Bishop Hill Clive Hamilton in Oxford
May 13, 2010 Climate: Models Climate: Sceptics This is a guest post by "DR".
This is my report of a talk by Clive Hamilton in Blackwell’s bookshop Oxford on 10 May 2010, on themes from his recent book Requiem for a Species. This is a write-up of my hand-written notes. I hope I’ve represented what Hamilton said accurately. I’ve not read his book.
Hamilton started by describing the upsurge in ‘climate denial’ – describing deliberate attempts in the 1990s by US Republicans to link climate change and left-wing beliefs, he said that climate denial has been absorbed by right-wing populism. However, despite efforts from deniers such as Sarah Palin, Christopher Monckton, the American Tea-Party, and the UK’s BNP, it has become clear that if anything the IPCC AR4 understated the risks, for instance of sea-level rise.
Hamilton listed the scientific findings that have emerged since Climategate but have been ‘buried by confected stories’ and almost ignored by the media. E.g. it’s been the warmest decade on record; glacier disappearance is accelerating; arctic temperatures continue to rise, accompanied by methane release from permafrost.
He then described the paper by Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows (Proc. Trans. Roy. Soc, A, 366 (2008): 3863-3882) – the ‘Budget approach’ to climate modelling – that suggests that the most likely temperature rise this century is 4˚C, even under the very optimistic scenario of global emissions peaking by 2020 and declining by 3% per year thereafter to stabililise CO2 at 650 ppm. He pointed out that in order to achieve this goal, developed countries would have to decrease emissions earlier and more rapidly than this since developing countries can’t. Such decreases in emissions have not been seen historically – he discussed the examples of the British ‘dash for gas’ (1% decrease in emissions in a decade) and the French adoption of nuclear power (1% decrease/year) – except in the case of the former Soviet Union which did indeed lower emissions by 5%/year in the 1990s but this was accompanied by a halving of the economy and major social collapse and hardship. He said that climate scientists agree that 4˚C is the most likely estimate, and having increased by this amount, the temperature is unlikely to stop there, but will continue to increase due to tipping points. At a conference in Oxford in Sept 2009 he had heard that ‘the only choice is between extreme rates of emission reduction or extreme climate change’.
In the face of such danger, how is one to manage psychologically? How can one manage the emotions that come from this realisation, the fear, anxiety, guilt, and so on? To answer these questions, Hamilton described three coping strategies that people adopt.
First, the deniers. They do not allow themselves to accept the facts, and therefore do not have to deal with the emotions. Sceptics actively reject all of the propositions put forward by climate scientists (example: Plimer). The facts conflict with their more fundamental beliefs, so they reject the facts. He compared this cognitive dissonance to a cult that when the world failed to end as predicted, did not reject their beliefs but preached that the world had been spared by their faith. Deniers are more active when the evidence is stronger, for instance, an increase in denial is seen around the time of publication of IPCC reports. It is futile to engage such sceptics on the science – their objections are not fundamentally about science. As well as these ‘active deniers’, there are also ‘casual deniers’. They avoid information, say ‘science can’t decide’ and find reasons to dismiss the danger. They are helped in this by the right-wing press which exploits the public need for disbelief.
Secondly there are those who adopt maladaptive coping strategies. This very large group accepts the facts but seeks to blunt their emotional response by minor behavioural changes (e.g. fitting low energy light bulbs), minimising the dangers, blame shifting, or wishful thinking. Benign fictions may be part of all of our coping strategies, but they must be distinguished from delusions.
Thirdly, there are those who accept both the facts and the emotions. They accept their grief and fear, indeed realise that it is healthy to be afraid in the face of real danger. They adopt coping strategies such as finding out more about climate change and developing new value orientations. In the face of grief one may become either more self-obsessed and materialistic, or alternatively more compassionate and outward-looking. Hamilton had gained insight from Camus’ novel The Plague, in which the townsfolk imprisoned by the epidemic responded with denial, optimism, religion, superstition, drunkenness and hedonism, while the hero, a doctor, adopted ‘active fatalism’ – the determination to work to do good in the knowledge that any victories were minor and short-lived. Hamilton said that he argues in the last chapter of Requiem for a Species that despite our despair and without any certainty of success, we must continue to work for a different and better future.
