Adventures on the East Side
So that was …. interesting.
First off, I'd like to thank the commenters for all of the suggestions and ideas to the previous post. They were certainly useful. In particularly, the connection with the difficulties faced by evolutionists in debates vs. creationists proved to be very a propos. Our side played it it pretty straight - the basic IPCC line (Richard Somerville), commentary on the how 'scientized' political debates abuse science (me, though without using the word 'scientized'!) and the projections and potential solutions (Brenda Ekwurzel). Crichton went with the crowd-pleasing condemnation of private jet-flying liberals - very popular, even among the private jet-flying Eastsiders present) and the apparent hypocrisy of people who think that global warming is a problem using any energy at all. Lindzen used his standard presentation - CO2 will be trivial effect, no one knows anything about aerosols, sensitivity from the 20th Century is tiny, and by the way global warming stopped in 1998. Stott is a bit of a force of nature and essentially accused anyone who thinks global warming is a problem of explicitly rooting for misery and poverty in the third world. He also brought up the whole cosmic ray issue as the next big thing in climate science.
Update: The transcript is now available - though be aware that it has not yet been verified for accuracy. Audio + Podcast.
The podcast should be available next Wednesday (I'll link it here once it's available), and so you can judge for yourselves, but I'm afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I'd say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from Crichton and Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it's hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull.
I had started off with a thought that Lindzen and Stott, in particular, would avoid the more specious pseudo-scientific claims they've used in other fora since there were people who would seriously challenge them at this debate. In the event, they stuck very closely to their standard script. Lindzen used the 'GW stopped in 1998′ argument which even Crichton acknowledged later was lame. He also used the 'aerosols are completely uncertain' but 'sensitivity to CO2 from the 20th Century is precisely defined' in adjoining paragraphs without any apparent cognitive dissonance. Stott didn't use the medieval English vineyards meme (as he did in TGGWS) - but maybe he read the RC article ahead of time.
The Q&A was curious since most questions were very much of the 'I read the Wall Street Journal editorial page' style, and I thought we did okay, except possibly when I suggested to the audience that the cosmic ray argument was being used to fool them, which didn't go over well - no-one likes being told they're being had (especially when they are). My bad.
The organisers asked us afterwards whether we'd have done much different in hindsight. Looking back, the answer is mostly no. We are scientists, and we talk about science and we're not going start getting into questions of personal morality and wider political agendas - and obviously that put us at a sharp disadvantage (shades of David Mamet?).
One minor detail that might be interesting is that the organisers put on luxury SUVs for the participants to get to the restaurant - 5 blocks away. None of our side used them (preferring to walk), but all of the other side did.
So are such debates worthwhile? On balance, I'd probably answer no (regardless of the outcome). The time constraints preclude serious examination of any points of controversy and the number of spurious talking points can seriously overwhelm the ability of others to rebut them. Taking a 'meta' approach (as I attempted) is certainly not a guaranteed solution. However, this live audience were a rather select bunch, and so maybe this will go over differently on the radio. There it might not matter that Crichton is so tall…
15 mars 2007 at 1:49 AM
It sounds like you took one for the team. We look forward to the podcast. One of Stott’s angles I find very curious is the notion that concern for AGW means a zero-sum lack of concern for the very poor two billion of our fellow humans. Where has Fred Singer been on say safe drinking water initiatives, or guinea worm eradication, or AIDS prevention, or eliminating agricultural subsidies that impoverish third-world farmers? (I am not picking on Dr. Fred; he’s just a case study). This whole argument seems to be the gotcha-du-jour of the denialist camp.
15 mars 2007 at 2:33 AM
…”cosmic ray argument was being used to fool them, which didn’t go over well - no-one likes being told they’re being had (especially when they are). “….
I imagine you and the others would have been better served and heeded by
a more intellectual crowd who relied on scientific journals for their science information
rather than a crowd who inferred scientific credibility from such things as a pop media newspaper
and a popular fictional author.
Furthermore, in order to even got a point across to anyone at all, the audience has to have the ability to understand the message being given to them. Without that, the “wall” goes up
and they tune out.
Latitudinal variations of cloud and aerosol optical thickness trends based on MODIS satellite data
Geophysical Research Letters 34 (5), 05810 (2007)
doi/10.1029/2006gl028796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006gl028796
“Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) global monthly data from the Terra satellite (MOD08_M3, Collection 4, from March 2000 to May 2006) indicated, with the exception of the tropics, declining trends in aerosol optical thickness (AOD) over much of the globe, in contrast to slightly increasing trends in cloud optical thickness (COT) at many latitudes. In the tropics, increasing AOD trends coincide with increasing COT trends. In the latitudinal distribution of COT, in the Northern Hemisphere, a transition from increasing to declining tendencies was observed between 40°N and 60°N. There is a pronounced hemispheric asymmetry in latitudinal variations of the averaged total AOD, in contrast to those of the averaged total COT. ”
Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?
Journal of Geophysical Research 108 (a5), 1200 (2003)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002ja009753
…”This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux. “”
Atmospheric electric fields at the Kennedy Space Center, 1997â??2005: No evidence for effects of global warming or modulation by galactic cosmic rays Geophysical Research Letters 33 (10), 10814 (2006)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006gl025880
Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth’s temperature: A millennium-scale comparison
I G Usoskin et al.
Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (a10), 10102 (2005)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004ja010946
…”Comparison of the Sun-related data sets with various reconstructions of terrestrial Northern Hemisphere mean surface temperatures reveals consistently positive correlation coefficients for the sunspot numbers and consistently negative correlation coefficients for the cosmic rays. “…
Clouds and Be: Perusing connections between cosmic rays and climate
Clouds and sup7supBe Perusing connections between cosmic rays and climate
Journal of Geophysical Research 111 (d2), 02208 (2006)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005jd005903
…”The results indicate a coherent negative correlation between total cloud cover and 7Be on intraseasonal, seasonal, and decadal scales. Although the reasons behind this correlation are unclear, a full-scale implication of this feature is in the possible use of 7Be and 10Be records for proxy paleo-reconstruction of total cloud cover. This is a strongly needed, but generally difficult to quantify parameter in climate models.”
15 mars 2007 at 3:04 AM
I will listen to the podcast.
It should be possible to be a scientist and still be a bit of a showman. I remember during an evolution debate decades ago, the “Creation Science” proponent talked about the odds against life forming spontaneously by mixing together a few organic chemicals with some energy. The local biology professor roared back dramatically “Oh ye of little faith!” and got a great audience reception.
Perhaps some little “lab” experiments, with props, to demonstrate simple principles. It should be possible to be dramatic while being factually correct.
Stott has a lot of gall. It is the denialists who are “explicitly rooting for misery and poverty in the third world”, not those of us who are advocating for energy efficiency and conservation. Global warming is the ultimate environmental justice issue–the poor of the world will suffer the consequences from climate change, and in many cases already are.
15 mars 2007 at 3:19 AM
It is all a bit sad really that the USA is still debating this subject when action is required to curb their emissions. The USA knows very little of the rest of the world, the denialists are being overtly political in their zest to seemingly help the third world, capatalism usually strips these places of resources leaving them with nothing.
