that our perception of reality is conditioned. In particular, you emphasise the social context of individual development (or call it the means by which I form my Weltanschauung (‘World-view’).

Thus my position is that a lot of what we believe is real isn´t really there. As my grandchildren would say, it´s all bogus.

Though your expression is a little clumsy, what is coming out seems to be a much simplified version of the ideas of Paul Feyerabend, for example, in ‘Against Method’. Feyerabend’s views are well summarised in Wkipedia (here).

So how does this impact the way I absorb information about global warming? First, I know there are actors trying to manipulate me to behave in a certain way. Why? Because whenever an issue arises which involves government decisions, subsidies, taxes, putting a drilling rig on the public library grounds, and moves like that I have to be manipulated to accept such decisions.

The position gets a bit more complicated here. This is because you introduce the Political realm. What you seem to be saying is that the information which is available about global warming has the same epistemological status as the information which we get from politicians or their employees. I think some people might object to this.

Do you see why you really can´t change my mind? As far as you are concerned I´m a ghost. I live in a different universe. You are trying to debate global warming, and I debate the way "they" manipulate us.

A part of the complexity is that you seem to have thoroughly mixed your resistance to political manipulation and your view of the nature of scientific endeavour. To you, these are manifestations of the same phenomenon – the untrustworthiness of given knowledge – and therefore they are the same thing. You reject Science as a whole, wholesale.

And why do you think you avoided the subject when I tried to use Kosovo and Iraq as talkng points? Because your comfort zone is in global warming and the associated science. You want to feel comfortable surrounded by your friends, sitting in a tall stone tower from which you can fling arrows and stones at the enemy trying to scale your walls.

Here, you are making presumptions about me which are not justified. I avoid discussing Kosovo or Iraq because I do not believe I have sufficient knowledge or understanding to comment on these subjects; I have no expertise or opinion which I trust.

And your characterisation of me in the second sentence is laughable. I have spent considerable time addressing your point of view and defending your right to express yourself, even when you have been illogical and inconsistent, yet you accuse me of attacking you. If you still see me as your enemy I would suggest that the problem lies not in my attitude but in yours. You have already decided that we must be enemies, so I cannot have any understanding of you or any human compassion. This means I cannot win. Your mind is closed to my humanity and identity; to you, I am just ‘one of them’. So who is acting in bad faith, you, or me?

On the other hand, I see this behavior as normal, quite human, and also misguided.

How very patronising and wise of you.

Almost everybody is the same. And this is why in the 21st century we see children being slaughtered with laser guided bombs in Palestine, and we look the other way. We have been brainwashed to accept this, and we can´t even bring ourselves to discuss it. And the odds are this post may even be censored, isn´t it?

Since I have both permitted every statement you have made on this blog, and defended your right of comment, even when it pushed libellous status, you have no grounds whatsoever to imply I might censor you, so this is just a personal insult.

To sum things up as best I can. You claim to be my intellectual superior. You set out a view of how the world (of understanding, or knowledge) is constructed. In this, you explicitly reject Science wholesale; to you, it is just as much in error as political propaganda. You frequently draw parallels between political events and scientific knowledge. You then remind me of why I am ignorant and accuse me first of being your enemy, then of repressing you, in spite of the visible contradiction of these in this blog.

Where does this leave me? If, as you say, all science is deception, then we cannot talk about science – not at all – by your terms there is nothing meaningful to say about it. But neither can we talk about anything which we might think of as being a shared human experience. So we cannot have any dialogue. Besides this, you have demonstrated that you do not respect me as an individual or as a human being; in particular, to you I am an inferior being. So you deny me any motivation to continue the effort to engage with you. Finally, you have established that, whatever I say and however I say it, you have determined that I am your enemy. I don’t need enemies, I want friends.

In conclusion, by your terms and rules, since there is nothing ‘true’ to say about science, every comment you make on science is a piece of hypocrisy. Furthermore, on your terms, nobody understands how things really are better than you, so you will never consider the possibility that you might be wrong, or the possibility that anyone else might have anything valid to say. This, too, given your views on propaganda, is hypocrisy. You deny the subject, the means, and the motivation to engage in dialogue. You have determined that discourse is impossible, so, unless you give me some reason to believe otherwise, I can do nothing better than remain silent.

For now, that is all I have to say on the subject.

