Monday
Jan212013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Obama goes green
Jan 21, 2013 Climate: Parliament Having failed to mention climate change at all in his reelection campaign, it seems that President Obama is going to make it the heart of his second term plans (full text of inauguration speech here).
We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.
I think he is making that last bit up.
Update on Jan 21, 2013 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Channel Four's Tom Clarke has just tweeted this:
Obama just made a link between 2012 weather and climate change in #inaug2013. @metoffice can you bail him out if he gets too much flak?
Reader Comments (75)
Jan 22, 2013 at 12:29 AM | Entropic Man
Not sure where from you got the concept of "gut feeling" as a measure or indicator. I don't see that term used in the Huffpo piece you reference. I think you are projecting something there that only exists in your own gut feelings. ;)
If I was to use that term I would think it would need quantifying better.
If you think people see climate change as a problem and they feel there is something they can do about it, then it seems measuring how many of them there are and how much they would sacrifice would be a better indicator of a "gut feeling" don't you agree?
I think the concept of "gut feeling" starts to look firmer when you start to ask harder questions on those lines.
For example you could have chosen another HuffPo poll taken just before their "gut feeling" poll, by another survey company, which gave them this headline:
Climate Change Poll Finds Most Americans Unwilling To Pay Higher Energy Costs
Although admittedly that was asking them for a 50% increase in costs. A climate scientist makes a good point there:
I just had to quote that! - my emphasis above
Now what would ones "gut feeling" be upon hearing that the underlying diagnosis is that we need to collapse our current society in order to fix global warming? ;)
Even your favourite “gut feeling” HuffPo poll originally derives from this Rasmussen Report which is titled with quite a different spin:
49% Are Not Willing To Pay More to Fight Global Warming
And goes on to say:
Now the exact numbers aren't available there but again it seems as soon as you start to ask for money, or require a "collapse" of society, then strangely you start to get an actual definition of peoples "gut feelings" rather than the obvious ad-hoc lightweight one you've just made up to make yourself feel better about your partisan needs ;)
@Entropic Man
BTW. Serious question. What is your gut feeling about what Obama's will decide on the Keystone XL pipeline?
Entropic Man-
"...but an increasing proportion of Americans will follow their gut feeling and agree with him that climate change is looking more likely."
Not this American, Entropic Man.
At least I was born there, lived there as an adult, taught there, took a Science PhD there, and performed Post-Doctoral research there, even if I speak and think with an English accent.
What, pray, is your basis for knowing the "gut feeling" of an American?
Basement,
Barry will do what Barry has always done when it comes to making a decision on something that will cost him votes...he will vote Present and then blame it on the Republicans.
Mailman
When Nixon was President of the US he declared a War on Cancer. Unfortunately despite the passing of the National Cancer Act of 1971 progress was very slow and that war is still continuing.
Now, 42 years later, Obama is declaring war on climate change. I don't think we will have to wait all that many years to see which "war" was the more successful.
My first reading of Tom Clark's comment was also that it was a joke. I was pleased to read it.
It would be a funnier joke if he was serious.
I am willing to give TOm Clarke the benefit of the doubt, despite some of the reprehensible reporting on climate that comes out of the Channel 4 newsroom. The following attributed comment of Tom seem to come from a reasonable and thoughtfult person:
Might I draw attention to a first class lecture by Prof. David Friedman, son of the famous Friedman, on the problem of negative externalities, if any, of adding humans to the World's population and of adding molecules of CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere.
Simply goggle Libertarian Alliance and David Friedman on Youtube.
I do not think this is too off topic as it is perenially pertinent.
I think we should rename President Obama, President Canute.
King Canute couldn't turn the seas back either.
The difference between Obama and Canute is that Canute wanted to show his fawning minions that he was unable to turn the tide back.
The Washington Post has an interesting article about what Obama's making climate change a priority might mean in practice.
Heh, GG, the irony is on Tom. The joke is on time.
=======
The poll quoted in Huffington Post showed a change in the number of US citizens concerned about climate change from 41% in 2009 to 68% in November 2012.
The current US drought has been going on with one short break since 2010.
The continental US had its warmest year on record in 2012.
For a few other oddities read:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/
You American sceptics may have had a normal year. A lot of other Americans do not see it that way.
The alarum is a social mania. We'll learn.
========
@Jan 22, 2013 at 3:20 PM | Entropic Man
"change from 41% in 2009 "
No, you've misread 46% as 41% somehow. Not to worry, since you also rather overtly haven't engaged with my earlier response to you I can only assume you are too comfortable wallowing in your own particular cognitive space.
How dull, you are a just another caricature sweetheart ;)
The Leopard In the Basement
Yes, you were right . The change was from 46% to 68%, an increase of only 22% in four years.
Regarding the rest, I find rudeness not worth responding to, though it gives me a warm feeling to know that I've scored a palpable hit!
@Jan 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM | Entropic Man
Which rudeness were you not responding to?
The Leopard In The Basement
"Which rudeness were you not responding too?"
"partisan needs"
"wallowing in your own particular cognitive space".
"just another caricature sweetheart"
You wear your own political and cognitive biases on your sleeve.
Regarding the pipeline, I put this response on another blog.
"The US will keep on burning oil for as long as they can get it. It may as well come from a local source, rather than from the Middle East.
