Bishop Hill Beddington's baloney
Jul 12, 2011 Climate: WG2 Sir John Beddington has published a new report that addresses "International Dimensions of Climate Change". The lead author team includes BH regular Richard Betts.
The headlines are going to be grabbed by the reports call for climate disasters overseas to be used as a lever for introduction of unpopular policy measures in the UK:
The onset of more severe climate impacts overseas may also open up temporary opportunities, or ‘policy windows’. These would allow legislators the licence to take specific bold actions which they ordinarily believe would not otherwise be possible or politically acceptable...
Given that individual weather events cannot be linked to climate change, this does make the report look (a) very political and (b) highly unscientific, but there is in fact much more in the report with which to take issue. For example, this is paragraph 2 of the Executive Summary:
Climate change is expected to act as a ‘risk multiplier’, interacting with other trends. It is likely to make it even more difficult to address poverty, disease, and food and water insecurity. In particular, rising temperatures and changing patterns of precipitation may affect the availability of food (including crops and livestock) and water, leading to more hunger and increased volatility in food prices, and heightened regional tensions, affecting international stability and security. An increased frequency of extreme weather events may adversely affect human health, disrupt the flow of natural resources and commodities, and threaten global infrastructure for transport and energy. Moreover, the inherent uncertainty of these various impacts is likely to increase risks significantly in the business and financial sectors.
I find this hard to equate with my knowledge of climate projections. If the world is going to get (a) warmer and (b) wetter then the impacts are most likely to be rather benign. In what way can there therefore be an expectation that things will get worse? And where are the expressions of uncertainty?
But again, it's the invoking of extreme weather that catches the eye. Here's what the IPCC had to say on the subject:
A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones, with results dependent on the model, although those models do show a consistent increase in precipitation intensity in future storms. Higher-resolution models that more credibly simulate tropical cyclones project some consistent increase in peak wind intensities, but a more consistent projected increase in mean and peak precipitation intensities in future tropical cyclones. There is also a less certain possibility of a decrease in the number of relatively weak tropical cyclones, increased numbers of intense tropical cyclones and a global decrease in total numbers of tropical cyclones.
When we read the IPCC's words, the use of extreme weather as a bogeyman by Sir John and his team looks highly incongruous. There is certainly no sense of the uncertainties being portrayed to the reader, which is odd given that Sir John Beddington was one of those who criticised "some scientists" for exaggerating the effects of global warming.
The report is clearly going to provide a great deal of entertainment. Please, however, resist the temptation to rant or make rash accusations.
Reader Comments (117)
According to Hansard for 12 July 2011, Huhne made the following statement:
We also face ambitious carbon emissions and renewable energy targets as we seek to build a cleaner energy future for Britain and for the world.
On the grounds that "ambitious carbon emmission and renewable energy targets" were derived from documents that contain "scientific uncertainties concerning climate change (with some aspects being more uncertain than others) - see RB @ 12:07am, 13 July 2011 above", surely Huhne should have included a caveat with that statement in the interests of being open and honest about uncertainties?
Beddington and Huhne followed by the rest of the low grade quality of representation in both the House and the Lords. I can see no way how this lot can be prevented from driving the U.K. totally down the drain and my heart truly bleeds watching the lies they spew over an unproven hypothesis!
My move to Cyprus a few years back looks better by the day! I wake every morning wondering how we survive here with this heat!
As far as I can see in the report, there is no new science, just a presentation of the IPCC SPM. All the other papers just follow on from assuming that is correct, despite the large holes that have been shot in it in recent times. If a 'Foresight' report consists of looking back at existing flawed data, then it's a poor show all around. Pity the taxpayer.
This sort of seems appropriate
'Symptoms of Groupthink
The eight symptoms of groupthink defined by Janus are as follows:
1. Illusions of Invulnerability
The group begins to believe it’s own hype and starts to think it always makes the right decisions – they can do no wrong.