Open invitation

I've frequently argued that there are reasonable and rational people out there who are nonetheless skeptical about the AGW, IPCC, Policy nexus, and that it is worthwhile trying to engage in sensible to-and-fro on these matters. Many of my co-bloggers disagree, and think that giving air-time to trolls is counter productive.

So, in response to a thread on the Guardian today where my comments suddenly and inexplicably got moderated out (not the first time this have happened, though I don't know how I breached the community guidelines), and response to persons such as Fernando Leanme, who frequently pops up with things to say, some which are very nearly interesting, and who seems like a decent chap at the bottom, if I really have found his blog, please come and make your case here.

I have my own opinions and prejudices; show me why I am wrong. Explain what I seem to be missing. Give your own opinion and your reasoning.

I won't moderate comments unless they are truly offensive or illegal. I'll even tolerate obvious trolls for a short time, but since the aim is discussion, people who have nothing to contribute will probably get left behind, eventually.

So, please comment...

What do you know?

Different people have different reasons for being skeptical about climate change and AGW. This is a given. For some people, in particular, those so-called 'thought leaders' in the broader movement of 'counter-alarmism', the reasons can be cast as motivations - in other words, there is a (perceived or real) personal benefit to be won from taking this type of position. 

For others, these reasons are political, polemical or personal - the choice of skepticism is a derived one, in that this kind of skeptic believes that accepting AGW is necessary because some other personal motivator, which takes precedence in the mind of that person, seems to demand some form of denial.

Then there are what we can call the 'authentic/genuine skeptics'; 'ordinary' people (from any background, like me and you) who are reluctant to 'believe' or unwilling to accept as 'knowledge' the substantial body of material which otherwise constitutes the evidence for AGW and the subsequent sense of responsibility  which such 'knowledge' implies.

I won't talk to the first kind of skeptic here, because their skepticism is not necessarily about the credibility of climate science, but instead has to do with their sense of themselves, their interests, and their personal integrity. Such discussions are perhaps better conducted in private, one to one. Such people are generally disinclined to examine these things in public, for obvious reasons, but I for one would be happy to reopen dialogue with any of the people with whom I formerly had some (limited) private dialogue (via email); MacIntyre, Spenser, Pielke Sr., Curry, Tol, etc. 

I want to understand why you feel that you are doing good by overtly allowing your reputation and (often authentic) skepticism of the 'orthodoxy' of climate science, to be hijacked by others whose motivations have nothing to do with the good of anyone, and whose pleasure is to despoil, damage, destroy and disinform. You cannot deny that this happens, so I want to understand what motivates you to permit this, and what personal responsibility you are willing to take upon yourself for the abuse of your science and name. Please feel free to email me. Note; there is no accusation or blame being placed here, and no judgment implied; I always presume that you are, like me, someone who wants to do good and make a positive difference to the well-being of mankind and/or the planet.

As for the second kind of skeptic, (for some reason, Matt Ridley comes to mind), there isn't a lot to be gained because the subject matter is not really AGW or climate science, but those other, precedent personal convictions. I think there is ground to be made discussing the nature of the requirement to be skeptical as a consequence of your pre-existing beliefs, but this is a complex and, again, probably a personal matter. Not expecting any kind of response or attention, you, too, are welcome to email me and put me in my place.

The 'ordinary' people; people like us. Not convinced that AGW is that certain a diagnosis. Not convinced that climate science, or computer models, have enough predictive capability to guide action or policy choices. Not convinced that climate scientists (or any scientists) are a reliable authority to act as a basis for belief in AGW. If this is you, and you have cut away the various coincidental political, religious or cosmological grounds for doubt, what you are probably genuinely uncertain of is the knowledge-status of climate science. 

Please continue to be skeptical. Challenge and question your own understanding and 'knowledge'. Seek your own conviction. But in all cases, please keep your conclusions 'open', your minds clear. Use your own reasoning and thought skills to look with care at what is presented to you as 'evidence'. Ask yourself, constantly, what it might mean for you to understand that your original opinion might have been 'wrong'. Weigh, as impartially as you can, the balance of information, authority, probability, credibility that you have uncovered. And use your judgment.

If I get round to it, I'll post another time about knowledge, doubt and evidence, in the hope that it might help you cut the wheat from the chaff and help you understand better what you are evaluating.

A short maxim for the Genuine Skeptic: If in doubt, find out.

Oops, I did it again; Tol 'Lomborged' by Ridley?

