Bishop Hill New mates
Nov 17, 2011 Climate: WG2 Richard Betts has new mates these days (;-) having been invited by Dot Earth to expand on the dangerous climate change article he wrote for this site a week or so ago.
I was struck by reading this very reasonable statement by Betts:
Some further climate change is already in the pipeline which means we are going to have to consider adapting to it. However, if our adaptation is informed by science cherry-picked to support a particular standpoint on "dangerous climate change" then this risks leading to wrong decisions on adaptation. For example, sea level rise poses very real risks, but talking-up the certainty of rapid and catastrophic rises could lead to investment in flood defenses unnecessarily early, while down-playing the risks could lead to inappropriate delays. The same is true for drought and other impacts.
And then the rather grubby footnote to the article by Revkin.
The word skeptic [referring to the Bishop Hill blog] above is in quotation marks because it’s a term that has been co-opted by those challenging science pointing to disruptive human-driven global warming, implying that those with different views are not seriously appraising evidence.
There's something about the juxtaposition of these two paragraphs that I find amusing, although I can't quite put it into words.
I'm guessing Revkin feels if he is going to link here he has to say something snide so that he does get threatened with the "big cutoff" again. Anything for a quiet life I suppose.
Reader Comments (72)
More deletion of Zed. Sorry. But every time you try to divert the thread off topic, I'm going to delete you. The subject of this thread is not whether commenters here are true sceptics or not.
Even though the second paragraph, which you have actually posted, is entirely about whether or not you are sceptics?
{BH adds: we are discussing Revkin's points. Not your views]
[Snip - go and read what I wrote again. Your right to free speech does not extend to my property]
Its just trolling by Revkin to generate interest.
"There's something about the juxtaposition of these two paragraphs that I find amusing, although I can't quite put it into words."
Ah, there you go Bish polite whilst being succinct.
And after:-
The word skeptic [referring to the Bishop Hill blog] above is in quotation marks because it’s a term that has been co-opted by those challenging science pointing to disruptive human-driven global warming, implying that those with different views are not seriously appraising evidence.
I trust you realise that you have just been savaged by a truly dead sheep?
A sceptic challenges, and therefore has no need to “co-opt” or chose the name, it is not theirs to chose, from the moment they challenge, the description is correctly visited upon them, whether they chose it or not. They have no need to make the claim of “I am a sceptic” because they just are.
Andy Revkin recognises, I think, that 'skeptic' is an objectively better word to use when it comes to scientific appraisal and it defeats the word "denier" easily. He knows that skeptics don't deny science, they challenge lousy science and lousy scientists. His footnote is jarring, Bish.
The use of the word 'adaptation' so often in the first par is an indication that Betts is becoming a sceptic.
Betts: "...further climate change is already in the pipeline..."
Revkin: "...disruptive human-driven global warming..."
Betts is too far off-message as far as Revkin is concerned. The argument has to be centred on the Anthropogenic because if it strays into the possibility of natural variation, The Cause is lost.
That Dangerous Climate Change Thread, rather than fade out, has quietly morphed into a very notable example of mutually courteous exchange, with some seriously astute and incisive viewpoints from the participants.
The snide level will continue to grow as the desperation induced by the divergence between the reality of a cooling planet and the Warmist's models predicting an ever warmer planet become too much too bear.
My models say it should happen.
My thermometers says it is not.
Gradually, model induced delusions yield to thermometer based reality.
Ah, the Alpha Blogger has snapped the leash. Caesar Millan would be proud.
Dog Whispherer
Thank you.
co-opting is so yesterday:
1 May 2009: NYT: John M. Broder: Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus
The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.” ...
The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.
Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”...
A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.
Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely...
Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”
The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”...
Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.
Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html
note the date:
17 Nov 2009: Google CampusSustainMedia Learning Sessions: Topic: Climate & Energy Truths: Making the Necessary Connections
Climate and Energy Truths is a communications research project conducted to determine effective frameworks and messages for speaking with the American public about climate change, climate solutions, renewable energy and carbon-based fuels. It is an ecoAmerica project conducted by Westen Strategies and Lake Research Partners with support from NRDC, Pew and individual investors...
Robert M. Perkowitz, ecoAmerica, will discuss how Campus Sustainability Professionals can use this data to move forward sustainability issues on campus and in upcoming climate legislation...
