The Copenhagen summit doesn't appear to have achieved much. Not a surprise.
Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of Australia's Liberal Party was recently deposed due to his support for a carbon emissions trading programme. He writes about this in the Times. He is highly critical of the sceptics and deniers (I don't like the word in this context given its connotations but I am assuming a denier here means someone who is convinced that global warming is not happening whereas a sceptic is simply someone unconvinced that it is happening). He is surely right about an emissions trading scheme being the rational response because it restricts the output of CO2 and the creation of a market encourages CO2 emissions to be reallocated in the most efficient manner.
Scepticism about climate change is fine, I would define myself as reasonably sceptical in that I don't accept the claims that "the debate is over" and the idea that AGW is as solidly proven as the spherical shape of Earth or evolution. The behaviour of individual advocates of AGW has not inspired confidence, as is pointed out here the scandalous aspect of the leaked University of East Anglia emails wasn't that they tried to evade a Freedom of Information Act request, but that an FOI request was necessary in the first place. The denunciations of anyone who questions AGW also serve to undermine the cause, when even someone as committed to rationalism as James Randi can be attacked in really quite distasteful terms- "Could it be that the fact he is currently suffering through chemotherapy for intestinal cancer explain the lapse?"*- for simply arguing that we should keep an open mind.
However the fact remains that it is the view of the overwhelming majority of people who have studied this have concluded that CO2 emissions lead to an increase in global temperatures, so at the very least it is quite probable that AGW is real. Therefore even if one thinks that instead of being an incontrovertable fact that CO2 emissions are contributing to environmental damage, that it is actually something that is only 90%, 75% or 40% likely, it still makes sense to calculate the expected cost of CO2 emissions and set a price that will reflect that.
In fact anyone who doesn't believe with 100% certainty that global warming is not man made should support some kind of price for emitting greenhouse gases, shouldn't they?
* via
Memories of the 1979 General Election Campaign
53 minutes ago
27 comments:
"In fact anyone who doesn't believe with 100% certainty that global warming is not man made should support some kind of price for emitting greenhouse gases, shouldn't they"
Not really - you might believe the costs of such a scheme outweigh the expected costs of global warming, or that it will be net positive, or positive to where you live etc.
Furthermore a trading scheme is about cutting or stabilising emissions, and allowing people to choose their amount within an agreed limit. If your estimate of the % change is sufficiently low you might not believe they should be cut at all, or by the amount made.
"However the fact remains that it is the view of the overwhelming majority of people who have studied this have concluded that CO2 emissions lead to an increase in global temperatures, so at the very least it is quite probable that AGW is real."
But if all their research is based on the same, potentially corrupt data, can you really be so sure?
"In fact anyone who doesn't believe with 100% certainty that global warming is not man made should support some kind of price for emitting greenhouse gases, shouldn't they?"
What happens if you think it's more like 5% or 10%? What if you think it might be more of a benefit than a damage?
It becomes much more difficult to justify then, doesn't it?
All this is going to do is to create a new financial business and tax model for the world. It's going to do fuck all for the planet.
"Not really - you might believe the costs of such a scheme outweigh the expected costs of global warming, or that it will be net positive, or positive to where you live etc."
If there was a danger that the costs of emissions trading would be greater than the costs of AGW wouldn't simply lowering the price attached to emissions do the job?
Those for whom global warming would be a good thing are more difficult to deal with.
"But if all their research is based on the same, potentially corrupt data, can you really be so sure?"
My point is that you don't have to be 100% sure in order to take precautionary action. Incidentally not all the research on AGW relies on the same data.
"What happens if you think it's more like 5% or 10%? "
The you would argue for a price that was around 5% or 10% of what someone who believed in AGW 100% would support.
I've heard of global warming but what is the A in AGW?
Anthropogenic, to distinguish man made warming from natural warming.
"If there was a danger that the costs of emissions trading would be greater than the costs of AGW wouldn't simply lowering the price attached to emissions do the job?"