I am not going to criticise Matt Ridley's article on the net benefits of climate change. Others have already done this, and he has replied/rebutted in turn. Instead (and my apologies to all authors concerned for slightly extended quotations), I am going to present three pieces of material and ask two or three (hopefully) pertinent questions. Please don't read this as an attack on Ridley - I want to understand where his point of view on climate change is coming from, that is all.

Because there is a substantial amount of material on this post, I am asking that you consider the questions first, then go through the material afterwards.

First up is Ridley's opening salvo from the Spectator article, available in full here. In this, he cites Richard Tol's most recent work, and his 2009 review of CC economic studies. 

Next up are cherry-picked extracts from the 2009 paper in question, 'The Economic Effects of Climate Change', (whole text here). These are lifted wholesale from Tol and are extended so the reader can understand some of the context of Tol's comments.

Finally, I have extracted Gary Yohe's letter to the Guardian in 2008 (entire). Yohe was Tol's co-author of the 2008 paper used as the cornerstone climate analysis of the 'Copenhaged Convention'. Yohe complains that Lomborg has failed to accurately represent the findings in his eagerness to argue that carbon tax was a waste of money.

My questions are reasonably straightforward:

1. Are Ridley's assertions or implicit conclusions in his article compatible with Tol's research (at least, from 2009)?

2. If Ridley is using Tol as a justification for his view of the effects of climate change, is it reasonable to also expect him to support Tol's view that a Carbon Tax of $50-100 per unit is advisable, and that immediate action to mitigate admissions is indicated? Furthermore, will we see this proposal championed by the Global Policy Research Institute?

3. Given that there is a precedent, is it reasonable to believe that Ridley has 'gone Lomborg' on Tol once again, and if so, is this a genuine misunderstanding, or a deliberate manipulation on Ridley's part?

This is Ridley on 'The net benefits of climate change:

Few people know that warming is doing more good than harm
Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.

At first, I thought this was just their usual bluster. But then I realised that they are genuinely unaware. Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. And academics have not exactly been keen to push such analysis forward. So here follows, for possibly the first time in history, an entire article in the national press on the net benefits of climate change.

There are many likely effects of climate change: positive and negative, economic and ecological, humanitarian and financial. And if you aggregate them all, the overall effect is positive today — and likely to stay positive until around 2080. That was the conclusion of Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University after he reviewed 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends.

To be precise, Prof Tol calculated that climate change would be beneficial up to 2.2˚C of warming from 2009 (when he wrote his paper). This means approximately 3˚C from pre-industrial levels, since about 0.8˚C of warming has happened in the last 150 years. The latest estimates of climate sensitivity suggest that such temperatures may not be reached till the end of the century — if at all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports define the consensis, is sticking to older assumptions, however, which would mean net benefits till about 2080. Either way, it’s a long way off.

This is Tol (cherry-picked), from: The Economic Effects of Climate Change Richard S. J. Tol - Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 23, Number 2—Spring 2009—Pages 29–51. The Highlights are mine:

A first area of agreement between these studies is that the welfare effect of adoubling of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gas emissions on the
current economy is relatively small—a few percentage points of GDP. This kind of
loss of output can look large or small, depending on context. From one perspective,
it’s roughly equivalent to a year’s growth in the global economy—which suggests
that over a century or so, the economic loss from climate change is not all that
large. On the other hand, the damage is not negligible. An environmental issue
that causes a permanent reduction of welfare, lasting into the indefinite future,
would certainly justify some steps to reduce such costs.

The horizontal axis of Figure 1 shows the increase in average global temperature.The vertical index shows the central estimate of welfare impact. The central
line shows a best-fit parabolic line from an ordinary least squares regression. Of
course, it is something of a stretch to interpret the results of these different studies
as if they were a time series of how climate change will affect the economy over
time, and so this graph should be interpreted more as an interesting calculation
than as hard analysis.

However, this pattern should be interpreted with care. Even if, initially, economicimpacts may well be positive, it does not follow that greenhouse gas emissions
should be subsidized. The climate responds rather slowly to changes in greenhouse gas emissions. The initial warming can no longer be avoided; it should be viewed as a sunk benefit. The fitted line in Figure 1 suggests that the turning point in terms of economic benefits occurs at about 1.1°C warming (with a standard deviation of 0.7°C). Policy steps to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the near future would begin to have a noticeable affect on climate sometime around mid-century—which is to say, at just about the time that any medium-run economic benefits of climate change begin to decline (Hitz and Smith, 2004; Tol, 2002b; Tol, Fankhauser, Richels, and Smith, 2000).