LEt us hope that congress and the senate etc and maybe the next US Government gets the message. 25% of all world emissions lie with the USA and a whole load more indirectly via Chin and India etc due to dumping of waste and goods with them. The UK is no better really.
At least you tried but the USA loves celebrity more than it does the truth by the sounds of it.
15 mars 2007 at 3:19 AM
Gavin,
My manners. I’m sure you did a good job.
Cheers
Mike
15 mars 2007 at 3:27 AM
The general public is treated to such delights as:
* Propaganda films forecasting 20 foot rises in sea level
* Emotional TV advertisements like “tick tick tick save the planet from global warming… for the kids” and
* and comparisons between Holocaust deniers and Global Warming skeptics.
Now you’re surprised that skeptics are using emotional arguments to argue their side?
If you want to keep emotion out of the debate, the time to start is when global warming advocates go overboard.
If you only complain when the other side uses emotion, an uninformed observer might think its just sour grapes from somebody who was completely smoked in a debate.
15 mars 2007 at 3:48 AM
To pass the time as we await the great debate’s NPR premier, here’s Google’s free link to “The Great Global Warming Swindle ” , I’ve also posted Carl Wunsch’s comments , but confess I am curious to know who is paying for all the terabytes of video bandwidth, as it’s 73 minutes long :
15 mars 2007 at 4:11 AM
Jason (comment #3): ‘If you only complain when the other side uses emotion, an uninformed observer might think its just sour grapes from somebody who was completely smoked in a debate.’
Well, quite. But then the people behind this website, and others such as Carl Wunsch, have made clear their dismay at those who infer too much from the science, have they not?
15 mars 2007 at 4:16 AM
Well done Gavin,
like to hear the whole debate
My take on the right wing objection to Global Warming is ‘Global Warming is wrong because it means big Government and extra taxes’
Whereas the Stott line of argument ‘Global Warming is wrong because of the consequences our actions to limit it will have on the Third World’ and his style ‘Force of Nature’ (that’s quite polite - I’ve been on the receiving end a long time ago) is very much the Revolutionary Communist Party / Living Marxism line/style of argument.
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=78&page=L
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=126&page=S
Interestingly, Stott also writes for Wired.
15 mars 2007 at 4:51 AM
I am afraid that GW is *not* about evidence at all (what more scientific evidence people want?), but it is more about experience…
i.e. people tend to believe to things, which they can observe directly by themselves… for instance Inuits don’t need any evidence of warming, because they can already see it
most of the Americans probably have not seen direct effects of GW, so there is no reson to believe it
15 mars 2007 at 5:01 AM
Hi Gavin
Over the last few days we were busy with publishing our report on climate change and impacts for Switzerland in 2050, which had a broad echo in the media. So just a short comment:
Our experience and that of all the scientists we know is that public debates with sceptics or denialists are not useful at all. The fundemental problems of such debates are that 1. there is no time nor an opportunity to explain anything in detail and therefore no opportunity to explain why specific arguments are wrong; 2. the debated points are too complex to settle in a few words, thus you won’t have the chance to get it right; 3. in a field, where uncertainties are everywhere around, it is much easier to confuse people than to convince them 4. the audience has too less knowledge to distinguish between sound scientific arguments and rubbish statements.
Thus the public will just learn that there are 2 (or more) people with a different opinion and believe the one they liked more or the one that has the same opinion than themselves.
I know many scientists who refuse to join such debates (due to their experience and that of others). That would also be my advice.
15 mars 2007 at 5:12 AM
re #9
Sorry - I’m getting mixed up-
should say Stott also writes for Spiked
15 mars 2007 at 5:44 AM
Urs I agree with your points about debates. What about having a formal written internet debate instead?
15 mars 2007 at 5:55 AM
I wouldn’t worry about the audience being turned off by your suggestion that they are being duped. You are the science authority, it is your responsibility to say the truth even if it is unpopular. I think the radio and podcast audience will be able to see that.
While I agree that it gives the denialist camp legitimacy when scientists show up at debates like this, “the remedy to bad talk is more talk.” And as scientists we have a job to inform the public of what we know. So thanks for giving from your time and energy to do this last night Gavin.
Besides, Michael Crichton’s sales pitch for his books was “Michael Crichton rhymes with frighten.” Who’s trying to scare who?
15 mars 2007 at 5:59 AM
Re 7
Gavin
Sorry the link went missing- you can connect to the full ‘Swindle’ webcast at :
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/03/son_of_an_incon.html
15 mars 2007 at 6:10 AM
I too think Urs is right about debates. But initiating a formal written internet debate at this time would probably seem like “sour grapes.”
I think it’s fine for scientists to enter into public debate — but the scientists involved have to have charisma and showmanship. Where’s the modern-day Carl Sagan of climate science? It’s a pity that for the moment, people are more swayed by personality than facts — but the issue is indeed a crisis, so it’s important enough for us to find that personality and put it to good use.
Eventually, of course, nature will “win the debate.” I hope it’s not too severe a smack-down.
15 mars 2007 at 6:48 AM
Of course it’s now after the event but there will be more debates . . .
if your neighbourhood is expanding, do you want a big old-school dirty coal plant, or do you want a mix of solar, wind and clean coal combined with introduction of low-energy appliances (NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard)?
Here are some arguments which rest on parallels and examples rather than the basic science.
1) Pollution is not ‘poison’: pollution is ‘too much of something in the wrong place’ - just because CO2 is invisible and not ‘poisonous’, we can’t dump billions of tonnes of it in the atmosphere.
2) The last great London smog hit in the 1950s and 1000s died in 2 weeks: when the Clean Air Act was introduced, there will have been huge complaints from the guys who sold dirty fuel, along with arguments from their experts that smog is good for you, and smog controls will destroy the economy.
3) European cities used to be plagued by cholera and typhoid, until a massive public works problem was introduced to build underground sewers: again the same argument to oppose this ‘it’s too expensive and will damage the economy’.
4) Vinod Khosla, founder of Sun Microsystems and venture capitalist: ‘There is no question in my mind that we (the United States) can replace 100 percent of our oil in the next 25 years. (Renewable energy) will make our economy better, it will be a cheaper fuel for consumers — notice, I didn’t say greener — I said cheaper. It will … cause a Silicon Valley-like economic boom in rural America, for the first time, which we are starting to see already.’
This point is worth massive emphasis: GW deniers are blocking AMERICAN entrepreneurship and progress in energy research, they’re blocking energy independence. If they were in charge when the internet was introduced, they would be taking money from the typewriter industry to try and block it in its tracks.
5) Following the GW debate globally, it is evident that Canada’s response has been disrupted because they are geographically / economically (auto vs oil sands) / politically split down the middle. The USA’s response has been dramatically reduced because (as I think said by Michael Mann) their continent has very variable and unstable weather systems so the warming trend has not been as evident in the daily weather as in Europe, China, Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia and anywhere that relies on glaciers for drinking water.
6) The decider which will sway the opinions of the masses is the changing weather not the scientific debate: winters with no snow and summer heatwaves and water shortages are the real evidence. This implies we won’t respond properly until and unless serious damage is underway and visible. Can somebody chase up a news report from last year (?) about a meeting on (I think) GW and impact on climate in Washington DC that had to be cancelled because the building was flooded.
7) The top 3 oil companies made $60 billion last year in profits: did that lead to clean water or low-cost energy in Africa? Of course not.
