Writing in today's FT,
Simon Kuper has a great essay on disasters and climate change that draws on some of my work. Here is the bottom line:
When it comes to preventing today’s disasters, the squabble about climate change is just a distraction. The media usually has room for only one environmental argument: is climate change happening? This pits virtually all climate scientists against a band of self-taught freelance sceptics, many of whom think the “global warming hoax” is a ruse got up by 1960s radicals as a trick to bring in socialism. (I know, I get the sceptics’ e-mails.) Sometimes in this squabble, climate scientists are tempted to overstate their case, and to say that the latest disaster proves that the climate is changing. This is bad science. It also gives the sceptics something dubious to attack. Better to ignore the sceptics, and have more useful debates about disasters and climate change – which, for now, are two separate problems.
Read the
whole thing.
13 comments:
"This pits virtually all climate scientists against a band of self-taught freelance sceptics"
Wow. Destroying his own credibility in a single sentence. How sad. Better to ignore him and spend time reading the work of people who have a basis in reality.
And then we might be able to have a rational discussion of priorities. I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Regardless of what Simon Kuper thinks motivates sceptics, unless he can tie the cycles of warming and cooling during the Holcene, the past 10,000 years, to CO2, he won't prove any points about causation - or lack thereof. We all agree it's getting warmer. Many agree it has been since the end of the Little Ice Age. We just dispute its cause, and that it is catastrophic. In fact, recent history proves warming is beneficial, and cooling catastrophic. So far science and history favors scepticism. In the long run, it usually does.
Kuper's point seems to be that what is needed is useful information that can guide policy makers. he then states that 'climate scientists' often overstate their case or in other words make statements fro which there is no scientific justification. Examples of this have been shown in this blog is which IPCC reports contain statements about disaster losses that cannot be scientifically justified. Numerous other examples of statements that are similarly scientifically unjustified have also been shown in IPCC reports and in papers published in prestigious journals.
What many 'skeptics' are point out is not the invalidity of the AGW hypothesis but that many of the published results supporting it are the result of sloppy studies, incorrect statistics and overstatements. Such 'results' are not useful for policy makers and indeed hinder their work. If the idea that AGW will increase land falling major hurricanes is not correct then costly public works to overcome this putative problem will mean that resources will be wasted the adaptation to a changing climate. Sloppy science by climate scientists is much more of concern then the protestations of self-taught skeptics. iI some climate scientists have become advocates for a particular set of AGW policies ands tailor their results to meet these objectives thane that is of major concern. This is what the skeptics that I read are saying contrary to Kuper's assertion.
This pits virtually all climate scientists against a band of self-taught freelance sceptics, many of whom think the “global warming hoax” is a ruse got up by 1960s radicals as a trick to bring in socialism. (I know, I get the sceptics’ e-mails.) Sometimes in this squabble, climate scientists are tempted to overstate their case, and to say that the latest disaster proves that the climate is changing. This is bad science. It also gives the sceptics something dubious to attack. Better to ignore the sceptics, and have more useful debates about disasters and climate change – which, for now, are two separate problems.
Some leaps of logic are going on here:
1) most sceptics are, indeed, self-taught. That would be true of the pro-AGW camp too. Or does he think Mann, Jones, Schmidt etc studied climate at university? (BTW since when is "self-taught" a reason, in itself, to ignore someone?)
2) many sceptics do indeed think AGW is a ruse of 1960s radicals. But many do not. Why ignore all sceptics because some are loony? Many pro-AGWers think any scepticism at all only results from being paid by Big Oil, but apparently we don't have to ignore the pro- camp because some of them are a bit off the rails.
3) overstating the case by scientists does give the sceptics something dubious to attack. Thereby conveniently ignoring the fact that the better qualified sceptics attack the core science too.
4) the huge wodge of semi-sceptics in the middle are left out of this discussion. Roger would be silenced if The Team got their way. There isn't actually two camps, black and white, and sensible discussion shouldn't work on the basis that there is.
In the end "better ignore the sceptics" with no exceptions is a lousy way to defend a balanced look at anything. He doesn't like the way scientists overstate their case, but is happy to remove the only thing stopping them from doing it more!
Does he really think silencing critics is the best way to get to the truth?
Does he really think that silencing the sceptics will mean all the scientists give up being activists as well? Silly man.
It's about time we start listening to the skeptics, who, by and large, are well informed well educated independent scientists.
The concentration of CO2 during the past 800,000 years has oscillated between 180 and 280 ppm more or less.