Bob Perkowitz is founder and president of ecoAmerica , a non-profit consumer research and marketing organization that works with strategic partners to engage millions of Americans in climate and environmental solutions. He also sits on the boards of Environmental Defense Fund and World Bicycle Relief, and was a Trustee of the Sierra Club Foundation from 2001-2007.
In the for profit sector, currently is Managing Partner of VivaTerra LLC, America’s value leader for well-designed and made home, accessory and gift products that are inspired by and good for nature. Over the past 25 years Bob has been president of retail and manufacturing organizations with revenues ranging to $600 million, including Cornerstone Brands, Inc., Smith+Noble, LLC and Joanna Western Mills. He also sits on the boards of Snap A/V and Treehugger, and has been a director of a number of other corporations including SRAM, Inc. and Potenco LLC...
ecoAmerica is a nonprofit that uses psychographic research, strategic partnerships and engagement marketing to shift the awareness, attitudes and behaviors of environmentally agnostic Americans. We “start with people” and partner with NGOs, corporations and foundations to rebuild a values majority for climate and environmental solutions with highly-leveraged, large-scale consumer engagement programs....
http://sites.google.com/site/campussustainmedia/learning-sessions
el gordo
Interesting comment!
So the definition of "sceptic" could therefore include someone who is convinced by the basic scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming but also recognises that there is more than one aspect of society's potential response that the science should inform?
That would be a different definition of "sceptic" to the one generally used in climate science circles - it is usually taken to mean someone who is pretty certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are not a problem, usually with the implication that they don't accept some of the basic aspects of the science. However I've come to realise that actually there's a wide spectrum of views amongst people who call themselves sceptics, or indeed are called sceptics by other people! In particular, there's an important distinction between being sceptical of the science and sceptical of the policy response.
I'd be interested to hear how folks here define "sceptic" (as in "climate sceptic").
Yeah,that 'co opted' bit by Revkin really lowered the tone bit, actually really jarred, I think I prefer Bob Wards approach ;-) !
Wonder if he asked Richard Betts what he thought of B Hill
17 Nov: Washington Post: Andrew Freedman: NASA scientist Hansen warns “climate dice” already loaded for more extreme weather
OK, so the scientist is James E. Hansen, the outspoken chief climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. But despite his bold political advocacy in favor of major cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, or perhaps even because of it, Hansen’s scientific work merits attention.
I view him as being on the leading edge of where many other climate experts could eventually wind up...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/nasa-scientist-hansen-warns-climate-dice-already-loaded-for-more-extreme-weather/2011/11/16/gIQAm5W2UN_blog.html
12 Nov: ABC America: Bill Blakemore: Cute Animal + Warming Climate = New Species (of News)
The unprecedented and immense problems now brought on by manmade global warming are transformative in many ways.
The world’s national intelligence and security agencies, finance leaders, insurance companies, and food markets are all rearranging plans as they adjust to accelerating climate disruptions.
Less noticed, but no less telling of its effect on our feelings, is how the climate crisis has transformed the durability of some of our news segments.
It has produced a new species of reports that paradoxically grow ever more urgent, more “newsworthy,” after we first publish them – as if they were swimming in some sort of journalistic Fountain of Youth...
Why do some of our past reports — especially those related to global warming — continue to feel as fresh as tomorrow?
For at least three reasons.
The Psychology of a Story ‘Too Big to Cover’...
Second, the news about manmade global warming is so big, all-involving, has so many moving parts, it’s hard for anyone to hold it all in mind all at once.
Global warming is almost the story that’s too big to cover … and too big to absorb.
It takes a long time for anyone who is not a climate scientist to really accept it and mentally assemble all the hard new realities we are learning about...
The cumulative effect of this worsening news naturally keeps heightening our awareness, so our second looks are more sharply focused; you see old news with new eyes.
As you become more convinced manmade global warming is real, old reports may seem like the first time to be “real news” — especially if the problem reported is still growing even worse.
A Natural Denial, Even This Reporter…’
Even though this reporter has been working the climate story since 2004, hardly a day goes by that I don’t find myself once again being pulled back out of natural denial about it after talking with — or reading yet another report by — climate science professionals long inured to living with the hard evidence....