In short, even though total economic effects of 1–2°C warming may be positive, incremental impacts beyond that level are likely to be negative. Moreover, if one looks further into the future, the incremental effects look even more negative.

Given that forecasts are imperfect, agents are constrained in many ways, and markets are often distorted—particularly in the areas that matter most for the effects of climate change such as water, food, energy, and health—recent studies of the economic effects of climate change may be too optimistic about the possibilities of adaptation and thus tend to underestimate the economic effects of climate change.
Although the evidence on uncertainty here is modest and inconsistent, and I suspect less than thoroughly reliable, it seems that negative surprises should be more likely than positive surprises. While it is relatively easy to imagine a disaster scenario for climate change—for example, involving massive sea level rise or monsoon failure that could even lead to mass migration and violent conflict—it is not at all easy to argue that climate change will be a huge boost to economic growth.
In short, the level of uncertainty here is large, and probably understated—
especially in terms of failing to capture downside risks. The policy implication
is that reduction of greenhouse gas emissions should err on the ambitious side.

Although Table 2 reveals a large estimated uncertainty about the social cost of
carbon, the actual uncertainty may well be larger still.

To place these estimated costs of carbon in context, a carbon tax in the rangeof $50–$100 per metric ton of carbon would mean that new electricity generation
capacity would be carbon-free, be it wind or solar power or coal with carbon capture
and storage (Weyant et al., 2006). In contrast, it would take a much higher carbon
tax to de-carbonize transport, as biofuels, batteries, and fuel cells remain very
expensive (Schaefer and Jacoby, 2005, 2006). Substantial reduction of carbon
emissions thus requires a carbon tax of at least $50/tC—which is just barely
justifiable at the mean estimate for a pure rate of time preference of 3 percent.

In contrast, Dell, Jones, and Olken (2008) find that climate change would slow the annual growth rate of poor countries by 0.6 to 2.9 percentage points. Accumulated over a century, this effect would dominate all earlier estimates of the economic effects of climate change. However, Dell et al. have only a few explanatory variables in their regression, so their estimate may suffer from specification or missing variable bias; they may also have confused weather variability with climate change. One can also imagine a scenario in which climate change affects health, particularly the prevalence of malaria and diarrhea, in a way that affects long-term economic growth (for example, via a mechanism as in Galor and Weil, 1999); or in which climate-change-induced resource scarcity intensifies violent conflict (Zhang, Zhang, Lee, and He, 2007; Tol and Wagner, 2008) and affect long-term growth rates through that mechanism (Butkiewicz and Yanikkaya, 2005). These potential channels have not been modeled in a useful way. But the key point here is that if climate change affects annual rates of growth for a sustained period of time, such effects may dominate what was calculated in the total effects studies shown earlier in Table 1.

The missing effects further emphasize that climate change may spring nasty surprises. Such risks justify greenhouse gas emission reduction beyond that recommended by a cost–benefit analysis under quantified risk. The size of the appropriate “uncertainty premium” is in some sense a political decision.

There is a strong case for near-term action on climate change, although prudence may dictate phasing in a higher cost of carbon over time, both to ease the transition and to give analysts the ongoing ability to evaluate costs, benefits, and policy mechanisms.


And, finally, here is Yohe on Lomborg:
Climate change is real, compelling and urgent

Björn Lomborg has been a persistent global warming naysayer and his claims misrepresent my findings
In late 2009, the world's top climate scientists, environmental officials and business and NGO leaders will converge on Copenhagen to negotiate a solution to climate change. It will be a meeting with global repercussions, and its participants will be united by a common belief in the need for a comprehensive solution to this common threat.

The need for such a solution is supported by the best science available, including the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), which was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2007 and of which I was a member. The IPCC's message is clear: climate change is real, compelling and urgent - and we need a concerted, comprehensive and immediate effort to confront it.

But in the midst of this momentum and clarity, one voice has stood out as a persistent naysayer.

Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Sceptical Environmentalist, makes headlines around the world by arguing that capping carbon dioxide emissions is a waste of resources. He recently published a piece in the Guardian in which he dismissed efforts to craft a global carbon cap as "constant outbidding by frantic campaigners" to "get the public to accept their civilisation-changing proposals".