Some of the audience questions and Hamilton’ answers:
Q: What government intervention is required to bring about sufficiently rapid changes?
A: We’d need a response like the wartime transformation of British industry from making cars to making munitions. It will hurt. The ‘old’ jobs will not seamlessly transfer into ‘new’ ones. The market could respond if governments create the right incentives. I (Hamilton) favour emissions trading over carbon taxes. If the right incentives are created, changes in patterns of energy production and consumption follow – the government does not need to direct. We need to adapt to a new way of life – we think it would be impossible to give up e.g. air travel, but we can adapt.
Q: You’ve said it is justified to ‘break laws that protect those who continue to pollute the atmosphere in a way that threatens our survival’. What did you have in mind?
A. The protesters at the Kingsnorth power station site were charged with criminal damage but acquitted by a jury. Democracy in action – non-violent direct action is justified to make a wider point.
Q: What message do you have for institutions (government departments and bodies, NGOs etc)?
A: The hardest question is ‘what should we do?’ There is no general answer. Green groups are desperate for new and successful strategies, but the media takes little or no notice, even of hunger strikes, let alone advertising campaigns. Need a social transformation rather than a new form of marketing.
Q: What can be done about sceptics who hold back groups 1 and 2 and legitimize delay?
A: Sceptics are prepared to lie (for example, Monckton speaking about the Great Barrier Reef). There’s no point in arguing with deniers, though the public can be persuaded by telling them about the science. Scientists must make it difficult to disbelieve. I can’t assess the scientific literature, but I try to decide who is most credible, and for me that is the scientists.
Q: There are uncertainties in the science – we don’t know the precise effects of any particular level of CO2. How do you deal with this?
A: No climate scientist denies that there is uncertainty, for instance in the climate sensitivity, but the evidence is overwhelming. Of course nothing can be proved categorically, but if your doctor says you have cancer, you don’t go and get nine further opinions. The sceptics’ style of argument is just manipulative. Many deniers are geologists – one could speculate about links to mining industry and their feeling that the earth has a long history and there’s nothing different now – and almost all are older white men, probably with a sense of entitlement.
Q: Those fighting global warming often contribute to it, for instance by flying to conferences.
A: Yes, everyone feels guilty and some decide not to fly. But one should not beat oneself up, just try not to consume disproportionately. One can assuage one’s own guilt by ‘green consumerism’ but the problem can only be solved by collective action. Responsibility should not be shifted by governments on to individuals. We can vote to make everyone act in the common interest, but it’s rational not to act individually against one’s own interest before such laws take effect.
Q: What are the prerequisites for us collectively to adopt an adaptive coping strategy?
A: We have to accept that we need to overcome our inner resistance. We need to realise that the future will not be like the present – it’s the end of everything that we understand as progress. People don’t change because of ‘facts’ but because they have an epiphany (an ‘oh shit’ moment). Mine was reading Anderson’s and Bows’ paper in 2008. This led me into depression, which I came through with help, and developed coping strategies. But people can become genuinely terrified and obsessed, which is understandable as dangerous climate change becomes more certain and more scary.
Reader Comments (71)
Breathtaking. And depressing that his audience wasn't rolling in the aisles splitting its sides.
Still, catastrophism does sell books (and cinema seats) so you can't blame Hamilton for feathering his nest.
Pathetic --
He should go see the epic film 2012. He should appreciate it's scientific basis as well.
He exhibits the behaviour he ascribes to skeptics.
"Mine was reading Anderson’s and Bows’ paper in 2008. This led me into depression, which I came through with help, and developed coping strategies. "
What a pillock.
I'll have to work through Hamilton's analysis to see if there's anything of value in there which can be re-cycled (skip diving is my favourite hobby - gipsey ancestry I think....) or just a re-statement of Marx' claim of "incorrect bourgeois thinking"
Personally, I wish it was getting warmer! I like the warmth.