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/cute-animal-warming-climate-new-species-of-news/
It’s interesting Revkin must have noticed some interesting material in the interchange that Richard Bett’s has had here and wanted to use it but found he now has to refer to your site with some additional descriptor. Revkin didn’t need the extra information when he referred here before citing "a Bishop HIll blog post"
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/does-an-old-climate-critique-still-hold-up/
It does seem pretty snide of Revkin, why doesn’t he say straight out that he thinks Bishop Hill has appropriated a word that Revkin knows the actual meaning of? Though I admit I’m having trouble parsing exactly what he thinks it means – his footnote seems a bit like convoluted climatese where you really need to know the “right way” to think - who are the “those with different views”? Pseudo sceptics or Richard Betts who is being slightly unorthodox?
Well how a about a media version if climate science sceptic
Or a climate change scientist, vs climate science sceptic ;-)
Or just think, not much observable evidence to credit the high end version of climate sensitivity, and that 1-2 C is more plausible, and that impact may be benign vs catastrophic
Or, even, the unknown unknowns, or the assumption, may surprise us.. ie other forcings may overwhelm any human signal.
Or even that climate sensitivity to CO2 may be even be weekly negative, or above threshold plateau.
Too much is unknown.. I'm not worried about how cc might effect tropical diseases in 50 yrs.
When for relativley small amounts it could be eradicated now. Ie malaria is a disease of poverty now
Hi Barry
No, he just said something brief along the lines of "interesting comments on BH, I've been saying that kind of thing for a decade, would you like to expand?"
Andy Revkin often seems to draw the same kind of response from people like Joe Romm that I drew from Bob Ward with my remarks last week. Although Andy seems to have disappointed you and BH a little with his footnote, I'd still recommend him as a very thoughtful and balanced commenter in the complex and nuanced climate change discussion.
Pure joy... To demonstrate man made climate change, the BBC's Newsnight this evening used a loaded die to model the human influence on climate. Sadly their model failed utterly, consistently rolling a 'not 6' up until the presenter and the AGW stooge made their excuses and explained their failed deception.
Then an audience member on Question Time gets an enthusiastic cheer from the normally devoutly leftist crowd on the show for her anti-windmill rant.
This shark is well and truly jumped.
Revkin is aggrieved. He appears to want to give the impression that he's a victim of the stolen (co-opted) scepticism that he sees as his property. There's very little that the orthodoxy can do to reclaim "scepticism" as try as they might.
However, it is the antonym "belief" that advocates fear the most: having to defend themselves when cast as such makes advocacy very difficult to paint as either a reflective practice or as a rebellion against an oppressive authority, which is just as Revkin - and many environmentalists - would want to be perceived. Much to their chagrin I suggest.
,, of course the unknown aspects of clouds.
Scetical of scientists like hansen, trenberth Anderson, etc, who are advocates and go off reservation..
Ie anderson 1C is the new 2C and extremely dangerous, and stands alongside green party leaders, talking about war footung response to cc.
Shall i go on...
And of course, whilst I'm very aware of the simple physics of co2.
This does not necessarily translate into a complex non linear chaotic system..
And projection of computer models still have v little predictive ability and are certainately not 'experiments' which so many modellors seem to believe... Ref Prof Kelly.
Plus
But primarily . I'm a climate change policy sceptic..
Typeing hard on smartphone, plus serious discussion difficult in text/blog comments.
Perhaps if Richard wants a serious chat/discussion he could give me a call.
Hi Richard
I agree with you about Revkin!! Intellegent, thoughtful, not afraid to tackle issues, that might upset Romm, or Ward
That is why co -opted jarred so much, why did he feel the need to say that.
If he said that of Morano, would let it slide, but of B Hill ?
@Richard
"In particular, there's an important distinction between being sceptical of the science and sceptical of the policy response."
That's an extremely perceptive and challenging observation.
Remove the tribalism and I'm starting to suspect that a good starting point for further 'negotiations' may well become -
"In particular, there's an important distinction between being sceptical of SOME OF the science and sceptical of SOME OF the policy response"
Just a WAG but I'd be surprised if you hadn't got there first!
Thanks Richard.
Then again Revkin, has not read The Hockey Stick Illusion' as far ad I'm aware, just relied on 'others' reviews.. maybe Richard, who had read it could, give him his review if it...
And maybe recommend Climategate - the Crutape Letters.. whose content is perhaps not what Andy Revkin would expect. Many of the issues that Revkin discusses Are sceptical issues, it is a shame that he does not see this..