9) Ted Turner, founder of CNN, wants to phase out fossil fuels. Also Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, David Cameron (leader of UK Conservative Party), Swiss Re, Munich Re, GE, Walmart, BP, Shell might not agree that this whole issue was invented by looney leftie greenies. Again, this point deserves EMPHASIS: it’s impossible to find a common political agenda among those who take AGW seriously. The Chinese government takes AGW seriously because it will impact THEM, short and simple. They are presiding over the fastest growing and soon-to-be most powerful economy in the world, and have NO incentive to invent random enviro-problems: they are deeply concerned about the real enviro-problems such as lack of clean drinking water, expanding deserts and climate change.
10) Any discussion of clean drinking water (a la Stott) will inevitably have to deal with shrinking glaciers.
15 mars 2007 at 7:17 AM
It sometimes seems to me as if climate scientists are painfully recapitulating the lessons learned by evolutionary biologists in their political and media battles with creationists. For many years now, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education has been recommending against scientists’ participation in public “debates” organized by “creation science” advocates. You’re guaranteed a hostile audience and a rhetorical ambush of some sort, your mere presence legitimates the proceedings, and they can always count it as a win with some justification afterwards.
Of course, it’s a bit of a lose-lose situation since not going invites the “what are they afraid of?” response, but you can always explain what you’re afraid of in fora more sympathetic to reasoned discussion.
15 mars 2007 at 7:33 AM
Gavin, one piece of advice we probably should have given you was to watch the movie, “Thank You For Smoking”. A common tactic for the morally reprehensible is to put their opponents on the defensive, and since nobody seems to want to think of themselves as part of the elite or to confront the hypocrisy in their own lives, lumping ones opponents into the hypocritical elite, latte-swilling… is effective.
Crichton is beneath contempt. Stott may indeed be truly concerned about the poor billions in the developing world–not so much that he’d set foot in a Calcutta slum, but concerned nonetheless. It might be interesting next time he pulls such a tactic to pass the hat for Oxfam on stage.
I’ve actually got a little bit of experience with development, having spent time in West Africa in the Peace Corps. I lived well (not extravagantly, but well) among the impoverished. I did not go hungry even as I passed through villages with hungry children. I had my own transport (albeit a dirt bike) in a region where transport is scarce and challenging. Hypocritical? No, because I was using all these things to try to improve things.
The thing we have to realize is that the course our climate takes over the next century is inextricably linked to development. If we in the west cut our carbon emissions even to zero while ignoring development, our efforts will fail, because the Chinese and Indians will burn their plentiful, but dirty coal. Peasants in Africa, Indonesia and South America will destroy the rain forests as they try to scratch out a bare existence.
The alternative is to develop ways of meeting the energy needs–from industrial cities to tiny villages–and ensure that they represent an economical solution that empowers greater productivity.
It is not a choice between mitigation of climate concerns and prosperity and development. They are coupled problems and the solution has to be general.
15 mars 2007 at 7:38 AM
Re 18: I believe perhaps what is needed is someone to play the role of Thomas Huxley (known as Darwin’s bulldog) to popularize the science to the public. Perhaps a bit of hellfire and brimstone–all of it backed by scientific plausibility, of course, may not be misplaced.
15 mars 2007 at 7:53 AM
What Urs and Tamino said.
And the point made by Matt in 18 is instructive - we can comfortably preach to the choir, or we can try to get a message out somehow.
We hold up Great Communicators in our societies, as they are so few and far between. We call it ‘cult of personality’ when these few are convincing and can move masses to action.
The great difficulty for scientists is making their information actionable, which requires it to be understandable and then compelling, which galvanizes to action (provided the outcomes are desirable). Why were the messages from the skeptic group so resonant? That is the question. The status quo is comfortable and making scary changes into the unknown is anything but compelling or desirable.
We do not train our scientists to be compelling, thus we get things like Gavin’s regrets above in this post (BTW, a PR person would trumpet the walking vs SUV bit to high heaven, with a brass band and svelte models pointing to a graph).
Best,
D
15 mars 2007 at 8:01 AM
Don’t feel too bad. You’re d***ed if you do, d***ed if you don’t: if you present the science (as you did), people are turned off because they don’t like things that are difficult to understand. If you present the science with charisma and emotion (al la Al Gore), you get panned for being alarmist and overblown (a la Broad). Its a lose-lose scenario. Perhaps litigation, and the real estate and insurance markets are more appropriate fora for conveying climate change impacts to the general public. Lawsuits, prices, and premiums are visceral and comprehensively understood: just keep publishing scientific findings.
15 mars 2007 at 8:06 AM
“It sometimes seems to me as if climate scientists are painfully recapitulating the lessons learned by evolutionary biologists in their political and media battles with creationists”.
I think there’s a big difference though - it’s impossible to ever disprove the creationist case. With AGW you have to believe that the ultimate arbiter of this debate will be the climate, not an opinion poll.
15 mars 2007 at 8:15 AM
Re: 16
I too think Urs is right about debates. But initiating a formal written internet debate at this time would probably seem like “sour grapes.”
I agree about debates, but I disagree about the internet debate. In one sense, that debate happens here. Some readers can be counted on to mention contrary facts or beliefs which the RealClimate gurus often answer with clarity and style. What might be useful (and may exist, although I haven’t seen it) would be a more structured summary of the issue. To an extent this simply will be a rearrangement of the content here and in the IPCC reports, but it will likely require new content as well.
I’m thinking of the major topics: Is the climate warming? How responsible is human activity for that warming? What actions can we take in response? What are the costs of taking or not taking these actions?
For each topic list the 10 or so major answers with links to published papers on the subject PLUS links to contrary opinions and rebuttal of same. Be generous here so that the uninformed will not feel you are trying to pull a fast one on them. Think of this as the place to send anyone who wants to understand this issue better. I know some will say that RC is that place now, but I think it lacks a good starting point for getting the broad overview. I also think the comprehensive view of global warming demands the same attention to the economic/moral/political issues that the climate science issues receive here.
15 mars 2007 at 8:18 AM
Forget live debates. The internet provides a much better opportunity to get across the complex issues involved. But it is apparent to me that it is not being used to anywhere near its potential by climate scientist. RealClimate is great, but it is too technical for the average punter and the blog style is rather demanding of the user and makes you have to work at getting at the information. The How to talk to a climate skeptic site is very readable, but the title alone will put off an interested but skeptical person. The IPCC website is a dog’s breakfast.
The climate science community really needs to create a site that lays out the the theories and the facts in a clear and concise manner, that provides links back to the primary literature and research organizations, and which somehow allows all these nameless scientists who represent the ‘consensus’ to emerge from their labs and be clearly visible to the public and to be able to transparently demonstrate their agreement (or not) with the various facets of the science. Right now they’re all but invisible, along with the details of much of what they do, which leaves the public arena wide open to the fringe dwellers on both sides of the debate.
There is an opportunity here for a brilliant web developer to make a major contribution toward saving the planet. Any volunteers?
15 mars 2007 at 8:21 AM
It’s increasingly clear that this kind of debate is of little value to anybody. (Gosh, what does that tell us about Presidential elections? Better not go there!)