To support his argument, Lomborg often cites the Copenhagen Consensus project, a 2008 effort intended to inform climate negotiators. But there's just one problem: as one of the authors of the Copenhagen Consensus Project's principal climate paper, I can say with certainty that Lomborg is misrepresenting our findings thanks to a highly selective memory.

Lomborg claims that our "bottom line is that benefits from global warming right now outweigh the costs" and that "[g]lobal warming will continue to be a net benefit until about 2070." This is a deliberate distortion of our conclusions.

We did find that climate change will result in some benefits for developed countries, but only for modest climate change (up to global temperature increases of 2C - not the 4 degrees that Lomborg is discussing in his piece). But developed countries are relatively prepared to handle climate change's effects - they tend to be in colder areas, and they have the infrastructure to mitigate severe depletion of resources like fresh water and arable land.

That is precisely why our analysis concluded - and Lomborg ignores - that climate change will cause immediate losses for developing countries and the planet's most vulnerable, millions of whom are already facing challenges that climate change will exacerbate.

Downplaying the threat of climate change allows Lomborg to focus on his claim that "unlike even moderate CO2 cuts, which cost more than they do good, we should focus on investing in finding cheaper low-carbon energy." He attributes this finding to our analysis as well, but again he overlooks a key element of our work.

Of course the world needs to make significant investments in cheaper, low-carbon energy. But making those investments without also implementing a constraint on emissions would fail to address the problem.

Our analysis assumed that over the next century, $800bn will be spent confronting climate change - $50bn spent on R&D in the next 5-10 years, and the remaining $750bn spent on adaptation and mitigation. This allocation of resources will reduce the cost of "clean" technology andincrease the effectiveness of policies - like capping emissions - that are designed to reduce global CO2.

In short, we never advocated research into new technologies as a stand-alone way to fight climate change, nor did we accept Lomborg's dismissive attitude toward the threat climate change poses.

The negotiators in Copenhagen will need credible, accurately reported analyses upon which to base their discussions. This is not the time to deny the scope of the problem or belittle efforts to implement solutions. We need all options on the table. This was the message of the Copenhagen Consensus Challenge paper, and even a sceptical environmentalist should understand that.

Am I mistaken in imagining that Ridley's argument appears to be undermined by the very material on which it is founded?

If I listened long enough to you - is it time to 'hug a Fuzzy'

I am inclined to believe that the so-called ‘climate change denial’ bloc of the general public (as opposed to those who make a living from ‘denial’), which in the USA is probably over 30% and in the UK is possibly around 25% of the populus, can readily be divided into certain ‘subsets’.

There are the flat-out flat-earthers, the trolls and sock-puppets, whose beliefs are irrelevant (to themselves) and whose motivation for AGW denial is principally mischievous. Basically, these people get their kicks from being provocative and setting up disharmony. The playground equivalent is the self-loathing, trouble-seeking little s***bags who manipulate other kids, through lies and accusations, into fights with one another. These people are fundamentally cowards who never actually fight themselves but instead get a hit from imagining that somehow they are manifesting power; and their cronies, the petty bullies and sneaks whose pleasure comes from being the centre of attention in a very, very small fishbowl, and who need the attention more than they fear the associated shame and self-loathing which normally follows.

Then there are the Idealists, who have strong feelings about ‘them and us’, and who view themselves as ‘outside’, either through disenfranchisement or via an indirect recognition of their existential condition. Such people might tend to emphasise the ‘conspiracy theory’ approach to ‘denialism’: it’s a Government con; it’s an excuse to interfere in Freedoms; it’s a device designed to justify increasing taxation; all scientists are liars, and variations on such themes. For these people, the stance on AGW is not dependent on the reasoning or science related to AGW, but on the implied and feared consequences of concession, which represent both a challenge to the freedom to make up their own minds and an example of ‘big boys’ pushing around ‘us little guys’.

But I tend to think that the largest majority of the people who are unwilling or unable to ‘concede’ to the majority view that AGW is real and has real future problems associated with it fall into neither of these categories (though sometimes their arguments will contain ‘evidence’ from the first or occasional tendencies towards the second).

It is wrong to label all of these people as ‘untrained’ or ‘ignorant’; many, especially at influential levels (advising Governments or Ministers), are highly educated, rational and considered individuals. Some are uncomfortable with ‘science’ as such, but by no means all. These people have ‘reasonable doubts’ and as such are interested in testing both doubt and reason.