2. Rationalization of Warnings
The group convinces itself that despite evidence or warnings to the contrary it is making the right decision. The group creates rationalizations such as, “We know there is contrary opinion to this decision but we’ve been right before in the face of negativity and we’ll we right this time too”.
3. Complacency
After reaping the rewards of making many correct decisions the group begins to overlook the negatives. Think how derivative models were never run showing what would happen to a banks financial position if house prices began to fall in the years leading up to 2007.
4. Stereotyping
Those who are opposed to the group are pigeonholed as heretics, non-believers, or just plain stupid.
5. Loyalty Pressure
Direct pressure is place on any team member who raises a contrary opinion, with typically the entire group openly calling the team member disloyal or fickle.
6. Self-Censorship
Individuals refrain from airing any private concerns they may have for fear for ridicule, for example, if you are in a group with 10 clever people who all agree with each other, then you begin to question if you might look like a fool for raising your concern – perhaps you a just being stupid.
7. Illusion of Unanimity
If asked, “does everyone agree with this decision?”, and nobody speaks up, then the decision is understood to have been made unanimously. In essence, silence is regarded as compliance.
8. Mind-guards
The group contains self-appointed members who protect the group from conflicting opinions from both inside and outside of the group'
Source: http://www.expertprogrammanagement.com/2011/03/groupthink-examples-avoidance/
Which is an excellent discussion of an all too common phenomenon, with many resonances for us sceptical people to ponder.
Richard Betts has been promoting both virtual science and catastrophism, with the former leading to the latter.
The models are telling us bad things, all future human pain are in the predictions and projections. Real science is telling us something different - the observations don't match the predictions. No predicted Hot Spot - No AGW.
Reality is also telling us that combining modeller's claims with weather events as this report does convinces no one, it just increases public cynicism over climate science. This report should be listed under Theology.
Looks like David Icke was right, Those bloody lizards get everywhere..including hijacking my signature on my post above re Groupthink.
Time to get the Vogons in to help us......just so long as there's no poetry or philosophy :-(
@ Richard Betts
Thank you for responding to Brownedoff and I am sorry if your attendance at Bishop Hill is impacting on your family life.
You state again that you are not happy with the use of the word 'likely' in a number of places but you are not prepared to distance yourself from the report. This, to me, is the problem with climate science. The scientists advise on the science. The politicians egg it up for public consumption and the scientists remain stumm. And so it goes.
Not good. IMHO
kind regards
Dolphinhead
I'm glad my contributions here are appreciated - thanks for the warm welcome!
Dolphinhead, yes I am genuinely interested in what other people think about climate science. I realise there is a wide variety of views, insights and expertise out there and it's important not to let that go to waste. Indeed it is precisely to avoid the risk of "groupthink" as described by David Icke that is one of the motivations for me coming here.
Hunter, I guess I only really see myself as a scientist who is willing to discuss his work with others, even those who will probably have strong opposing opinions. I don't think many actual scientists will have a problem with this, many of them do this kind of thing even if they don't go on blogs. Some activists might not like it, but again not all, I think the more sensible ones will recognise that the science they depend upon should withstand robust discussion. Having said that, I did already upset Joe Romm last year. I do think he overstates the scientific certainty sometimes, which I don't think is helpful to anyone in the long run. Indeed ironically this is another factor which encouraged me to join the conversation on this blog - if there's people on the "warmist side" I disagree with, then logically there might be people on the "sceptic side" I agree with.... (actually it's becoming clearer that there is continuum rather than two "sides")
Brownedoff, you ask why I don't say "everyone must be open and honest" not "everyone should" be open and honest. Well I think that's a bit of a nuance, but I try not tell to people what they must do - however it doesn't stop me having an opinion on what they should do. To answer the specific question, I think all speeches on climate change, whether by ministers or anybody else, should use language which appropriately reflects the level of certainty or uncertainty - hence "may", "could" etc instead of "will" etc.