So tying anything to climate in the past 10,000 years gives us nothing. All we know is during that time mankind developed modern civilization and agriculture. From our science we understand that during this time the climate was very even with the temperature quite steady.
Today we should be in a declining global temperature as we go into the next ice age. Add to that, we are in a solar minimum so the earth is receiving less energy from the sun. The global temperature should be declining.
What's different now? It's the CO2 concentration that's different. It is so powerful a forcing that it overrides a cool sun and cooling temperatures as we slide into the next ice age.
We have known about the heat absorbing qualities of CO2 for 150 years ... we know of its cause and effect relationship with heat radiation. This is not rocket science here ... just well known physics.
If you dispute the causal relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration given all the well established and demonstrated science on the matter you must provide an alternative to account for the observed heating.
Just to state that there is no causal relationship is to argue from authority which might be 'ok' in some circles, but is totally our of place in a scientific argument.
The cause and effect is this ... without CO2 or more precisely with CO2 levels at 180 ppm the earth would be in the middle of an ice age. With even smaller concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the earth would be frozen solid.
In fact in the distant past when the earth was a frozen state, or almost so, called snowball earth, it's happened many times in earth's history ... our only salvation was the CO2 coming from the volcanoes which finally warmed the earth.
Causation ... the proof is everywhere.
Hi,
Unfortunately, Simon Kuper repeatedly praises the Netherlands' "Delta Works" as something other countries should be emulating.
That's like praising the "border blasters" AM radio stations of the mid-20th century:
http://www.ominous-valve.com/xerf.html
The "Delta Works" are in no way translatable to other places. Just look at the one other city prominently mentioned in the article: Miami. What sort of "Delta Works" would protect Miami? The answer, obviously, is "none."
It would be much better if the countries of the world would come up with a portable system that can protect any given stretch of coastline in any country.
One type of portable system would be one that involved bags filled with seawater and air...with the air riding above the waves, and the seawater below it.
The "Delta Works" was a good thing...for the 1960s. But it's a new century, and it's time for a better storm surge protection system.
"The media usually has room for only one environmental argument: is climate change happening? This pits virtually all climate scientists against a band of self-taught freelance sceptics, many of whom think the “global warming hoax” is a ruse got up by 1960s radicals as a trick to bring in socialism."
What a complete strawman argument. Virtually every Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming skeptic believes in climate change. That includes everything from ice free poles to snowball earth. The climate has always changed and there is every reason to believe it will continue change.
Simon is playing bait and switch and attempting portray CAGW skeptics as believers in a steady state never changing climate that never has and never will exist.
Kuper is just fighting a rear guard action.
It was the AGW promoters who claimed weather events were linked to AGW, not skeptics. Hansen set the bar on this in 1988.
Nothing says one is losing an argument better than to simply decide to ignore those who are pointing out you are wrong.
If we do in fact look at what climate scientists have done to help with weather caused problems the list is basically empty.
Climate science has done nothing to help anyone except enrich the alarmist community. From Katrina to Mayanmar to the winter in the UK to Australia climate science has either been silent until after event or doing what Kuper now admits they do- mislead people or actually making things worse.
It is long past time to pull the plug on this useless social mania and get on with solving real problems.
Kuper is, in a way, half right. One group does deserve to have greatly reduced credibility in the public square. Only it is not the skeptics.
If you think you've excerpted from a great essay, there's your problem. Skeptics already believe that normal climate disaster need to be dealt with. When Lomborg wrote a book saying the very thing, he was skewered - probably by the likes of Kuper.
And by the way - it's "better to ignore the skeptics?" If so, you'll be blogging to the ether.
Fundamental arrogance: "Better to ignore the sceptics, and have more useful debates about disasters and climate change – which, for now, are two separate problems."
They (you) tried the "ignoring". How did that work out for them (you)? If it had worked, the Hockey Team would still be riding high. Blech.
Simon Kuper feels the need to make big about CC while calling for more focused disaster prevention. In addition to the rather derogatory comments you included in your post in which he mixes up CC and AGW he has this sentence.
Certainly, man-made climate change is happening – it has already contributed to rising global temperatures and sea levels.
I expect it may have contributed ~0.1C and a few mm of sea level rise. I can not understand why he is so certain and feels the need to make this statement which displays a warmist bias in an article whose motive should be to get more focus on dealing with the practical.
There is also a strong suspicion that the official belief in droughts due to AGW caused a delay in lowering waters in Livenhoe that may have reduced subsequent flood damage in Brisbane.
Post a Comment