In engaging with the larger community (via blogs, for example), much traffic and time is wasted on the first category. In some respects this is necessary, to provide counters to the lies and to run interference on the misinformation strategies. In other respects, it’s a waste of time, especially with the sock-puppets and trolls, since they have no interest in anything but troublemaking, and never offer anything but attempts to disrupt.

The second category is more difficult to have a ‘standard’ approach to. However, it is likely that the underlying motivation for ‘denial’ has a stronger force to the individuals concerned than any possible argument which will contradict their world-view. Given that the AGW call to action has become so heavily politicised in the USA, for example, this is an important segment of the ‘denialosphere’ which cannot be ignored or overlooked completely. But there may be approaches which can address the ideological basis for denial (whatever it happens to be) and seek to find ground where ideology and AGW need not be in contradiction. It’s a tricky one, which will need more investigation at another time.

But the largest ‘denial’ community are not really ‘denialists’ as such – they are instead Uncertains, Fuzzies, Floating Voters; in other words, people unwilling to bow to ‘the Orthodoxy’, with genuine concerns and genuine questions about AGW, in addition to other important issues. For many of these people the question is often less about the reality of AGW as it is the assessment of the risks and costs, not just of AGW mitigation but also of the comparable risks and costs of other important global human issues – population, security, food, health, development, economy.

The most important characteristic of the Climate Fuzzies is that these are basically reasonable people. Or at least, they want to be. With basically reasonable people it is possible to have a basically reasonable – or rational – discourse, to address actual arguments rather than spurious ones, and to deconstruct that fuzziness into component parts which, through discourse, can be argued (in the rational sense). 

To do this requires an openness on the part of both parties – in other words, an inclination to actually pay attention (listen) and respond to the other – rather than wait for the opportunity to talk and simply restate our own beliefs/assertions. It also requires an acceptance before we even start that we are as likely to be wrong in our beliefs as we imagine them to be. This is really hard, but I would suggest that it is critically important. Entrenchment is not the sole domain of the ‘other’ – in fact, without Acceptance we are almost doomed to be entrenched ourselves before we start a dialogue.

And here is my challenge to my ‘friends’ of the blogosphere: Seek out the ‘real’ doubters (they are there, I promise), embrace their uncertainty, and look to find out if their uncertainties do in fact challenge your own fundamental assumptions. Then talk about this. So, in the spirit of positive engagement, let’s ‘Hug a Fuzzy’ as soon as we can.

:)

Girl, there's a better place for me and you..

Reading Lord Ridley's letter to the Guardian a couple of days ago, my first response was to wish to be critical of some of the assertions within. This is because his expressed views, on first reading, tend to clash with mine on certain significant matters.

Fortunately, I took a little time to do some background research. The origin of the letter is a response to Bob Ward's somewhat acerbic inclusion of Ridley's supposed role in the GWPF's 'campaign' to undermine the AR5 in advance. The Ridley article is paywalled at the Times, but a copy is on his blog. In it, he argues that the 'climate debate' has become too polarised and a 'third way' might actually be more constructive.

So far, so good: I also believe that the debate has polarised - it was always adversarial, but in my original blog, Old Man in a Cave, I sought to encourage a more 'open' kind of response to what I believe is genuine uncertainty amongst the general public (of people not trained in science) about the significance and meaning of climate change. In the intervening years it seems to have hardened further. I, too, believe in a 'third way', but for different reasons.

I also note that much of Ridley's argument is a reiteration of his previous article, in May, which was analysed, criticised and discussed in detail at the time - there seems no point in going over that old material. For the record, I am satisfied that Lord Ridley is a sincere person who is expressing an opinion based on a genuine interpretation of a substantial amount of research and previous discussion. He means what he says and doesn't view this as being any part of a 'conspiracy', rather it is, to him, a reasoned and reasonable response to the evidence as he has interpreted it. No doubt some will think I am naive, but I prefer to think of myself as 'accepting' - I will presume the good intentions and sincerity of others as far as is possible, unless it becomes evident that the other in question refuses to reciprocate.

There are so many avenues of discussion arising from Ridley's article and other writings, but I will focus today simply on the content of the Guardian letter, and consider two questions: firstly; are we right (him and me) to argue for a depolarisation of 'the climate debate'? Secondly, what is it in his letter that makes me feel that we are potential adversaries?