PS
Don Pab.
Borax makes a good flux when you're separating panned Au from the other heavy minerals in there, no messing about with Hg, Pb or CN. ;^)>
His point one description is a perfect profile of AGW true believers: sustaining belief in the face of proven fraud.
His transference of what he and other true beleivers do is tyupical of those in deep denial.
Note that he not only avoids the entire issue of the AGW corruption, he doubles down by asserting it is even worse.
Worse than an untrue, inaccurate fabricated claim. What can be worse than something that is merely corrupt and wrong? Something that is entirely bogus.
Which brings us back to AGW true believers, and their living out what the late great John Maddox called 'the doomsday syndrome'.
Looking up Hamilton on Wikipedia says all you need to know about him.
All I can do is repeat PeterW's comment no. 4.
Bish, did he talk at all about what the effects of a 2 or 4 degree warming would be, ie winners and losers, or is it just deemed to be all bad?
There can't be that much uncertainty if the evidence is 'overwhelming'!
Didn't you get to ask a question, Bish, or was he avoiding your gaze...?
I have for a long time considered that the average AGW proponent projects onto 'skeptics' all the nastiness and bad manners and behavior they themselves are guilty of.
I'm afraid the only person in this debate who resembles "a cult that when the world failed to end as predicted" is Clive Hamilton.
It can be summed up as "I'm right, I can fly where I like and you must do as I tell you", well f@ck off Clive.
One thing that struck me about Hamilton's points is his comments about who the "deniers" are:
If you think about it a bit, this makes sense, although not in the way Hamilton intends. The folks he's referring to . . . and it's not just geologists, there are atmospheric physicists and others . . . came into their professional lives more decades ago than we care to remember. At the time, the vast majority of those in the Ph.D. pipeline were of caucasian persuasion purely as a result of the social mores of the day.
These are, for the most part, highly principled people who adhere rigorously to the scientific method, and are too set in their ways to morph into the "new science" practice of performing to the terms of their grant providers. There are, of course exceptions, and I would observe that there's a privileged subset of AGW proponents who are mostly pale, and whose roof-racks have become at least salt-and-pepper, if not white or mostly missing altogether.
The AGW crowd is heavy on the Alinsky ridicule application. The best counter to their most earnest promotion of their beliefs in the public place may very well be peals of laughter. If nothing else, it would bewilder them and put their noses out of joint to the point where they would peg their inner gaffe meter, giving the audience more to laugh at.
Strange that,
I'm a somewhat melanistically challenged geologist...
Keith in Ireland
Did not know about borax -- thanks. Just got my metal detector.
Older white (and other) men have seen stuff. They remember Y2K, BSE, global cooling, the world AIDS pandemic. Not like bits of kids like Ed Millipede.
Keith: "melanistically challenged" - priceless! Over- or under-endowed?
‘Requiem for a Species is a remarkable publication which brings together the scientific imperatives of taking action in the field of climate change. Hamilton highlights the political inertia which is currently acting as a roadblock. In the wake of the weak outcome of Copenhagen, this book assumes added significance in breaking the resistance to the truth about climate change.’
R K Pachauri, Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Director-General, TERI
http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php
For me this review sums it all up: this sort of review would shame anyone anxious about maintaining their personal integrity and wanting/needing the scrutiny of the wider scientific community.
It should be of deep concern, I suspect the real reason is to shift volume(s).
The race, class, background etc stereotype is straight from "insult menu de maison progressive"
We'll have to get some word cards made up so we can play bingo with them.
It stops being funny when they get to "inbred" and "hatriot" it get hilarious instead ;^)>
Don Pab,
There tends to be a log normal distribution of grainsize /weight, most of the weight is in the smaller grain sizes.
Because of the density (~19 g/cm3) it concentrates really well in water courses and erosional gullies, also at the bottom of the transported soil layer.
If you pan that down, the borax fluxes the other minerals in the concentrate to a more fluid melt, allowing the molten gold particles to form a bead at the bottom.
Happy hunting!