Then again, there are a lot of seriously nutty 'sceptics' in the Usa, and the signal might get lost in the noise.
Night, night ;-)
Smartphone, auto correction is really annoying!
O/T but ...
17 Nov: NYT: AP: Blair Regrets Passing Freedom of Information Law
Poised on the brink of power, Tony Blair made an impassioned vow: Britain's jealously-held culture of official secrecy would be dramatically swept away.
Fifteen years later, the country has a thriving right to information law, with almost 44,000 requests made to central government last year, and recently announced it would accept some demands for government data posted using Twitter. So former prime minister Blair must now reflect with pride on delivering his promise?
Not exactly.
"You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop," Blair wrote of himself in his autobiography "A Journey" last year, recalling his adoption of the law, which took effect in 2005. "There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it." ...
But even before Britain's law passed, Blair had hurriedly watered down his original plans and stalled the bill's progress. He strengthened exemptions that mean records related to the Royal Family, international relations, national security, defense, government policy and the courts are routinely refused...
The law is a success by the numbers: Almost 60 percent of all requests made are granted, and more are approved following appeals to an ombudsman...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/11/17/world/europe/AP-Access-Denied-Blairs-Regret.html?_r=2&hp
Richard Betts @ 11.16pm
You make an interesting comment about how 'sceptic' is used in climate science circles. In a way that exemplifiess the paucity of our language [cf therefore our ability to think] in this area.
I am actually very surprised given how much you engage with a range of sceptical folk, that it is a new idea to you that the word 'sceptic' could encompass those who accept the basic science of AGW but recognise that there is more than one aspect of society's response that the science can inform.
Perhaps it would be easier to start with the assumption that if someone disagrees with ANY part of the SPM of AR4 (or previous) they are 'sceptical'.
A bigger concern to me is that twice you mention 'the science'. This reminds me of Michael Mann saying "THE SCIENCE has spoken". But I know you're not so certain of what the science 'says' - or you wouldn't talk so frequently of 'uncertainties'. Beyond the very basic non-feedback response to a change in CO2 forcing, how much of the science would you say is 'undeniable' and what would you think of someone who argued for a low [lower than 3 degrees] climate sensitivity, a greater than consensus re-absorbtion of disequilibrium CO2, the ineffectiveness [and suffering-inducing cost] of mitigation, the unrealised ability to adapt, and the exaggerated negative consequences of a warmer climate?
I think it is too simplistic for you to say that a sceptic is some one who thinks "anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are NOT a problem". Surely, if the solution to a problem is a 2 or 3 hundred billion a year investment [for the foreseeable], then to be a sceptic all you have to think is that we don't have a 2 or 3 billion dollar a year problem?
Has the climate debate become so polarised that one side - the 'non-alarmed' are effectively all labelled as 'science-deniers'?
To my mind Richard, you have very much earned the proud label of 'sceptic' because you have kept a goodly amount of reason and objectivity, and not been swept away by fearful imaginings and [to use M. Mann's book title] 'Dire Predictions'. Keep it up!
Revkin's footnote is grubby. What annoys me with Revkin is that I know he's been exposed to every red flag the climate community has thrown up, and yet he's doggedly (or, actually, more dogmatically) wedded to the over-sold catastrophes being pushed.
But he's a journalist, and I've become convinced that there is more than merely a strong correlation between those who relish in the prospect of a good doom story and those pre-disposed to pursue a career in journalism. Genetic or otherwise, Revkin will never be able to let go of the belief in impending doom and will never resolve the cognitive dissonance he experiences whenever he attempts to reason out his belief with the errors, misinformation and flat-out lies coming out of areas of the climate community which are being flagged up by climate sceptics.
It is this cognitive dissonance which is directly responsible for shitty, snitty little jabs like his trailing reference to the Bish in the head post. And this, despite all the truths we know he actually knows about the Manns, Hansens, Schmidts and the like, who made such a fool of him around Climategate. Monbiot's the same, and I have a difficult time separating Revkin and Kloor. In fact I'm not sure that's even possible without reconstructive surgery on Keith's nose.