The letter's opening statement contains the first ticking timebombs of potential disagreement:

"In his continuing attempt to polarise the climate debate into believers and deniers, Bob Ward has resorted to conspiracy theories and attacked me..."

For someone seeking to promote a 'honest debate' this might not be the best way to start.

To a hardened climate science enthusiast, this reads as a characteristic 'role reversal' strategy - let's establish who is the 'attacker' and who the 'victim'; it is the 'alarmist' who is attepting to polarise the debate, and the 'alarmist' who is resorting to conspiracy theories.

It doesn't take very long for an intelligent and curious reader to find endless examples of 'attempts to polarise' and 'conspiracy theories' in the climate debate, but historically these domains have tended to be occupied far more by so-called 'denialists' than by their adversaries. I personally think that the successful polarisation (and subsequent politicisation) of GW discussion has been one of the more significant achievements of those who have consistently advocated or pursued inertia as the best response to climate change.

Since this kind of role-reversal is a familiar strategy in the climate change rhetoric it is easy to understand why an experienced reader might immediately assume that all that follows is going to be another example of obfuscating, procrastinating disinformation. Which means that a reader like me is already predisposed to find fault with the content. Which is a successful polarisation. If I am provoked, my 'human' response is to become and adversary, and so the game goes on. This doesn't feel like we are setting the grounds for an 'honest debate'.

Next, the letter goes on to cite Tol:

"Professor Richard Tol's 2009 summary of 14 separate studies found that there is likely to be net global benefit to human or planetary welfare from warming till temperature has increased by 2.2 degrees from 2009 levels, which is about 3 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. This is before taking adaptation into account so it is conservative."

This is important because it forms the foundation of much of the following argument. To me, it is worrying because it suggests that much of Lord Ridley's opinion is founded on Tol's analysis, from his paper of 2009, for example. I have no doubt that others have pointed out that Tol's analysis has its critics, and that some have argued that his principal argument contains flaws and the dependent conclusions are thus called into question.

It also seems to suggest that this particular analysis has greater weight to Ridley than others by such as Stern (2007). A cynic might observe that we are disposed to accept the evidence which tends to support our pre-existing prejudices and prefer them to evidence which contradicts them, and suggest that this may be what is going on here. I know this is true for me, though I do try to be self-aware about it.

But I suspect that it is the final section of the letter, which is so dependent on the validity of the Tol position, which really got me ticklish:

"Millions of people are currently being driven into fuel poverty, hunger, malnutrition and respiratory ill health by today's climate policies. Mr Ward appears to think they should be ignored in favour of concern for the welfare of wealthier people in the next century."

The first of these two sentences is, to me, deeply misguided. I cannot think of anything I have recently read which could possibly support this statement. It runs so counter in every respect to the material I have read on the subjects concerned that I feel inclined simply to assert that this is not true. I'm not claiming it is a lie, only that it is wrong, a false assertion. And I believe it would be so irrespective of whether it depended as it does on the unproven assertions of Tol.

The second sentence raises a matter which I do believe is a genuine conundrum: what value do we place on the interests of future generations in relation to the present generation and how do we measure this? It doesn't help that it has been phrased in terms which are once again likely to provoke polarisation, rather than 'honest debate'. But it also looks at least superficially that Ridley has already made his mind up on this, and that he does not think there is sufficient evidence of substantial future harm at a level which would justify present investment (no, not sacrifice or suffering, but investment).

A finishing point. Debate is an interesting phenomenon. I used to do a lot at school. It is the basis of procedure in Politics, especially the two-party model, and in Law. It is a potentially valuable and useful tool for reaching a Hegelian Synthesis from a thesis and antithesis. But it is fundamentally polarising. It presumes adversarial interaction. The procedure is not dialogical but rhetorical. I do believe that open, honest interaction between people is the 'third way' to address both private and public engagement in the issues of climate change. I am not convinced that 'debate' is the best tool for the job.

None of the above should be read as suggesting that I am defending Ward or attacking Ridley. I am presenting my own reaction, partially deconstructed, of what I read and how I reacted. Ward and Ridley are big boys, they can resolve their own differences.

Five years, my brain hurts a lot

A man is standing in the middle of a road, saluting his flag and smug in the knowledge that, since he is okay, so the world is okay too.

A car drives up. Just before it is about to go past, it screeches to a halt. The driver opens his window.