No, I meant the costs imposed by the scheme itself/verification etc.
Right.
I suppose if the cost of processing the information is greater than the expected cost of polluting then there would be a problem.
Turnbull's arguments resolve into "do something" even if it's unjustified and "let's go with yoof - look how mindlessly enthusiastic they are".
As to his laboured analogy about insurance: sure I insure my house with a small annual premium. What I don't do is move into my garden shed just in case the house falls down. As to "yoof": we oldies might, just might have the idea (from experience) that all we're told by politicians and scientists might not be, well, true: that politicos and, yes, scientists might even be completely self-serving.
As Obo says we have justification based on the conduct of the warmist advocates for being highly sceptical of climate science. I have no doubt that the activities of man affect the climate: what I don't know - and no scientist has been able to demonstrate conclusively let alone convincingly - is what the extent of that influence is. Climate "science" is peculiar: climate is an unbelievably complex system and approximating it on a computer model is unbelievably difficult. Using questionable and cherry-picked data makes the process of genuine science impossible.
The conduct of the 40-50 (per the Wegman report) influential climatologists asserting the overwhelming infuence of AGW in climate behaviour argues against the conclusions of their "science". Raw data, adjustments to the raw data and the computer model algorithms have not been released into the public domain. Everything has been done by the warmist lobby to obfuscate the (presumably, shaky - why would they do it otherwise?) foundations of the AGW case.
The "precautionary principle" in this case is not to return to the Stone Age or ruin Western economies but to keep on creating the wealth to deal with the effects of climate change. Acting "directly" on climate undoubtably will have unintended and unforeseen consequences which might not include any significant influence on climate change. Nevertheless, one of the foreseeable consequences is that Pachuari and Gore are going to come out of this as very rich men indeed.
the fact remains that it is the view of the overwhelming majority of people who have studied this have concluded that CO2 emissions lead to an increase in global temperatures
First of all we have to disentangle what the skeptics say from what the warmists claim the skeptics say.
1. Most skeptics accept that the world is warming. They differ from warmists in that there is doubt about the amount. ie debate over UHI, homogenisation of temperature records etc.
2. Well most skeptics accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They would accept that a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks would increase the temperature by a little over 1 degree C. However the warmists believe that positive feedbacks dominate and a doubling of CO2 could lead to 6 degree increase. Yet even the IPCC admits that the science of feedbacks (eg. what effect clouds have) is little understood.
3. There are two groups of scientists. The ones saying that the earth will warm dramatically and the ones saying that IF the world warms what the contingent effects are likely to be. The latter group are often quoted in support of AGW.
So given this background, I'd like to question the assertion concerning the overwhelming majority. Since we now know that the people at the centre of AGW research made efforts to exclude dissenters from having research published or from being included in the drafts of the IPCC, where do you get the OVERWHELMING from? Is this not in fact a media construct, an unquestioned assumption based upon the assumed neutrality of the IPCC?
I'm interested in the wider implications of all this. If it true that a very small group of scientists - perhaps no more than 50 - have so profoundly and deliberately misled corporates/governments/world leaders etc and for so long without being found out, and have only been found out by some hackers and bloggers, which I think is a fair summary of the sceptic (which includes august publications such as the Telegraph) then the possibility that other major conspiracy theories are true must have risen enormously.
Mathew
That a small number of climatologists have been able to corrupt the scientific process and provide a vehicle which, with the assistance of compliant media, appeals to a large number of politicians and utopian greenies is less incredible than the achievement of a smaller number of political thinkers centred on Robert Schuman who were responsible for moving Europe from the ECSC through the EEC to a federal EU without the informed consent of the people of Europe.
I have no idea what you are on about. What are you views on 9/11 and HIV causing Aids?
Climate Cooling Deniers (CCDs) have tried to make the words sceptic and denier interchangeable to put deniers on the same level as 'Holocaust Deniers', particularly in those countries where Holocaust Denial is (wrongly in my view) a criminal offence.