Dolphinhead, following on from that, I'm not sure how my posting my comments on a well-read blog and then tweeting about it (to followers who include Sir John Beddington and the Foresight team) is "keeping stumm". [I'm @richardabetts on Twitter BTW]. Also I emailed the Foresight team to draw their attention to this discussion. But just because some of the wording isn't how I would have said it, it doesn't mean I want distance myself from the report - as I said, I didn't consider that this substantially affected the overall presentation of the science.
Quite a lot of the comments are about the scope of the report and its audience. It is aimed at policymakers across UK govt - see the Foresight website for an explanation of their role. The scope is on how the impacts of climate change overseas have implications back here in the UK, through all the various international linkages - issues such as that raised by Barry on the domestic impact of UK energy policy, and indeed the domestic impact of other countries' energy policies, have been discussed extensively elsewhere through the UNFCCC for example. It was the international linkages to the UK that were the missing bit that this report aimed to fill.
Ecclesiatical Uncle, yes I did raise scientific points if I thought they'd been missed, and yes the authors did take my advice. And no I didn't feel constrained by any perception of government policy. And on your question about the graphs, I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but I can tell you that I do talk to Roger Pielke Snr and indeed have published with him, I share a number of views with him but am also aware that he is probably more critical of the models than me (and I'm fairly critical), so the answer to whether these are consistent with his views is probably "partly".
Lapogus, you ask about extremes. Firstly drought - we expect the risk of drought to increase in some areas but decrease in others due to shifting rainfall patterns, and an increase in soil evaporation due to warming. However I think the latter could be partly (but not wholly) offset by increased plant water use efficiency due to higher CO2 concentrations - the evidence is pretty good that this is already occuring. Of course it's important to note that drought is a relative term, locally defined, so a UK "drought" is normal conditions elsewhere, so to some extent this shows that adaptation is possible.
On extreme precip, there are thermodynamic reasons why to expect rainfall to become more intense, but at a practical level you can see that you generally get more intense convective rainfall in warmer climates (or on hotter days) due to more intense convection driven by a warmer surface below. Also of course the models project more intense precip, but I don't expect that argument to hold much weight here :-) But anyway, again it's all relative - I've seen downpours in Africa that as a Brit I thought were astonishing, but the locals thought were pretty normal, and indeed the drainage system was set up to cope with it (when it wouldn't have done had the same storm happened in the UK). This is where climate science is important for planning, especially international development - when new
infrastructure is being put in that will last decades, it needs to be able to cope with conditions in the future not just those of the past.
Are extremes already changing? Well of course extreme events happen anyway irrespective of climate change, but there is evidence that the frequency distribution of rainfall events is shifting towards the more intense end.
@ Richard
Sorry to bang on, but could you just outline which humanitarian programmes you think should be cancelled so that the funds thereby released can be directed instead towards reducing the temperature in 2100AD by 0.006 degrees? - just as a precaution that is?
In your experience, do climate scientists ever worry that spending money on managing the global average temperature may be perpetuating high rates of child mortality, and famine, and whatnot? Do they think it a price worth others paying, do they not think about it, do they figure it's someone else's conscience if stupid conclusions and policy decisions are arrived at based on their work, or what?
If I were a CAGW enthusiast, I'd be very worried about all those who are now sure to die sooner because I think climate change may be a problem later. If I were working hard to divert resources away from real problems and crises today and towards conjectural ones tomorrow, that would seriously bother me. Does it bother anyone you professionally know?
It's just that if you wanted an example of moral incompetence CAGW alarmism could hardly be bettered. I was wondering if individual alarmists simply see other alarmists as having the problem, in the way that individual motorists sometimes consider traffic jams to be a problem caused by other motorists?
@Richard Betts
The paper about extreme events doesn't seem to back up your assertion about rainfall:
For the precipitation indices there are fewer clear signs of change (see Figure 9), although the most recent time period is significantly different from the 1901–1950 period for every index. In general statistical tests show changes in the precipitation indices that are consistent with a wetter climate. However, these results are difficult to quantify and their significance may be affected by the very
non-Gaussian nature of the precipitation indices.