I would hope that from now on, any scientist asked to “debate” the likes of Crichton et al. in a public forum should reply to the debate planner: “But the debate has already been held. By thousands of scientists and other experts over dozens of years, including many hundreds of carefully organized week-long intense discussions. Culminating in the IPCC reports. It is irresponsible to pretend that a one hour debate in front of an ignorant audience can add anything to that.”
15 mars 2007 at 8:24 AM
Unfortunately the contrarians are much more likely to win these kinds of debates. Unlike scientists they are not people who are looking for the facts and looking to prove things.
The contrarians are looking to sway people and if that means ignoring the facts or lying they have no problems with that. Once they decide that facts are no longer important it becomes much easier to win these debates.
15 mars 2007 at 8:25 AM
Gavin- Interesting, thanks. One comment, you write:
“We are scientists, and we talk about science and we’re not going start getting into questions of personal morality and wider political agendas”
Then why participate in a public debate about a political issue?
And I find the next comment hard to square with your eshewing of issues of personal morality:
“One minor detail that might be interesting is that the organisers put on luxury SUVs for the participants to get to the restaurant - 5 blocks away. None of our side used them (preferring to walk), but all of the other side did.”
Political debates become “scientized” when scientists try to have it both ways — They say they want to stick to science, but at the same time want to be involved in political advocacy, typically occupying some position of authority. Similarly, in this case at once you eschew personal morality as an issue but invoke it readily in your defense.
Lets face it, climate change is a political and moral issue and that simply cannot be avoided, even by scientists!
[Response: I participated because there are still many people who don’t know what the science is saying and any decrease in the general level of ignorance is a good thing in and of itself. It is one thing to be fully aware of an issue and not act, it is something quite different if you do not act because you don’t know what is happening. If I am an advocate, it is for advocating that people ought to know the facts before they make decisions. My position of authority (what little remains!) is based on the science, and so I mostly talk about science because people mainly ask me to. It’s precisely because I stick to what I know, that it is easy for the much more politicised antis to make such hay. I mention the SUV issue just because it struck me as ironic - I have neither eschewed all fossil energy use nor do I advocate that others do. In what sense is that a defense? What to do about climate change is indeed a political and moral issue - but the fact of its existence is not. You surely cannot be advocating that I must become an expert in all the ramifications and policy options available and come to some decision about my preferred choices before I tell people what I think climate sensitivity is? In any case, wait for the podcast to hear what I said, before you accuse me of falsely parlaying my scientific expertise. - gavin]
15 mars 2007 at 8:45 AM
RE # 19 Ray, your thoughtful comment included:
[The thing we have to realize is that the course our climate takes over the next century is inextricably linked to development.]
That profound statement is lost in the noise of impacts of AGW on planet ecosystems. As compelling a concern as ecosystem collapse may be, the immediate fact is that the world poor must and will develop by whatever means they can. If environmentalists fail to wake up to the economic development component of the global warming battle, they will never bring third world countries into their camp.
The South does not trust the North to stand up for their interests in international climate negotiations. Just see how much the North countries are actually contributing to disaster relief around the globeâ??or foreign aid budgets for that matter.
When nearly 2 billion inhabitants have little or no access to electricity in this Mars-landing century, we truly have our priorities in reverse.
Yes, Lomborg/Stott-types exploit third world poverty to their denialist advantage. But, our childrens future depends upon our generation reversing two critical trends — rising temperatures and the widening gap between haves and have nots.
15 mars 2007 at 8:54 AM
Well, we did tell you that Stott, Cricheton and Lindzen would talk past you. It is the nature of such things. It was also thoroughly predictable that they would try the jet thing.
So, you need a tactic like turning to Lindzen and saying, Dick, I have a bet for you. I’ll put up ($1000 or something) that GISTEMP will be up XC in this many years, you can take the under, AND if you win, you can give the money to Phil for charity. Now I know you’ve turned down the bet when it was offered to you by Brian Schmidt and you had some strange counter. etc.
15 mars 2007 at 9:01 AM
Re #25
“The climate science community really needs to create a site that lays out the the theories and the facts in a clear and concise manner […] There is an opportunity here for a brilliant web developer to make a major contribution toward saving the planet. Any volunteers?”
I hope that volunteers who talk about the climate science community “saving the planet” will be gently shown the exit. The last thing the
planetWeb needs is another emotional, hyperbolic, unscientific, partisan site about AGW.15 mars 2007 at 9:10 AM
Regarding your comment “We are scientists, and we talk about science and we’re not going start getting into questions of personal morality and wider political agendas - and obviously that put us at a sharp disadvantage,” scientists are also people and have as much right to proffer their personal morality as anyone. To take a “holier than thou” attitudes on this does, unnecessarily, put you at a disadvantage - people tend to not have as much respect for the opinions of those they perceive as not saying all they feel or believe.
15 mars 2007 at 9:13 AM
First and foremost, many thanks to RC for fighting the good fight. We desperately need as many experts with a conscience as we can find, and clearly there are some here. If I had an emoticon for a boisterous standing ovation, I’d include it here.
This whole issue of how you can effective reach out to non-scientists is something I wrestle with every day on my energy awareness site, The Cost of Energy.
One advantage I have over those talking full-time about AGW is that my readers are experiencing the changing nature of the world energy market and situation firsthand–they’re paying more for gasoline, electricity, and natural gas. So they know for a fact something big is afoot long before they find my site.
I’ve been talking more lately about AGW on my site (just ask the hate mailers), and it’s a much tougher “sell.” I’m now convinced (as are others here, obviously) that we need a better, more mainstream friendly way to present the situation, while still remaining 100% true to the underlying science. Is it as simple as finding the right spokesperson, plus a grant or other funding to let him or her work on the issue full-time? Perhaps.
I don’t think Al Gore is the person for the job. I’ve been a supporter of his for nearly 20 years, and while his personality transplant seems to have taken quite nicely, he just barely misses the bull’s eye, in my opinion. If we could get Angelina Jolie to adopt a few wind turbines, however…
15 mars 2007 at 9:21 AM
Thanks Gavin- You are correct that my response was to your post, not the debate, which I have not heard.
You accepted an invitation to debate whether or not global warming is a “crisis” which by definition is a function of values. If you were there to do something other than advocate that side of the debate that you were on, then I’d agree with you that such events are not worth doing.
You ask, “You surely cannot be advocating that I must become an expert in all the ramifications and policy options available and come to some decision about my preferred choices before I tell people what I think climate sensitivity is?”
If the debate that you participated in was about “climate sensitivity” then I’d agree with you 100%. But it wasn’t; it was about whether or not climate change is a “crisis” — a question that depends a great deal on a lot more than facts.
Scientists who say that they eschew considerations of policy and values in political settings when arguing against committed political advocates are either arguing with one hand tied behind their back (as you suggest, and I agree), or worse, opening the door for all of the values debates to ride on the back of the science.
Thanks for the exchange . . .
[Response: I disagree. A crisis ‘is a decisive moment or turning point’ and I think my knowledge of climate sensitivity (to use a shorthand) is sufficient to assess whether this is a decisive moment - that is a scientific call, not a value judgement. The crisis comes from the long lead times in infrastructure, concentrations and climate response. Whether GW is a crisis is independent of all other crises, and also independent of anyone’s prioritising of those other crises. -gavin]
15 mars 2007 at 9:42 AM
In response to the loads of creationist misinformation evolutionists have created the popular Talk.Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/ website wherein relevant information is categorized neatly and updated all the time. And it has more than a few contributers and its own peer review process. You might use that as a model. Make it then advertise it far and wide. But don’t be surprised when the professional denialists create a similar one to try to debunk it as creationists have with their True Origins website http://www.trueorigin.org/.