My scepticism is on three levels
Is the earth warming ?
If so, is it manmade ?
If so, is it necessarilly harmful ?
Lord Monckton asks CCDs "What is the best temperature for planet earth ?" They are never able to answer this question.
My interest in the subject was aroused by the CCDs constantly harping on about "the science is settled". Science is never settled just as history is never "settled", a subject about which I know rather more.
"My scepticism is on three levels
Is the earth warming ?
If so, is it manmade ?
If so, is it necessarilly harmful ?"
And to that, you can add the age-old 'cui bono?' as well...
Matthew
Are you genuinely thick or just pretending?
Umbongo,
Are you genuinely such a wide-eyed loon or just pretending? I suppose the fact you seem to see far-fetched conspiracies everywhere (wasn't there a referendum on staying in the EC? Didn't Schuman die in 1963?) answers that one.
Matthew
I'll explain this to you.
Once upon a time Schuman (who is indeed dead) and his mates wanted a State of Europe - a new country. Instead of going to the people of Europe and saying "this is what we want, do you want it?" they opted - and influenced Europe's politicians - to go the salami route - one step at a time - from strictly focussed economic associations (eg the European Coal and Steel Community), through the European Economic Community to the EU, to the Lisbon Treaty which creates the EU with its own supra-national officials and policies. Yes we had a referendum on membership of the EEC in 1975: a referendum which the protagonists of EEC membership perverted (along with most of the media) by denying that the EEC was just a step on the road to a new European state.
In your invincible and arrogant ignorance you dismiss the possibility that a small group of highly motivated men can gain enormous influence: ever read the history of Bolshevism? No, I didn't think so. Schuman's actions were those of a conspirator in that what he and his allies aimed for was not what was publicly espoused.
Lesson over. Now go away and let the grown-ups talk.
"As Obo says we have justification based on the conduct of the warmist advocates for being highly sceptical of climate science. "
Umbongo- I have criticised their conduct, however the leaked CRU emails do demonstrate that they genuinely believe in AGW, so whilst there might be exagerrations for political effect and endless spin, they have genuinely concluded that AGW is for real.
"The "precautionary principle" in this case is not to return to the Stone Age or ruin Western economies but to keep on creating the wealth to deal with the effects of climate change."
There is certainly a balance to be struck between wealth creation and reducing emissions, after all everyone seems to agree that rich countries won't suffer so much as poor ones.
"where do you get the OVERWHELMING from? Is this not in fact a media construct, an unquestioned assumption based upon the assumed neutrality of the IPCC?"
TDK- Well this report claims that 97% of surveyed climate scientists believe that humans play a role in warming and 80% of all scientists agree.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
Julia- yeah but the Cui Bono question can also be asked of the sceptic lobby as well, environmentalists are very keen on pointing out the sources of funding for various sceptical scientists.
Banned- "Is the earth warming ?
If so, is it manmade ?
If so, is it necessarilly harmful ?"
All reasonable questions, the 3rd one in particular, but I don't believe that being unable answer all the questions definitively means that we should assume that the answer is "no" to all three.
Ross
With the best will in the world, why would I - an admitted sceptic - accept a report by CNN which (with the BBC) is a notorious proponent of "the science is settled" school?
Why also should I accept that a statement by "climatologists", (who, of all those working in science have - with notable exceptions - allowed their science to fail the test of transparency and open criticism) that since they "all agree" on AGW then, perforce, the science is settled. Of course they all agree: the justification and cause of that agreement is the subject of the whole debate.
BTW this report was dated January 2009: things have changed since then (including the climate but whether or not this is anthropogenic is open to question)
@JuliaM, ta for the DK link, wouldn't it be great if Rajendra K Pachauri bad-mouthed richard North enough for Richard to launch a legeal action from his side.
@Umbongo. Your comparison between Schuman & co (Monet et al) usurping power in Europe via the ECSC and the Bolshevicks ousting Karensky "a small group of highly motivated men can gain enormous influence" is very interesting and worthy of further examination.