A pipeline gives them lower transport costs, whether you measure in dollars or tons of oil burned by tankers. "
Since you ask, Obama will probably pass the pipeline for the usual pragmatic short term political and commercial reasons.
But why ask me, I'm not an American. It's up to people like Michael Hart and yourself to make your own opinions known to your own politicians. From context I presume you both voted Republican.
Jan 22, 2013 at 5:35 PM | Entropic Man
Oh Lord yes, in my first response to you I said I saw your "partisan needs".
But now you zing me back with
"You wear your own political and cognitive biases on your sleeve."
So we're even now? ;)
I suspect that too. However if he does then I think Obama will need some better PR than just saying it is just a "pragmatic short term" measure. Just hoping the enviromental lobby will roll over won't be enough. OTOH If he vetoes it then he will need to go into some rather new areas of politics to justify it which I suspect he won't want to do.
In other words I think be prepared for much more "pragmatic short term political and commercial reasons" ;)
As for your point about the vast increase from 22% to 68% of people who say they think climate change is a problem, I think you missed a very fundamental problem I see there that I may have not have made clear before.
If it went from 22% to 100% I am sure you would be ecstatic, but as I said before, I think a real measure is when you ask people to do something tangible - like pay more for the cost of living. And the numbers just don't seem in the same league or as volatile when you ask these questions.
Those "climate change is a problem" numbers go up and down all the time. They are a weak metric. It is people like you who take comfort in those numbers when they go up and I see sceptics taking comfort when the numbers go down.
Personally I think they are meaningless.
I think you need to risk asking some real questions if you are interested in what the public's real "gut feelings" are ;)
It's a shame Inauguration Day wasn't a day later (i.e. today): the temperature at swearing-in time here would have been about 19F (-7C) with a wind chill of roughly zero. I wonder how his remark about climate change would've been received under such conditions.
As for the XL Pipeline, since it is an intercontinental affair involving another country, the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the State Department. The incoming secretary of the department, former senator and presidential contender John Kerry, is if anything even more staunchly disposed toward environmentalism than his predecessor, Hillary Clinton. Not to mention his boss, who talks a good game about "energy independence" but forestalls the primary means to that end.
The Leopard in The Basement
"Those "climate change is a problem" numbers go up and down all the time. They are a weak metric. It is people like you who take comfort in those numbers when they go up and I see sceptics taking comfort when the numbers go down.
Personally I think they are meaningless."
Climate is stochastic. It's intrinsic resistance to detailed prediction is why you need to take a statistical approach. The numbers do indeed go up and down, but proper analysis can determine the degree of uncertainty and identify long term trends.
I find climate science endlessly fascinating. It resembles fighting the Hydra. You answer one question and three more pop up in its place.
However, this is more of a political thread. The science is probably better discussed elsewhere.
Finance is always a problem. People are short-term thinkers. Given an obvious and immediate problem they can be easily persuaded to throw money at it. If the problem is more subtle and long term, they become reluctant.
"I am concerned about the effect of climate change on my children and am quite prepared to do something, but only if it doesnt cost me anything." is a very human response.
If the legislators who long resisted improved sea defences along your East Coast because of their cost had actually spent some money, the bill for Hurricane Sandy would have been much lower.
People in UK need to remember that in the US House of Representatives (similar to UK House of Commons), the Republican party has a decent majority over Obama's Democrat party. In the upper chamber Congress the Democrats have a smallish majority. Most Republicans are opposed to green/climate change/global warming initiatives that involve legislation or expenditures.
It's going to be very difficult for Obama to get anything significant through.
@Jan 22, 2013 at 11:51 PM | Entropic Man
Well it's good thing neither of us has been discussing the science then isn't it? ;)
Maybe I wasn't being clear enough but just to to reiterate, when I said:
I wasn't making any reference to any actual technical aspects of climate science. By the phrase "climate change is a problem" numbers I am only referencing the opinion polls numbers that are the results of generalised questions long the lines asking peoples perception of whether climate change is a problem. IMO they are a weak metric because of the lack of weight the questioners attached to the questions, those numbers seem to vary independent of whether the same person values any action to solve the problem.
For instance, you cite a rise of concern from 46% to 63%* in the latest HuffPo poll. But the same poll also showed that 49% of those same people are unwilling to do anything about it. Which is the more meaningful number to you?
Yes I agree with you that an "immediate" problem can be easier argued and shown to people if you are willing to deal with tangibles. For instance it is well documented that New Orleans had immediate problems with its levee system and infrastructure that had been neglected prior to Katrina. The immediate problem was this vulnerability to any storm. The solution was not asking the populace of New Orleans to turn off their standby lights but to do something about their immediate tangible problems.
Exactly the same could be said of Sandy. New York had many vulnerabilities to any storm that were documented and well known prior to the event (check out Roger Pielke Jr for details)
In fact in both cases it could be said the politicians responsible made opportunistic excuses about climate change that distracted from their failings in dealing with the immediate problems they should have handled.
*BTW Looking again at the Rasmussen source it seems the HuffPo article incorrectly says 68% when the source they link to says 63%. Although it is no matter to me, as I said - call it 100% if you want ;)
"You American sceptics may have had a normal year. A lot of other Americans do not see it that way."
Indeed I have, Entropic Man. The 2012 weather in Central England was pretty close to what I expect from the British climate. A fairly miserable summer. About par for the course.
Michael Hart.
As you say, just a typical year.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2012/annual.html