Fact is, as long as there’s big bucks in preserving the status quo you can expect there to be vocal opposition. They’re not going to go away no matter the evidence. They will use every possible argument (even when they themselves know those arguments suck) at their disposal ad naseum. The best one can do is to appeal to honest, give them all the information and hope it catches on but be prepared for the reality that until the climate really begins to change for them your message may just fall on deaf ears.
15 mars 2007 at 9:54 AM
Would a “debate” published in a peer-reviewed journal be useful? I’m not quite sure how it would work, but you could have Lindzen write on, say, climate sensitivity, and then have somebody like I dunno, Annan, write on it as well. Then get the cosmic ray guys and their debunkers, then get the sun is getting hotter people and get someone who has debunked that, then get the global warming ended in 1998 people and someone who has debunked that, etc. I don’t think you could hold a back and forth debate in press like this because it would likely never see the light of day, but you could publish a stack of papers by the key players and they’d all have some idea of what each other was going to write.I think that would be more interesting than a snappy patter contest.
15 mars 2007 at 9:55 AM
Re: 19 I too was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, and struggled with the issue of hypocrisy living well (on $75/month) among the very poor –and I had to reach the same conclusion: it is not possible to live at the lowest level and have the resources to help solve important problems.
Which leads us to the 800 pound gorilla in the room, (no offense Al): Although not a scientist, and roundly criticised for that, Mr. Gore has done a very good job, in my opinion, of popularizing the science. True, we need a Sagan, but I think that if scientists engage with Mr. Gore to keep him current and refine his statements, there is a widely listened-to popularizer and explainer of the serious issues. Maybe it could even affect the actions of “deciders”, though clearly the hard-core folks will be loathe to change their story at this juncture.
15 mars 2007 at 9:56 AM
This whole Pielke “sciencetized” and blah, blah, blah, is just nonsene run amuck. If I go to a doctor who tells me that I have cancer and then lays out the possible options for therapy, that person is not becoming a “political advocate” (to use Pielke’s favored tag line). And if a contractor hires and engineering firm to examine the foundation of a building, that firm is not a “political advocate” once it recommends actions to strengthen the concrete and fill in cracks.
Pielke’s whole line of reasoning is simply a tranparent attempt to reduce every scientist to an “advocate” or better yet, a “political advocate.” Because if people ever get the idea that it’s all just politics, then Pielke can wade into the discussion on which he has published few peer-reviewed studies and make a claim for authority.
15 mars 2007 at 10:07 AM
“But it wasn’t; it was about whether or not climate change is a “crisis” — a question that depends a great deal on a lot more than facts.”
What else does it depend on, other then the definition of crisis (which essentially is a ‘fact’ itself)? Given an objective definition of crisis, the only thing that matters is the facts. For instance, if we define crisis to be an event leading to substantial death (and then quantify substantial), then only the facts matter in determining whether GW is a crisis (i.e. whether GW will or will not cause X number of deaths).
You’re confusing issues here. Morality and values only come into play when determining whether we should do something about a crisis (or even about a non-crisis). For example, whether we value life or not, or whether we value the present more than the future, etc.
15 mars 2007 at 10:23 AM
Climate Skeptics Continue to Bark, Even Though Caravan Has Moved On
RE: 26. I’m not sure it’s going to be necessary to turn down AGW debates in the future. The recent spate of coverage that spiked with the SPM report may have signalled the end. Just like the end of a bear or a bull market, you can only tell for certain after it’s over.
Why would it be over? The IPCC summary said its conclusions were more than 90 percent certain. That’s well beyond more likely than not, the standard for a civil judgment and approaching if not already equivalent to beyond a reasonable doubt and the 95% confidence of a statistical test that defines the mean value of a set of data.
OK, that’s the legal and mathematical argument. But the real reason I believe that the debate has already shifted is that while the media will cover controversial stories and even false stories indefinitely, one thing that editors and producers draw the line at is OLD NEWS.
The skeptics have had more than ample opportunity to present their case in brief TV and newspaper interviews and in more lengthy magazine and TV documentary formats. And a confused and scientifically ignorant public has still largely bought into the phony argument that there is sufficient uncertainty to question AGW.
But the “Old News” problem is rapidly catching up with them. Fewer and fewer news outlets are going to be interested in inviting the likes of Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Michael Crichton, etc. to espouse their views, since producers and editors don’t want to look like fools down the road. Plus, these guys are really not qualified to discuss impacts or mitigation options, the next media battlegrounds.
Lou Dobbs of CNN announced some time ago that his program had already decided AGW was a problem and guests who came on to talk about GW had to be prepared to accept that as a given. Likewise, NPR ran a program in February on what it will cost to fight global warming and said that the discussion would be based on the assumption that AGW was a real and a serious problem.
This led to some uncomfortable moments for the skeptic guests. William Gray on Lou Dobbs in February managed to get in a few off topic points, that computer modelers don’t understand the weather like the real weathermen and that he thought the IPCC report was a gross exaggeration. Nonetheless, he was asked to discuss mitigation strategies, not his area of expertise. Conclusion. William Gray probably not going to be invited on any more shows to talk about impacts and mitigation.
On the NPR program, Jonah Goldberg from National Review was forced to accept the AGW premise after quickly getting in his view that it wasn’t as serious a problem as IPCC or Gore had said. His argument then became that it would be a better use of capital to solve poverty, drinking water and health problems in the developing world than to impose carbon limits.
How much more of the TV4 crapola is in the pipeline is anybody’s guess, but documentaries generally take 6 months to a year to produce before they air and one must wonder how many producers are gearing up to refute AGW in a TV program when the audience may be nonexistent by the time it airs.
Why nonexistent? Because the next IPCC report is expected to include some very dire forecasts of impacts. And then after that comes the mitigation report. How can the media cover those without accepting the conclusions of the first report?
In the U.S., it is likely that until the president of the U.S. goes on TV and states flat out that this is a serious problem that has to be addressed, many people will still be influenced by the disinformation campaign of the skeptics and their corporate masters. This president won’t appear on TV and make that statement, although his credibility is so low it might hurt rather than help. The next one probably will have to and the wannabes will all have to state their positions clearly.
I don’t think it’s time for realclimate to morph into realimpacts or realengineering, but that is where the debate is headed.
Those websites that track or can track media stories ought to take a look at this and see if I am correct. So hang on to that Google copy of the Swindled “documentary.” It may be a collector’s item. As for who pays for the bandwidth on those huge files, Google does, but I hear they get a good discount, plus they sell ads.
15 mars 2007 at 10:29 AM
Very interesting dialog above (28 & 34) with Roger Pielke, Jr. As usual, Dr. Schmidt, you splendidly model a useful scientific philosophy in your responses. The world desperately needs your passion for objectivity, for detachment from the entanglements Pielke rhetorically scatters in your path, because in order to decide how to deal with a problem, it’s usually advantageous to understand the problem as clearly as possible.