@ Richard
There is a broad range of sceptical views which, loosely stated, include those who
1/ don't believe the climate is changing at all
2/ think the climate is complex, that we don't know very much about it at all and that reductive generalisations about it are futile
3/ think that it is changing, but have seen no convincing evidence that it's outside the recent normal cycle
4/ think that it is changing, that it's beyond the recent normal cycle, but is still natural
5/ think that is changing beyond normal and that humanity has something to do with it
6/ think that it's changing, that humanity has a lot to do with it, but that it's beneficial
7/ think that it's changing but that it's impossible to predict technology, population, and energy price 100 years into the future, and thus all projections about effect are frivolous
8/ think that it's changing, that humanity has a lot to do with it, that it's harmful, but that it cannot be corrected
9/ think that it's changing, that humanity has a lot to do with it, that it's harmful, but that corrective measures are being advanced as a mask for a quite different agenda
10/ think that it's changing, that humanity has a lot to do with it, that it's harmful, but that mitigation will be more harmful economically than warming
11/ think that it is best ameliorated in 100 years' time when, on 100-year trends, the economy will be 9 times larger, and thus mitigation cheaper as well as better defined
12/ regard all the scientists involved in advocating it as third-rate minds who demonstrably do not hesitate to mislead, distort, propagandize, commit crimes, and plain outright lie to preserve their income, status, and career
13/ disagree on principle with any course of action supported by the Mafia, the Camorra, Enron, VAT fraudsters, phishing scammers, Osama bin Laden, and other organised criminals, because consensus must include the undesirables too, and they're part of it
14/ consider CAGW to exhibit most features of a religion, whose adherents would insist it was the one true way regardless of any evidence presented
15/ have noticed that the Left likes CAGW, and who oppose it because the Left is always wrong
16/ think the so-called precautionary principle should also apply to itself, especially when we are told that the safe thing to do is piss away trillions we definitely don't have on a problem we possibly may not have.
I reckon almost everyone who identifies as a sceptic identifies as one or more of the above.
The ploy that eco-whackjobs like Hansen routinely resort to is to try to bucket all of 2 to 16 with 1, which is the least sustainable position. They then argue, by association, that those who are of view 9 or 10 or whatever have no better arguments than those proffered by those who cleave to view 1, ergo all sceptic opinions are of equal non-merit.
In a way, there is a lunatic consistency of dishonesty to their doing this. They are essentially saying "we all hold one opinion and therefore so must you". The intolerance for a plurality of pro-CAGW opinion, and the assumption of an equal stereotypical non-plurality among everyone else - whether everyone else is the Right, or minorities, or sceptics - is what marks CAGW out unerringly as coming not from science but from the Left, which is reason enough to reach for the salt.
@J4R
" reason enough to reach for the salt"
JawB4War.
The past is less important than the future. Drop the bone between your teeth. The reflection in the water has more hope.
PS - I cannot argue with any of your facts. It's moving on that is now achievable and better than the alternative of 'grinding to a halt via mutual exhaustion'
Justice4Rinka -
I agree with almost all of what you say - and profoundly disagree with your conclusions!
You describe a number of sceptical ideas, though there are plenty more.
However you [and I, frequently] do the same thing you accuse Hansen of - lumping all opponents into the most extreme group possible. I would say that James Hansen is more of an outlier than John Christy and that in many ways Richard Betts opinion chimes more readily with Christy's too. In fact Richard Betts is in my view about 9 tenths of the way from Hansen's rhetoric towards mine and I am a hardcore soul-deep sceptic!
Take these two statements -
"Most climate scientists* do not subscribe to the 2 degrees "Dangerous Climate Change" meme (I know I don't)" - the eminently sceptical Richard Betts
"..the goals of limiting human-made warming to 2 degrees C and Co2 to 450ppm are prescriptions for DISASTER" - Hansen & Sato (2011)
Now, if we don't want to be labelled as anti-science wing-nut creationists, I think we have to allow that Hansen is indeed 'out there', himself, and not representative of climate science.
Most importantly, for you to think that CAGW comes unerringly from the left sounds, well, somewhat paranoid. It is also demonstrably not true.
@Anteros
Well put.
Anteros,
CAGW does not 'come from' the left. It 'is' the Left.
Richard Betts -
Further to some comments and discussion above, I'd like to focus on what you say the climate science community understands by the term 'sceptic'.
You say -
"... it is usually taken to mean someone who is pretty certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are not a problem, usually with the implication that they don't accept some of the basic aspects of the science"
I'm sure you know better than I, but I guess that is, indeed, how the climate science community thinks of sceptics. But it is profoundly different from how the vast majority of sceptics [something I know a little bit more about] think themselves.