'Hey there,' he says, 'You know there's a truck coming, yes?'

The man in the road looks at him quizzically. 'What truck? I don't see no truck.'

'That's because you're not looking the right way. It's coming - look!' Says the worried driver.

'I've always looked like this,' the man replies, 'what's wrong with the way I look? Are you criticising me? I don't take to folk criticising me..'

'Please,' the driver begs him, 'just turn around and take a look down the road. You're about to be hit by a truck, really! Get out the road!' By now he is almost shouting.

The man chooses to remain obtuse. 'Don't see many trucks round here. Figure I'd know if there was a truck coming. I don't see no tr...'

Might as well try and catch the wind

Today in the Guardian and on the Skeptical Science blog John Abrahams writes about a new paper by Mora et. al. (same article) about the timing of climate change impacts. At the same time, ScienceDaily covers a new paper by Ostberg et. al.: Critical impacts of global warming on land ecosystems. 

By coincidence I came across the latter yesterday and was already preparing to write about it because I found the conclusions both interesting and important. The Mora paper is behind a paywall, but the Ostberg one is Open Access, here, thanks to the excellent EGU-supported Copernicus.org (link in sidebar).

We can't directly compare that articles unless we subscribe to Nature (which I don't), but we can compare what is written about them, and consider one or two other points related. The ScienceDaily review is a reasonable summary of salient parts of the paper, though I would possibly have had a slightly different focus had I reviewed it directly. I must presume that the Abrahams review (along with the Abstract) also gives us a reasonable summary.

A couple of things are quite striking immediately, though. Both papers use models to look forward to environmental change out to 2100 in response to AR5 scenarios. Both reach very similar conclusions, through different methods, about the timings connected to changes. Both indicate that we are already along a pathway to changes which cannot now be diverted, even with radical mitigation.

Not surprisingly, Mora and SkS/Guardian focuses on the Climate - the word is used 20 times - and climate extremes (the subject of the paper). In contrast, the Ostberg paper focuses on ecosystems. Though I write mainly about climate change myself, I find I prefer the Ostberg et. al. approach much more compelling (not least because I can actually read the material). 

In part this is probably because I am not comfortable with the focus-shift in the entire agenda to climate/weather extremes. My suspicion is that this has in part been driven by the (correct) historical perception that neither policy makers nor the general public was getting the point of climate change, and also driven by the fact that weather extremes have a measurable economic cost, and there has been a general shift towards placing economics at the centre of the sustainability concept, a shift with which I have profound concerns.

My reaction, though, is probably mainly driven by my ability to grasp and imagine what an ecosystem change might actually look like, whereas I struggle to conceptualise and visualise what a climate change might look like, beyond the obvious weather extremes, which, coincidentally, I don't see as the most important aspect of climate change.

Which leads me to what may be a the spark of an original thought. The air is invisible and often intangible. The earth (ground) is the opposite. As human beings we engage with the immanent far more readily than the insubstantial. Is climate change 'resisted' by many members of the public for this reason -it is just too difficult to 'grasp', literally?

There is so much more to be said about these pieces of research and the collective message they give, independently, about where we are going and what it might look like, but for now, I can only recommend that you read the Ostberg et. al. paper (it is not 'too' mathematical for a layman to get to grips with) for yourself, and consider whether it matters that we mitigate future climate change impacts now.

Postscript: The Mora paper has been widely picked up in the media, less so the Ostberg. The Daily Mail response, found after trawling down through endless z-list nonsense, is a pice of classical alarmism (on the surface). This is an interesting disinformation strategy, since it serves to perpetuate the myth that GW discussion is 'commy' alarmism. If you want to be truly horrified by our ability to learn nothing and care less, skip the article, which is drivel, and go to the comments. The message is not getting through! 

Jack Higgins in 'Zulu'..

Thought exercise: 
(ht to Raymond Smullyan, a dude of the highest order)

I am an alien freshly arrived on Earth (the Planet of Knights, Knaves and Normals), with helpful inclinations and superior capabilities.

(For those of you who haven't read Smullyan, Knights always tell the truth, Knaves always lie, Normals can do either.)

I meet three people. I know that one is a Knight, one a Knave, and one a Normal, but not which is which. The first says: "We are screwing up the Planet, help us fix it." The second says "Don't listen to him, he's a Knave." I have one question to ask to determine who I should believe. What do I ask and to which one?

I really, really hope some people pick up on this one... :)