The reasons many geologists are skeptics are:
We are students of the earth and its changes,
We have experience with inflated claims based on inadequate or faulty data,
We understand sampling and sampling errors,
Before accepting data as valid we need to see the raw data including QA/QC records,
We spend much time carefully constructing three dimensional models only to see them fail with the next lot of data or 'ground truthing".
We remember the coming ice age of the 1970s and the panic that resulted from the Club of Rome's predictions of the same decade,
Many of us have black, brown or yellow skins and come from non european cultures.
We are skeptics until proven otherwise.
@ O'Geary,
Pretty middle of the road; think of me like that picture of the roadkill possum, with double yellow lines painted over the top of it.
I brown up easier than my neighbours do, especially those with frecckles and red hair, but not as well as most of my "pure bred" Italian and Chinese relatives do.
Quote, "Of course nothing can be proved categorically."
I agree, Clive Hamilton is a pillock.
On behalf of the people of Australia I apologise for the existence of Clive Hamilton.
He is an extreme watermelon who knows nothing about science. In his own words:
'I can’t assess the scientific literature, but I try to decide who is most credible..'
I disagree, this proves Clive Hamilton is a pillock.
Ahem, they were not educated because of "social mores" of the time. This is Multicult hokum.
They were there because they were members of the civilization (and the race ) that either created or substantially perfected their disciplines and deemed by that civilization to be both educable and productive in said disciplines. You seem to be confusing "social mores" with "civilizations". You seem to be implying that had "social mores" been "different" the American Indian, or some such other Marxist invented "victim of Western Civilization", would have invented calculus on the scientific method. This is hardly the case.
Yes, Sociologists have in their vanity and arrogance both co-opted the term and wildly expanded its meaning, but "mores" scarcely is equal to "virtue" or "morality" nor are all mores equal. In any case, "mores" are an aspect of a civlization, and not the other way around.
As an example on this score, I can assure you that the settlement of the American West did not in fact in anyway hinder the Apaches' Space Program. Not at all.
would have invented calculus on the scientific method=would have invented calculus OR the scientific method
I think there is a misunderstanding of who the sceptics are, because people like Hamilton don't engage, and only read the science that supports their hypotheses, they assume that sceptics are a group who would otherwise deny the Theory of Evolution, and believe in all manner of conspiracies. Hence the insulting language used by politicians calling sceptics "deniers". I am an engineer and the engineering community have to have higher standards for their errors than other professions, hence if someone said they were 90% certain an aeroplane would fly, not only engineers but everyone would say that's no justification for assuming it will. Anyone see "the science guy" taking on Lindzen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M
Usual assertions from Nye, overwhelming evidence, etc.
Sorry Bish, just realised it wasn't you. Did 'DR' get to ask anything, or was he rendered speechless?
Fascinating, from a psychological point of view. I'll be interested to learn whether or not the non-manifestation of climate catastrophe changes Clive Hamilton's outlook, eventually. If we get to 2020 and then to 2030 without any sign of a 4-degree temperature rise under way, how will he react? Will he revise his understanding of the science? Will he retrospectively emphasise the "uncertainty" and start to downplay the "overwhelming evidence" in future books and talks? Will he go to his grave insisting to the end that the long-awaited catastrophe is immanent? It will be very interesting to find out.
Lazlo: I don't think there's any need to apologise for this particular pillock being Australian. Every country seems to be over-endowed with pillocks; the UK has plenty of them, particularly in the political class, the media and "climate scientists".
What planet is Clive Hamilton from, and which planet is he discussing?
We’d need a response like the wartime transformation of British industry
er, is that with or without the death and destruction?
Hamilton sounds like he's been taken in by some religious cult. Everyone who doesn't think like he does is painted as an unbeliever, in the thrall of some demon, or 'suppressing the truth in unrighteousness'. He pretty much says, "I can’t assess the religious literature, but I try to decide who is most credible, and for me that is the cult leadership team" since he says "I can’t assess the scientific literature, but I try to decide who is most credible, and for me that is the scientists."