Many of these differences have been described above - I think there are plenty more. However I'd like to home in on the idea that sceptics think AGW is 'not a problem' I think this misses the point. Sceptics, almost universally think AGW is 'LESS' of a problem - 'less' meaning 'than one or other of the ways it is portrayed by the main stream media'. I think that includes every sceptic I know. How much 'less than' depends on the sceptic and the particular representation of disaster that is flavour of the day.
As I mention above, if the solution to a problem is deemed to be 2 or 3 hundred billion a year for generations, all it needs for you to be a sceptic is to see the problem as 'less than' 2 or 3 hundred billion a year.
It is not in any way a wild or anti-science position EVEN THOUGH the headline statements from some extremists are indeed wild, anti-science and ideologically motivated.
@Justice4Rinka Thanks for the listing. I see slices of myself there somewhat: I think that global climate is changing -- and always has -- but that the human impact is most probably small in the global arena - but can be large in microclimate arenas, such as where deforestation is occuring. I don't believe in a run-away positive-feedback based disaster in the climate arena (the history of the planet runs counter to this) but believe a disaster is in the making in the political arena and not just because of the economic devastation it involves. Just look at the anti-free speech edicts in Australia concerning the carbon tax, which will most likely not have any effect whatsoever on regional or global climate - a devastating blow to democracy and civilization. I also tend to believe (from history and from other scientific fields) that slightly warmer temperatures and higher CO2 will yield a net benefit for human civilization and for most life on the planet. I fear much more a global cooling scenario but don't know if that is what is happening now either. We might be just leveling off.
Revkin, at the end of the day, is going to be seen for a fool.
@ Richard Betts,
The issue is not if CO2 has an impact on the atmosphere heat budget.
The issue is if that impact leads to climate catastrophe.
The climatocracy has been playing off that distinction, much to the profit of many, for decades.
One can be very convinced of the first proposition and at the same point out the simple annoying reality that there is no climate catastrophe underway.
The believer believes the catastrophe is already occurring and is deadly right now- they believe the reports that hundreds of thousands are already dead and that storms are much more deadly- no matter the lack of evidence. Because their faith meets the old biblical definition of faith as belief in things unseen.
Skeptics drive believers crazy (usually a short drive) by pointing out that since the things they believe are not actually happening, perhaps they should not be treated as real.
@Richard Betts Nov 17, 2011 at 11:16 PM
IMHO, "climate sceptic/skeptic" is a completely meaningless - but conveniently diversionary - label applied by the more civil of those of the alarmist persuasion to others who - for whatever reason - choose not to simply trust 'em because (according to them and their supporters) they're "experts" (or, to use the latest and greatest turn of Pachauri-phrase, they are among the willing pool of "objective, transparent, inclusive talent")
To my mind, this reflects the labellers' (sometimes deliberate, sometimes ignorant) refusal to acknowledge the validity of the views of those who do not subscribe to all the tenets of IPCC's most contentious assertions are probably just as concerned about the environment as they are. Some, perhaps, even more so - to the extent that they are more inclined to practice what the hypocritical big name advocates preach. Who amongst us could match the "carbon footprint" of Suzuki, Gore, McKibben, or Pachauri and the upper echelons of the IPCC/UNEP/UNFCCC hierarchies?!
Yet those labelled as "climate sceptics/skeptics" typically see no reason to make the leap of faith required to conclude that human-generated CO2 is the "primary" cause of any purportedly observed warming (however minuscule this has been shown to be within the very short epoch of recorded temperature history).
IMHO, noting the absence of such faith, the so-called "climate sceptics/skeptics" might more accurately be described as those who choose not to put all their scientific eggs in the priestly carbon (dioxide) basket.
But this would be somewhat akin to putting the emphasis on the right syllable - a road not taken by those who would label others who do not share their views as "climate sceptics/skeptics".
@Simon Hopkinson Nov 18, 2011 at 1:02 AM
I respectfully disagree! More often than not I don't agree with either Revkin or Kloor. That being said, IMHO, Revkin is capable of understanding and expressing nuance (at least sometimes). And from his postings - and occasional respones to others - I think he deserves far more respect than Kloor (whose biases and snark tend to predominate both his posts and "responses" [for want of a better word to describe Kloor's comments in reply to the those of others]
Although I do agree, it takes very little to put Kloor's nose out of join! Revkin, somewhat more.