Hardly the end of the world?
May I suggest that you procure for Sir John a copy of 'The Weather of Britain' by Robin Stirling ISBN 1-900357-06-2. Whenever an 'extreme' event occurs in Britain he should refer to the book. It is highly likely that something worse is described in this absorbing compendium. If not, he may claim that the event actually is extreme (for Britain).
It is a pity there is not a version covering the global weather.
The next stage of alarmism after Global Warming morphed to Climate Change with went to ... is "IAN"
IAN is an acronym for "Increased Absolute Normality". That it, the globe will see more frequent times when the weather is absolutely normal. By using scare mongering on the IAN principle, every base is covered. All possible weather events now come under an umbrella of blame for the nasty actions of Mankind.
From the Ecclesiastical Unclu an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Richard Betts - Thank you for your reply. It is probably too late to post here but here goes because your answer raises a supplementary question.
The part response to Rojer Pielke's heat sink theories. Do you think that 'partly' is good enough?
I should explain that I am not persuaded that the time series approach to global warming is valid because (i) of the frequently threatened tipping points (but actually, up or down?) that would obviously invalidate the approach, or (ii) (probably the same thing said differently) because of the oscillations the system will develop because of delays, which, I think, are the essence of the heat sink type theories. This is, you will observe, a bureaucrat's take.
Your answer, then, seems to imply that the report largely relies on the time series approach, which I think has no more than scratched the surface of the global warming hypothesis and forms no basis for positive or negative prognostications or policies that characterize the report.
(By the way, the answers you gave to my earlier questions cause me to feel somewhat hopeless. I had hoped, against hope, that inside the respected bureaucratic government scientists you so evidently are, there might lurk a maverick thinker. However, how often does the Pope stop to consider whether the God his organisation is set up to glorify and worship acually exists?)
Eh?
What did the English language do to upset him, I wonder.
Having read my way through nearly 120 comments, I find myself curious as to the basis on which RB contributes here. I can think of three possibilities: (i) RB became aware of BH and decided, without reference to anyone else, that he could make useful contributions and began doing so; (ii) RB became aware of BH and decided that he could make useful contributions and, after consulting his work colleagues/superiors, began doing so; or (iii) RB's presence here was not his idea but was suggested to him by his employer as an 'outreach' activity.
If (i), then he is here on his own dime. If (ii) or (iii) then some of us, as UK taxpayers, are paying for his contributions. I have no problem with (ii), indeed it implies that RB's employer is willing to listen to the UK's most expert group of sceptics (at least to the extent necessary to reply to them). Possibility (iii) carries the same implication, of course. But if (iii) applies, then I think RB should tell us that that is basis for his presence.
Possibility (iv) is that RB is being paid for his BH contributions by Exxon Mobil. If he becomes more sceptical (and there's clearly a very long way to go), then we may need to consider that too (well, Oreskes would).
Has anyone noticed Sir John's own "Hide the Decline" graph on page 27?
@ Richard North
Not until you pointed it out - thank you. Inclusion of the last 5 years or so would have been more honest, particularly as the subject of the graph is 'uncertainty'.
Richard North
Well spotted - glad to see some people do actually read these things!
I have to confess I had not noticed that, but should have done. The graph is taken from another paper (ref 54). I really don't think there was any deliberate intent to mislead, either by the report authors or the authors of the paper in ref 54 (Hawkins and Sutton). Incidentally, Judith Curry is quite a fan of Ed Hawkins, he's shown he's a good, objective scientist.
So, sorry about that figure, I can accept partial responsibility due to not being as eagle-eyed as you when I checked it. Are you planning to be an IPCC expert reviewer? Would be great to have you there!
Jane Coles (Jul 14):
The answer is (i). I started reading BH when he followed me on Twitter, and simply found the conversations interesting enough to join in! You will see that many of my posts are timed in the evening, or at lunchtime....