This is not to say that clear moral conclusions may be drawn (usually not by the scientist) from an understanding which results from scientific observations. For instance, a previous posting mentioned the alleged outrage of comparing global warming to the Holocaust. This is automatic hot-button dynamite, guaranteed to get everybody upset and forgetting about objectivity. But detached reasoning has something to say about questions like this. In this case, the question is ultimately: how does ecocide compare with genocide? By definition, the answer is that the former is much larger, more significant and dangerous, than the latter. Extinction, of course, is a component of ecocide and entails genocide.
15 mars 2007 at 10:35 AM
Gavin,
I agree with Roger. If you are going to participate in public forums on global warming you are going to have to participate in the full theater of the event.
Know your audience. Simply showing the science is not enough and crying foul over “entertainment vs. science” is ultimately a strategy of defeat. It sounds like the “other side” of the debate brought two strong entertaining public personalities and Lindzen for legitimacy. The lack of appreciation (even rejection) amongst climate scientist for the need of a strong, entertaining personality to present what we know keeps the story form being fully appreciated. You can see this playing out in how much more seriously the public took notice of the issue after Gore’s film.
We scientists are not well trained in this sort of thing it is true but either we have to get better at it, do a tag team with some entertaining yet convincing personality (a la what you just experienced from the other side) or pass on the opportunity (which itself would be a statement in the public arena).
15 mars 2007 at 10:38 AM
I think Roger P. just played his political hand. One can hold two thoughts at the same time. Clmate Change is real and denying it is a fool’s errand. That’s not advocating anything but recognition of reality. What to do about it is another separate matter, so bravo Gavin. That’ what I would have said and have on the job before. Happily, the boss liked it so it is possible to be convoncing on the first issue and the leave the second off the table.
RE#25 “But it is apparent to me that it is not being used to anywhere near its potential by climate scientist.”
Well Craig you keep saying this, but can’t you click through the indexed categories that answer all the questions lay persons ask? Are they really this fragile and so “hornswoggled” by propaganda, to borrow Ray’s good word, that they can’t assimilate direct answers? Why?
15 mars 2007 at 10:49 AM
Once again, Roger Pielke Jr. tries to turn a scientific question (one that has important ramifications, sure) into a political one. It’s easy to see that this is nonsense if we look at questions like ‘what controls the climate on Mars or on Jupiter?’ - that’s clearly a scientific question, that can only be answered using scientific methods.
The reason that the topic has become politicized is also one that Roger is avoiding, as is Stott - the fact is that renewable energy can replace fossil fuels. Pielke and Stott make the unexamined claim that restrictions on fossil fuel use will simply raise the price of fossil fuels and thus the poor of the world will suffer, and there will also be economic havoc in the developed world.
This ignores the vast potential of renewable energy to replace fossil fuels in all applications; if we say ‘the vast potential of renewable energy to capture energy markets from tradition fossil fuel suppliers’ then it becomes clear why the issue has been politicized - what you will have is economic upheaval and large changes in the way the global economy operates. That’s the actual issue behind global warming politics, one with RP Jr. seems to ignore.
The Third World has everything to gain from renewable energy; much of the developing world lies near the equatorial sun belt; all of Africa could turn to solar and wind, as could Asia, Central/South America, etc. However, the development and spread of renewable technology has been hampered by lack of funding (deliberate) in the US academic system - this is starting to change, but far too slowly. This suppression of renewable energy research has been going on since 1980.
A previous comment noted that the tobacco industry struggle against science lasted for thirty years, and that we don’t have thirty years to spare - but the fossil fuel industry’s struggle against climate science and renewable energy science has already been going on for almost thirty years. Take a look at “The Carbon Wars: Global Warming and the End of the Oil Era, by Jeremey K. Leggett for a real political analysis and history of the situation.
Crighton’s comments on ‘personal responsibility’ simply ape those of the tobacco industry; secondhand smoke was the issue that killed that PR tactic off. We all breathe the same air, we all live on the same planet, so dealing with global warming will take a coordinated, cooperative global effort to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
15 mars 2007 at 10:49 AM
Re comment No.4 “It is all a bit sad really that the USA is still debating this subject when action is required to curb their emissions.” So debate is bad? USA is bad and dumb? Despite what you read in the papers and hear on the news, there is no “consensus” on the anthropogenic forcing issue. And since when was science by consensus anyway. There are lots of scientists still skeptical about man’s impact on climate change, the rate of change, and the consequences. And that is OK. But we should all see the strategic, economic and environmental value in re-engineering our energy budget. Imagine not being hostage to middle-east oil and despots. Imagine the poor in Africa having access to unlimited energy. It is the USA that will lead the way. It is the USA that spends by far the most on climate science, earth science, and alternative energy research. And it will be the USA that will, hopefully, remain a bastion for democratic debate. Unless of course, close-minded folks yelling at the top of their lungs manage to have their way. Personally, itâ??s kind of cool to watch people with no idea what their talking about hyperventilate away like a volcano. Now that is what is sad; like watching a train wreck horrified yet fascinated. But as Gavin pointed out, this can be both entertaining and educational. So letâ??s pause and reflect; debate is good, USA is good.
15 mars 2007 at 10:53 AM
Re: 37. Good to hear from another RPCV. I am afraid that Mr. Gore may be too polarizing to be an effective messenger for audiences beyond the choir. I agree that for a layman (or maybe because he’s a layman), he’s done a pretty reasonable job with the science and making it accessible. However, he arouses an irrational and very deep antipathy among many further to the right on the political spectrum. By all means, he should continue to give his spiel, but he may need help from others. I wonder if we could recruit some responsible voices from the right to make a case for responsible policy–James Baker, maybe and or Jeff Immelt of GE have been fairly responsible voices who see the opportunity as well as the risk.
As someone who has to advise program managers about very specialized and technical risks that they usually do not understand, my advice would be:
1)Be aware that your risk is only one of many
2)All you can do is provide the manager/policy maker with sufficient information and understanding to assess the relative importance of your risk relative to others
3)The fact that you cannot quantify your risk with 100% uncertainty does not mean that it is not a concern–rather it means that it is a cause for great concern, and the policy maker needs to be aware of the full range of possible outcomes and whatever you can say about their probabilities of occurrence.
4)Do not prescribe a “solution” to the problem based on your own limited knowledge of relative risks. You can advise on feasibility of possible solutions based on your understanding of the problem. In particular, it is important for the policy maker to understand how rapidly the solution has to be found and implemented and what the constraints have to be if it is to be effective.
5)Keep a doomsday file–policy makers have a way of pointing fingers at those who advised them when their decisions have adverse consequences.
So, yes, scientists do get involved in policy and politics. However, we cannot be expected to understand the economics, political constraints etc. that policy makers operate under. What we can do is ensure that we provide the best advice on the full possible range of consequences that policies will have and ensure that those who implement these policies will be held accountable in the public mind even if the consequences are realized long after they are gone.
15 mars 2007 at 11:01 AM
The theory is that more and more CO2 makes us hotter….. seems simple enough to test this, take a closed biosphere apply a constant light/heat source and then increment the CO2 and measure the result at various levels of CO2.