Justin Ert
That strikes as a very acute observation, I am so used to Revkin speaking from the position of orthodoxy I forget sometimes he may actually think of himself as operating from a sceptic tradition, but I still think Revkins definition seems rather narrow and self serving.
Since the host of this site has written a rather good book about a very significant subject in the sphere climate, I may have missed it, but for all Revkins honest broker posings I don't see a similar trenchant critique from him on a subject that is ripe for trenchant critiques.
It is interesting that Revkin goes out of his way to make a special case that this site has co-opted the meaning of the word scepticism because it is an alleged pathological trait to "[imply] that those with different views are not seriously appraising evidence"
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/on-harvard-misconduct-climate-research-and-trust/?permid=44#comment44
But when asked if he has studied or even looked at HSI, a rather significant work that claims sceptic status, he merely points to the people who have the biggest personal stake in defending themselves from what is said in the book and defers judgement to them! He can't even provide evidence he has even glanced at it himself.
"not seriously appraising evidence" indeed. Revkin defines a "proper" sceptic in a way that forgives his own weak narrow philospophy ;)
@ Richard Betts "I'd be interested to hear how folks here define "sceptic" (as in "climate sceptic")."
I am sceptical of the view that we need to dismantle industrial civilisation in order to prevent catastrophic global warming.
The basis for this scepticism is:
a) a few degrees warming would be net beneficial (tundra becomes forest, forest becomes ploughland, arable yields increase)
b) the cause-and-effect drivers, and the chaos behaviours, of the climate are not well understood, so that no predictions of the climate over decadal timescales have any significant credibility.
c) the shabby behaviour and the abysmal data management (HARRYREADME) revealed by Climategate has further reduced the credibility of the predictions of some of the key players and loudest voices
Anteros, I believe the climate change act has committed us to £18bn/year already.
Richard, I don't believe you have a gap with the sceptics that couldn't be accommodated, but at the moment you and your colleagues are giving succour, and authority, to people who want to bring down western industrial civilisation, the Greens. If the output from the various IPCC reports, in the synthesis reports that is, had been as measured as your comments here, then sceptics and believers alike may have been able to agree on a course of action which doesn't require the destruction of capitalism, fuel poverty and de-industrialisation of the world to solve the problem.
I'm sceptical of a science that consistently tries to prove the hypothesis correct and is never deterred by observational evidence that contradicts it's forecasts. Aren't you?
@richard betts
'However I've come to realise that actually there's a wide spectrum of views amongst people who call themselves sceptics, or indeed are called sceptics by other people!'
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this remark. Laugh and rejoice that you have finally begun to understand what scepticism is all about, or to cry that its taken you - a man in a senior position in one of the leading UK government agencies - so long to appreciate this simple truth.
Justice4rinka (above) notes 16 possible viewpoints that could be described as 'sceptical'. I doubt his list in totally comprehensive. And I certainly subscribe to a fair selection - but not all - of the sixteen.
So why is this a revelation to you (the exclamation mark is a 'tell' that its a new idea)?
Did you and your colleagues truly subscribe to the idea that all sceptics were only shills for a 'WellFunded Big Oil Denier Conspiracy'?
With our knuckles dragging on the ground and waiting only for the pay cheque from Koch Brothers (whoever they may be) to arrive before going out to trash the environment once more and to drive our SUVs over any passing harmless cute polar bears?
And finish a perfect day by sticking pins into wax models of our grandchildren slavering 'I hope you burn to death in a climate hell, you bastards'?
Because if that's your stereotype, you are a long way off base and - by fighting an 'enemy' that doesn't actually exist outside of our imagination and you are doomed to failure.
Over at Judith's place, there is a thread called 'denizens' where many have posted their bios and reasons for scepticism. Go and get your colleagues to read that. Then see if they reconsider their position on what constitutes a 'sceptic'.
Richard @ 11:16 PM
There is also a range of scientific views amongst climate scientists, even if all accept the GHE, warming earth, etc. When people notice this, a sensible response is to be sceptical of any particular scientific claim, especially when that claim is used to support particular political ideas. You end up suspicious of those who hide a political agenda behind science. Way out is to (A) Talk openly about political viewpoints and values and (B) Discuss science on its own merits. You're doing so well because you avoid (A) and do (B).