Ross
Sorry to return to a previous statement of yours which I, sort of, ignored viz the leaked CRU emails do demonstrate that they genuinely believe in AGW, so whilst there might be exagerrations for political effect and endless spin, they have genuinely concluded that AGW is for real.
These guys are supposed to be scientists. Whether or not they genuinely "believe" in AGW is beside the point. An argument that they are on the side of the angels because they "genuinely believe" in what they are espousing is not a scientific argument - it's not even an argument that they are the good guys. You seem to be arguing that it's (more or less) OK to suppress dissent because those seeking to do so genuinely believe that what they are advocating is correct. In what other pursuit is this acceptable in a free society?
Scientists should, by the nature of the scientific process, be sceptics. If AGW believers really believed in their work they would have told McIntyre et al to do their worst by giving them all the data, all the algorithms and to get on with it. That they chose not to - in fact refused any cooperation and succeeded in maipulating the scientific media - implies that they might "believe" in AGW but they know the evidence and the computer models might be shaky.
Worse, in my estimate, is their fundamental dishonesty. I don't recall any doubt expressed in their belief by either the AGW climatologists or the political and media advocates: not only do they refuse debate - except at the lowest level of ad hominem abuse - the only response to the possibility of doubt is the adoption of Pascal's Wager or a perverse use of the precautionary principle - in other words "who cares about the evidence - let's do it anyway". That way the scientists get the grants and the kudos, the politicians get the taxes and the strutting rights and "green" business get the profits. BTW you and I get stuffed.
"An argument that they are on the side of the angels because they "genuinely believe" in what they are espousing is not a scientific argument"
I was referring to the fact that they genuinely believe in AGW in order to make the point that their public espousal of AGW isn't an act, they don't secretly believe that it's nonsense but politically convenient. It is evidence of their motives not of AGW itself (after all I dare say leaked emails from the Church of Scientology might demonstrate that they really do believe that Ron Hubbard was a prophet.
Ross
"their public espousal of AGW isn't an act, they don't secretly believe that it's nonsense but politically convenient"
I take your point. But my point is that these guys claim to be scientists. AGW - according to them - is a respectable theory and states the truth (or the near-truth) until a better theory takes its place. For a better one to take its place scientists - real scientists - expose their theories to as much criticism as they can. This they not only signally failed to do but, on the contrary, went out of their way to prevent any opposing view being made public generally or published in the scientific media.
They may very well believe in AGW but, as I wrote before, their faith in it must be relatively weak since it appears that they are unwilling to expose their work to criticism: "peer review" by those who believe in AGW as an article of faith (and, thereby, are admitted to the company of "peers" acceptable to do the reviewing) is not "criticism".
So although I might accept (for the sake of argument) your contention that these guys genuinely believe in AGW and are not cynically espousing something they know to be false, they cannot at the same time claim to be practising science.
Two points.
Your survey at CNN is dated Jan 2009 so takes no account of the Climategate emails. This situation could have changed.
Second, this focus on climate scientists may be part of the problem. The fact is that climate science is not uniquely independent. It requires standard scientific methods such as statistics that people outside climate science can fully address. We know beyond doubt that Michael Mann used dubious statistical methods to come up with the Hockey Stick. We know that the Wegman report confirms that the statisticians position.
Climate scientists at the time responded that the stats were wrong but the result was right and they knew this because CRU had a similar result. But now CRU is in doubt.
The plain fact is you cannot get the method wrong and the result right in science. If the method is shown to be faulty then the work must be rejected.
The fact that climate scientists still to this day defend the hockey stick shows that the politics precedes the science.
Climate science is the same in this regard as Creation science. In both cases the assumptions colour the conclusions.
Now if climate scientists had instead thrown Michael Mann out at the time, I might have respect for them but as it is they didn't.
In other words your assertion that the majority of people who have studied this deliberately ignores the contributions of people who ought to be integral to any conclusion.
Post a Comment