World may get greener, then wilt, due warming
OSLO (Reuters) - Global warming is expected to turn the planet a bit greener by spurring plant growth but crops and forests may wilt beyond mid-century if temperatures keep rising, according to a draft U.N. report.
Scientists have long disputed about how far higher temperatures might help or hamper plants — and farmers — overall. Plants absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as they grow and release it when they rot.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2007-03-15T113926Z_01_L14455110_RTRUKOC_0_US-GLOBALWARMING-GREEN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
15 mars 2007 at 11:04 AM
Re: #41 Ed Dullaghan ….. exactly……
15 mars 2007 at 11:08 AM
Pielke’s choice of topic to chastise is interesting. Doting on the science is troubling, but railing against limousine liberals private jet use isn’t. The imperfect is the enemy of the irrelevant.
15 mars 2007 at 11:13 AM
Re 41: So, Ed, no consensus? Then how about you finding, say, a dozen peer-reviewed papers written by climate scientists that raise serious questions about anthropogenic causation. I agree that the USA COULD be part of the solution. Unfortunately, right now, it is doing very little to resolve the issue. Ethanol is less about energy than it is about subsidies to corn growers–it’s actually an energy-negative program. I’m 100% behind you when you say that the USA is a necessary part of the equation. Let’s work toward putting people in office (regardless of party) who will work for a solution, rather than ignoring the problem.
15 mars 2007 at 11:17 AM
Thom (#38)-
You’ve badly mischaracterized my views. If you are in fact interested in what my views actually are on science in policy and politics you can find them here:
http://www.amazon.com/Honest-Broker-Making-Science-Politics/dp/0521694817
Thanks.
15 mars 2007 at 11:43 AM
Re 41 Ed Dullaghan debate is good, USA is good.
Debate is less good when public policy is dominated by the inaction of excessive deliberation or by the arbitrary imposition of political power.
Sometimes USA is good; sometimes USA not so good.
15 mars 2007 at 12:02 PM
Despite what you read in the papers, there is a consensus. e.g. NAS/NRC, AMS, AAAS, Geophysical Union, and, of course, the IPCC. Given the stakes and the time constraints, policymakers and the public would be fools to disregard the opinion of virtually every scientific body that matters in favor of more “debate.”
15 mars 2007 at 12:08 PM
Thanks Gavin for giving us such rapid feedback report on the “debate” and doing all you do for the scientific community. I was indeed curious.
I wonder if you were “debating” hard science in a place where science should not be debated…(it should perhaps only be debated in the juried peer-reviewed scientific journals where provable evidence is used).
Outside of journals, people can just make up false evidence and debate reality with it…and win.
A publizer prize winning reporter named a book chapter “The Battle for the Control of Reality” in his expose book about industry and politics interfering with the evidence of climate change science in a recent book titled the “The Heat is On.”(By publizer prize winning author Ross Gelbspan)
To me, last night’s “debate” was indeed part of that larger battle for the control of reality…where reality could not be either proved or disproved to the audience (unlike in scientific juried peer-reviewed journals- where that is the whole point).
I hope the “debate” is not “edited” by the denialists and distributed publicly as propaganda.
Indeed, I feel that evidence was not debated last night…just reality…and I guess they won.
15 mars 2007 at 12:12 PM
I consider myself more worried about anthropogenic change than most other scientists, but in a debate like this I would still have trouble defending the affirmative. The question of whether we are yet in “crisis” forces a defense of a position that is already a bit outside the scientific mainstream. Just before I gave up on sci.environment completely a fellow was stridently insisting that I was asserting “catastrophic global warming” no matter how often I insisted that this didn’t constitute an assertion and that my position wasn’t close to any assertion that might reasonably be associated with that phrase.
So one problem is defending the word “crisis”. In some sense, the problem is crucial because it will never have the sort of urgency typically associated with the concept of “crisis”. In getting pulled into such a debate you are allowing the esteemed opposition to control the terms of the discussion. This has already been discussed at some length in previous commentary, but it ties into a point I haven’t seen addressed yet, one which is highlighted nicely by comment #6.
Another way in which the denialist camp seeks to control the debate is by presenting the matter as a two-sided debate. In #6, emotional appeals toward resisting AGW and exagerrations are attributed to the “other side”.
Science is ideally completely immune to emotional appeal, and for all its flaws does a pretty good job on that score. A big problem with allowing the question to be formulated as two-sided debate is that it is easy to acquire, in the views of the audience, a great deal of non-scientific baggage along the way, in exactly the way postulated by #6.
If the connection between science and politics were functional, the correct way to formulate the discussion is to emphasize the symmetry between extreme arguments on both sides by putting scientists in the middle. Where were the “gulf stream shutdown” people? Where were the “superstorm” crowd?
The scientific consensus represents the middle, and allowing it to be represented as an extreme is a serious error.
If I may be permitted to wander off topic a bit, Mr. Gore’s most serious error in his presidential campaign, I believe, was in refusing to debate Mr. Nader. This allowed him to be cast as a “liberal”, whereas in any realistic assessment he is very much a centrist.
Scientists pulled into the evolution vs creationism pseudo-debate have an intrinsic weakness that those of us trying to inject reasonable proportion into the global change arena do. It is obvious that evolution either is or is not the central organizing principle of biology; that Biblical creation either is or is not admissible in a fair consideration of the evidence. Thus there really are only two “sides” possible.
In the case of anthropogenic interference in climate, however, the question is not a yes/no question but a “how much” question.
It is also the case that the more uncertainty about “how much”, the more vigorous the response ought to be! Weaker science requires a stronger response, because weaker science cannot exclude the most alarming scenarions, whose cost dominates a risk analysis more the more uncertainty we have.
That aside, consider the polemics of it. The science seems to be honing in on an equilibrium sensitiity to CO2 doubling, all else equal, of 3 C. The scientific debate has gone from a range of 0.5 to 8 C to a range of 2 to 4. This constitutes progress. Of course there are many open policy relevant scientific questions beyond this, but most of them also represent a range.
The less responsible among the fossil fuel interests, and the less reality-constrained of their allied theorists therefore will not want to focus on the plausible ranges and the risks. They will try to frame the matter as a debate with an answer. “Do you believe in global warming?” is no longer a winner for them, as the warming is (as predicted!) now becoming quite obvious in many places. So the question is now “Do you believe global warming is a crisis?”
Once you take a position on a yes/no question you can be tarred with the brush of the least responsible of the people taking the same side. You allow the question to be reframed from scientific ones (1 degree or 5, 1 meter or 100, 50 years or 500) to awkward positions where a risk analysis is impossible and an appeal to emotion is far more effective (yes/no/maybe).
The people advancing the no argument have not the least interest in winning the debate, understand. There objective is to keep people at maybe. Talk numbers, ranges, probabilities, because that is where our understanding lies.
“Yes/no” is pernicious nonsense. Rephrase the question as a continuous one rather than a binary one, or if necessary invite some extremist environmentalists to the debate and occupy a central position, or stay away, I think.
15 mars 2007 at 12:15 PM
In general, creationists (notably Duane Gish and Ken Ham) pummeled respectable, respected evolutionary scientists in debates all over the country. That doesn’t mean they were even close to right. And on this issue, like creationism, there will be a hard-core that will never concede, no matter how high the cognitive dissonance signal ramps up.