Anyway, he means SOME of the scientists - those cult leaders who pander to his preconceptions and exploit his weaknesses. And on what basis does he 'decide who is the most credible'? He can't even assess the data so has to make an uninformed judgment as to who is the most credible. Considering the outrageous propaganda and downright deception going on aboard the AGW bandwagon - all very well documented - I'd say it's not a matter of who are the most credible authorities, but who are the most credulous cult followers.
There is an old saw among lawyers about how to conduct themselves at trial. In presenting a case:
(a) If you have a strong case, speak to the evidence.
(b) If you have a weak case, speak to the law.
(c) If you have no case at all, pound on the table.
Poor Clive Hamilton, having no case, prefers to pound on the table, in public yet.
I might also add that "climate scientists" could have saved themselves a lot trouble by learning just a little geology. Geology gives one perspective on the way the world works, and particularly in the skill of observation. And yes, I confess. I am a geologist.
James P: No, I didn't ask a question - I was surrounded by earnest Greens - I didn't want them to start psychoanalysing me... Also, there were lots of people wanting to ask questions who didn't get a chance. The nearest to a sceptical question was from a student who asked about uncertainty in science.
I felt that Clive Hamilton was very short on actual policies or suggestions - 'something must be done' but when asked for specifics he was very vague.
He isn't a scientist, and admits that he is not competent to assess the science, but then attacks those who do assess the science but come to conclusions which don't support his ignorance based beliefs. He describes himself as a "Public Intellectual", is that the same as "Stand-up Piss Artist"?
It's obvious he left therapy much much too soon.
Thought: why is it that so many of the most incisive sceptics are Australian (Paltridge) or Canadian (Keenan, McIntyre, McKitrick)?
I consider that this is a case where it would be most appropriate to say "Physician, heal thyself."
Many deniers are geologists – one could speculate about links to mining industry and their feeling that the earth has a long history and there’s nothing different now – and almost all are older white men, probably with a sense of entitlement.
One could also speculate that geologists happen to have inherent familiarity and perspective regarding the earth's dynamic processes, their environmental expression and their geographical and temporal record.
So for AGW don't go to a climate activist, ask a geologist.
This is serious, has the field of Geology become so unpopular that most geologists are now older white men. Steps must be taken to recruit new blood into this field of science as soon as possible.
Hamilton: "Sceptics are prepared to lie (for example, Monckton speaking about the Great Barrier Reef). There’s no point in arguing with deniers, though the public can be persuaded by telling them about the science. Scientists must make it difficult to disbelieve. I can’t assess the scientific literature, but I try to decide who is most credible, and for me that is the scientists."
If he can't assess the scientific literature, then, what is he on about and how can he say Monkton or other sceptics are liers? He just decides that the 'scientists' (of CAGW bent) are most credible, therefore everybody else is a lier?
I've worked with fellow geologists of all shades of ability and skin. Including young, "black" African and strongly libertarian (to the point of giving reasoned grief to world food program muppets) all in the same individuals.
Perhaps I've met a few more geologists than he has?
He's equally off about the TEA partiers (Taxed Enough Already).
Congress critter Cohen (Tn 9th), was on record a couple of weeks back, talking about TEA partiers having their white pointy hoods hidden. He is facing competition from a TEA party candidate who is an African American woman...
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/04/15/
I predict that is precisely what the AGW cult too will say in 20-30 years: Catastrophe was averted because the fears of climate change made us more responsible consumers, more harmonious with nature, more technologically innovative, etc. The AGW cultists will say that regardless of whether their catastrophic predictions proves right or wrong.
AGW cultists' disregard for good science is evident in their particular dislike for geologists. The cultists never managed to get geological community's support behind the AGW science and they hate all geologists for it.
As for the "older white men", well, it is time again for the lowest form of wit. Let's remember that Clive Hamilton is actually a young Chinese lady. And because Clive is a young Chinese lady, along with Micheal Mann, who is a young African woman, Phil Jones, who is a young Indian girl, and James Hansen, a Polynesian lass, she is closer to scientific truth than older white males who dominate the anti-science camp. It was the colorful young ladies from Africa, India, China and the rest of the world that established the AGW as scientific truth, much to the chagrin of older white males who have retarded scientific advancement in the West.