It's just possible, though not very likely, that Anydy Revkin was not trying to denigrate BH in his comment.
Note that his footnote did not specifically mention THIS blog. It could, given a very charitable interpretation, be him saying that despite BH being a "skeptic", this blog is not one of those that deny science.
Re-read it without the BH reference inserted, and with some charity, and I think it's not so bad.
Not at all likely.
Revkin (and Kloor, mentioned by Simon Hopkinson) are instinctively triangulators on scientific questions about climate change. They assume that "the scientists" are basically right about everything, but are prepared to talk about and to "sceptics". They're happy, e.g., to have an honest debate about policy. Because they are not really scientifically minded, they defer to authority - basically, the IPCC WG1 - on science. Hence when conversing with people who are sceptics on any aspect of the science, that feel justified to imply (with varying degrees of subtlety), that scepticism is akin to flat-earthing. On balance, I'll give them more credit for being prepared to discuss various points of view, than debit for their unwillingness to accept any genuine uncertainty about the scientific aspects.
@ Richard Betts
I'm a skeptic because I think that..
Science:
* Has often been sloppy and biased; climatology is harder and more uncertain than it is presented to be
* Confidence in models is too high and are not a good way to test for CO2 sensitivity
* CO2 sensitivity is likely lower than is claimed
* The shaft of the hockey sticks are too flat, the trend in the last decades of the last century are likely not unprecedented at all
* There are natural mechanisms that have caused past climate changes which may have caused much of the trend in the last century
* The "consensus position" on the potential influence of clouds and extraterrestrial influences is too dismissive
* Biofuels increase food prices, deforestation, habitat loss and extinction rates
* Consistently overstate man made disasters
* CO2 is good for primary production, especially in dry climates
* Consensus is overrated
Politics:
* The "solutions" are stupid - if we believed it was "that bad" we would be investing in nuclear and gas as opposed to windmills, biofuels, and pricing the poor and industry out of energy consumption
* Politics has polluted the science, the IPCC, The Royal Society, the BBC, and more
* Conflate redistribution of wealth (to the third world, not within the UK) with averting climate change disaster
* Big green has too much influence, and the line between activists and scientists have been blurred
* Is full of lies such as Huhne saying “We are determined that everything that can be done will be done to help people bring their energy bills down.”
It's all gone wrong. Identifying anyone who agrees with several of these statements as an anti-science denier in the pay of big oil is not constructive.
For skeptics with no financial motive, it's hard not to give the impression that we have lost our marbles by taking a minority position due to the push to label us as madmen believing in "voodoo science".
The money could have done a lot of good.The politicians have tried to show that they care so much that they're prepared to make our population and other good causes suffer. Fortunately - for them - the media is telling us it's the right decision.
One way or another I hope we can say one day that one side of these debates were populated by gullible fools.
The extremists, whom I have accused more than once of wanting to take us by the hand and lead us back to the 18th century or beyond, are quite unable to comprehend that if they had their way the first victim would be the environment. When your first consideration is putting food on the table and wood on the fire you are hardly likely to give much thought to "the environment" except as a resource to be exploited. Either that or you die of cold or starvation (or at the hands of someone bigger and stronger than you who also needs to eat and keep warm).
Technology has improved humanity's lot by enabling us to get more food and heat output from less input. That is the only reason we are in a position to take land out of use and "conserve" it and protect the species that live on it.
Revkin's footnote did lack subtlety. I've started using the phrase 'advocates positioned as skeptics' which is cumbersome but it ought to please everybody. Language defines the thoughts that we can communicate so it is contentious, Orwell wrote some interesting stuff about it. Donna Laframboise has I think been active in this regard by coining the phrase climate bible for IPCC reports. I've tweeted asking if she can point to someone using those words before her or if she coined it. No response . Revkin's comment should be reserved for the people that call themselves 'climate realists' .
@Hengist
'Advocates positioned as sceptics'
That's soooo catchy it'll be on everyone's lips by three weeks come next Tuesday Michaelmas. Your career as a wordsmith is assured
But you'll have to remind me what it is I am supposedly advocating.
Did I miss this week's memo from the 'Well-Funded Big Oil Denialist and Trash The Planet Ha Ha Machine'? And my cheque didn't arrive either........