Crying wolf for "the cause"

More from Imperial

There was a sort of cycle through the 2000s of stories saying "scientists say it's even worse than we thought"...and I think the media kind of cried wolf...and there's only so far that you can go with that kind of story because the public switched off.

James Randerson (at 31 mins)

Comments

[Mike Jackson]

"I shall do such things -- I know not what they will be ..." [King Lear]

Richard
If Mosher and Fuller are telling us that global warming is not "the catastrophe they want you to believe" but is actually a problem we need to "do something about", then perhaps it would be helpful if they told us exactly what we can "do about it" (I submit: nothing).
It's all very well playing King Lear but in the real world we need real solutions and I don't believe that there are any because no-one has yet convinced me that there is a problem of the magnitude that requires human intervention on the scale the alarmist scenarios would need and if there is then I don't think humanity's combined resources could start to address it.

[Mike Jackson]

I should have added (domestic pressure intervened!!) that the answer is that we carry on as normal taking what adaptive measures are needed and are within our capabilities as and when the need for such measures becomes clear.
Which it most certainly is not at the moment.
To date (correct me if I'm wrong) not one of the assorted disasters prophesied by Al Gore or Hansen or any of the latest-research-shows-it's-worse-than-we-thought lobby has come to pass or looks likely to come to pass in the medium term.
I find that one of the characteristics of the global warming "experts" is that they are always wanting us to "do something" without ever giving coherent reasons why and when pressed the answer always comes back to some variation on the theme "the models say so".
Since it is only very recently that these "experts" have started — very grudgingly — to admit that there just might be an upside to a 2C warming I am forced to one of two conclusions: either the models have been programmed in such a way that their projections will always focus on doom and disaster or the "experts" have their own reasons for focussing on doom and disaster.
Either way I see no reason to make major changes to my lifestyle based on the findings of the likes of Mosher and Fuller.

[Richard Betts]

Hi Jane

Thanks for your response, which has given me the opportunity to clarify.

I wasn't intending to invoke an argument from authority - I agree that's a weak argument.

I just thought it was a nice metaphor for the situation - just because some aspects of the problem have been exaggerated, this doesn't mean the problem does not exist.

BTW Mike I know what you mean about "domestic pressure intervened" - happens to me too! (Now, in fact!)

Cheers

Richard

[Skiphil]

fascinating essay at Judith Curry's which seems to imply that it is useless to try for global CO2 controls before adequate alternative energy sources are available, at which point mandates are pointless.... That is, if I understand Prof. Hartley's arguments correctly, forget about Mandates on CO2 emission levels:

http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/05/climate-and-energy-policies-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/#more-7040

[Dave Salt]

Dr Betts, I certainly agree that “just because some aspects of the problem [global warming] have been exaggerated, this doesn't mean the problem does not exist”. However, I have a concerns about both the relevance of the analogy and the message that it relays.

Concerning its relevance, I think most would agree that our reaction to the problem must be guided by at least two factors: 1) the type and level of threat that it represents; 2) the degree to which Man has/can influence it. So, by saying that the Cry Wolf story has relevance to CAGW, you’re also implying that it is both life threatening and can be substantially aggravated/mitigated by the actions of Man. Do you really think that both the empirical data and our understanding of the global climate system are currently sufficient to draw such definitive conclusions?

Concerning the message, it’s always struck me that the real damage of ‘crying wolf’ over CAGW will most likely be the general public’s faith in scientists and, worse still, the ‘scientific method’. The fact that many scientists and scientific institutes have either ignored or given tacit approval to the extreme predictions of CAGW has, in my mind, been one of the most shameful aspects of this whole affair: the prostitution of science in the name of political correctness!

It may surprise you to know that I’m somewhat agnostic about CAGW – I believe in the scientific method and will accept the eventual truth, whatever it turns out to be. However, I’ve yet to see any ‘scientific’ evidence to convince me that we know enough about the problem to draw definitive conclusions, which is why I prefer to take the side of the skeptic… at least for now.