Having started my BSc in Geology in 1966, I am fitting this stereotype of Geologists. My Professor was insistent that both sides of an argument have to be carefully considered and that facts destroy even the most elegant theory - Wegener and Continental Drift won out, as did the formation of the Badlands with the collapse of Lake Missoula
Mr Hamilton reminds me of the Geological joke, " He was so unaware, that he thought Fullers Earth was a planet."
A perfect example of Faith over careful and questioning research.
The way to combat global warming is to require all students to learn the scientific method and the difference between causation and correlation. Only then will people understand that while the effect on the climate from incremental CO2 is finite, it's far from catastrophic.
Warmists tend to focus only on evidence of warming and assume that because CO2 is also rising, it must be the cause. When skeptics point to the recent evidence of cooling, the warmists proclaim that this is weather and not climate, which makes their entire circumstantial case based on weather as well. Why is it that warmists can't even perceive their own hypocrisy?
George
Keith in Ireland
Oh, we know how to find gold in rivers and such and have been doing it for 150 or so years, but to go into your own backyard and dig up a 9 pound nugget -- well, that takes some real skill. Actually, incredible luck. We also know how to refine the gold, with such wonderful things like CN- and Hg, which are really, really bad. We have all sorts of places even today that you don't want to go because of it. That is why borax is such a help. Not green, but a whole lot better.
Thanks.
Hunter:
His point one description is a perfect profile of AGW true believers: sustaining belief in the face of proven fraud.
His transference of what he and other true beleivers do is tyupical of those in deep denial.
While I am not a fan of Freud, Jung and others, you have it pretty much right. The man is a nut case who knows it deep down inside, but refuses to see it. It is classic psychoanalysis fare.
Sadly, there is no pill for this. Now, if he were depressed, hyper, tense, etc. etc, I know of all sorts of pills. But nothing for stupidity. There was a great sci fi book in 1966 by Daniel Keyes Flowers for Algernon which was later made into a movie, Charly that proposed a pill for stupidity, but that was science fiction, much like Clive Hamilton's work.
Quoting myself:
As Big Arnie would say "ahh, my English!" Of course, I meant to say "the AGW cultists will say that regardless of whether science proves their catastrophic predictions right or wrong".
Which of course, brings me to another point: will we get our money back if we purchase Hamilton's book and time proves him wrong? Forget the money; will we get an apology for his sweeping, offensive statments and a yes, you told me so.
Proponents of AGW seem to be oblivious of the logical fallacy of "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc". It is an amazingly simple concept and readily apparent in much of the analysis that they propound. This would be almost enough to make one despair, except for the fact that it is probably an intentional ignorance.
Frank Brown
It's obvious he left therapy much much too soon.
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
BTW, thank you "DR" for the report and Bishop for the post. One of the greatest strengths of the sceptic camp is the readiness to host opposing views on their websites and/or providing links to the opposing camp. The AGW camp never does that, proving again that AGW proponents are cultists rather than sceptical inquirers.
Our Dingbat trumps your Moonbat.
Clive Hamilton is far more mentally deranged than one might suspect from his Oxford visit:
"So I think where we're going is to begin to see a Gaian earth in its ecological, cybernetic way, infused with some notion of mind or soul or chi, which will transform our attitudes to it away from an instrumentalist one, towards an attitude of greater reverence. I mean, the truth is, unless we do that, I mean we seriously are in trouble, because we know that Gaia is revolting against the impact of human beings on it."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2009/2630879.htm#transcript
"This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of "emergency" responses such as the suspension of democratic processes."
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/sunday-mail/hidden-doom-of-climate-change/story-e6frep2o-1111114372364
He probably likes democracy even less as he was trounced as a Green candidate in a by-election in which Labor stood aside to make it a straight fight between him and the Coalition's new leader, Tony Abbott who had just defeated Kevin Rudd's ETS in the senate.
But let's not forget that the man is a (self-proclaimed) "public intellectual".
http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=About