However, the creationists didn’t have Stephen J. Gould (or as one poster noted, they didn’t have Thomas Huxley). Where it really mattered, as the science was continuing to come out, Gould masterfully undermined argument-after-argument from the creationists. The preponderance of science eroded uncertainty about creationism in the church’s moderate center; but the hard conservatives won’t be swayed.
To make progress here, the preponderance of science must also emerge in full force. Someone needs to step up and be the Stephen J. Gould (and not the Richard Dawkins, despite his acumen) of climate science. Al Gore has ably aligned the goal posts on the field now, and the game is moving into the third quarter. Who is going to be the quarterback of public opinion? Nominations?
15 mars 2007 at 12:16 PM
Debate is good, debate is healthy.
As long as it IS a debate about the issues.
What we increasingly have are debates about the debate, which is merely a diversionary tactic. Again, the Creationist model holds.
Meanwhile, science education languishes.
15 mars 2007 at 12:20 PM
“Why would it be over? The IPCC summary said its conclusions were more than 90 percent certain.”
I’d love to see a thorough analysis of this claim. Were all of the responding scientist’s opinions given equal weight?
I happen to agree that the Earth is undergoing climate change. However, I (and many others) are unconvinced that human activity is a major factor. I also think FAR more analysis should be done as to what the best courses of action are as we truly determine what’s going on. I find the projections of the costs and effects of global warming truly laughable since they fail to account for future disruptive technologies, as well as future non-human-induced climate changes. We have little idea of the chaotic feedback and/or damping mechanisms which may be activated as the planet warms.
Here are a few thoughts:
The developed West, and America in particular, is doing quite a lot to control pollution and make a cleaner planet. Going forward, the bulk of the problem is going to be developing countries. Penalizing the United States’ economy with the Kyoto Protocol would have been counterproductive. It has also been admitted by Kyoto proponents that it won’t significantly reduce global warming going forward, according to their own models.
If you really want to ’solve’ greenhouse gas generation, do it in a win-win fashion, rather than claiming (incorrectly) that sacrifice or wealth redistribution is required to solve the problem. For instance, replacing fossil fuel fired power plants with nuclear plants, and then encouraging people to commute in wall-socket-charged electric cars (or hybrids) could eliminate a tremendous amount of ‘carbon footprint’, as well as probably resulting in cheaper electricity.
Neither the evidence nor the science presented so far is sufficient to warrant the remedies proposed by GW believers. Further, many of those suggested remedies are poorly conceived and will never fly in the real world, regardless of the situation.
15 mars 2007 at 12:28 PM
The sun is the culprit!
The current irrational debate over global warming will not be settled until we realize that there is one overwhelming factor that is seldom, if ever mentioned. The most significant contributor to global warming is the temperature of the heat source, the sun. All studies that I have read or heard assume that the temperature at the heat source is constant, but there is absolutely no evidence to prove this hypothesis.
In fact, a variable heat source is the only rational explanation that explains multiple ice ages and subsequent warming of the earth for millions of years before the earth’s population was large enough to have any possible impact. You can experience the equivalent of global warming and cooling at home when you adjust the setting on your thermostat.
Humans obviously have some impact on our environment but I believe that our impact is absolutely miniscule. It is much like standing in a “Category 5 Hurricane” and trying to influence the direction that a feather is flying by simply blowing on it!
David M. Brown
15 mars 2007 at 12:29 PM
Sigh.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/02/12/070212taco_talk_kolbert
Hot Topic
by Elizabeth Kolbert February 12, 2007
Begins: “Except in certain benighted precincts - oil-industry-funded Web sites, the Bush White House, Michael Crichton’s den - no one wastes much energy these days trying to deny global warming….”
Picking the terms on which the debate is made is important; this seems to have been a mix of denial of the science, and debate about whether this is a critical time to take action, as well as a debate about whether there’s a crisis NOW or a crisis guaranteed later or no worries.
Who got to vote? I never saw the ‘online poll’ enabled any time I looked.
Tangential to this topic:
– on the ‘Swindle’ TV program, if you want to see it, check which version of it you find (it was somewhat changed between its first and second showings on British TV, as their fudging of charts has been coming to light — see Stoat, it’s an ongoing story. Still bogus; fascinating for that. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
15 mars 2007 at 12:42 PM
One is tempted to be a bit snarky, but, as in much else, Gavin and Roger are using the same word with different meanings (Theory, anyone)?. Gavin is talking about the physical and biological dangers posed by man made climate change (ditch the anthropic), Roger is talking about the metaphysical (political and economic) dangers associated with man made climate change.
Roger has actually gone a long way in saying that even 450 ppm CO2 equivalent would be a very bad thing with significant negative consequences and that major mitigation will be needed
So, as I said many months ago, the ball has really moved into the court of WGII and III - dangers and how to deal with them. In this respect you have to talk past the Lindzen’s of the world, which is what Gore does. Here is a model which might be useful. Note that the climate change problem differs from evolution in that there is not an evolution crisis on the near horizon:
OK folks, on the otherside you have the bitter enders. Even Bill O’Reilly says that anyone who does not recognize the challenge of man made climate change is a fool; essentially every scientist who studies climate recognizes the problems and the challenges. What we have to do is decide how to meet those challenges. Part of that job is mine, to improve our understanding of climate so we can better meet the challenge, but a big part is yours and mine, to decide how to meet the challenge and do it. I’ll give you a brief summary of the science to provide a backdrop to the more important points I want to make today.
All you are going to hear from the other side is the science of the residuals. Anyone who has come up hard and fast against reality understands that there is neither a theory or a model that explains everything. There are always residuals, unexplained anomalies and people on the fringes who will hold onto those for dear life, weaving webs of conspiracy theories that focus only on what remains unexplained. This throws the baby out with the bathwater: the fringe theories might explain the residuals, but they can’t deal with the basic facts of the situation.
The best theories and models deal with the largest extent of the evidence available using intellectually valid and understandable ideas with predictive power. Those with no tolerance for ambiguity are doomed to a life of carping. The study of typewriters is not as interesting as the study of what has been written on typewriters.
However, if the typewriter salesman, is loud and insistent he can attract an audience, and if someone is paying him a lot of money to attract typewriter customers, why, he can sell a lot of typewriters. You all have computers, you don’t need their typewriters anymore.
15 mars 2007 at 12:43 PM
Thanks, Gavin, for putting yourself out there and debating these charlatans. It’s thankless work, and many many reputable scientists have given up on participating.
Unfortunately, I have to echo the lines of Ron R., above: “Fact is, as long as there’s big bucks in preserving the status quo you can expect there to be vocal opposition. They’re not going to go away no matter the evidence.” That means that the producers are going to put on the “debate” regardless of who turns up to defend the science side of the story. If the heroes don’t show to the battle, then the job falls to the losers. Some fool will always show up, and will perform even more poorly than the clever, informed guys.
I participated in a “debate” on Evolution vs. Creation that an evangelical church put on at our university, no less, as did the chair of Biology, my advisor at the time, and a few other stalwart foes. We did the best we could, but strangely, the ones who hit the hardest were the Biology prof and his drinking buddy, who was a Ph.D. student in Geology. The Geologist mocked the flood theory evidence, while the biologist - a Jesuit Christian - quoted the bible right back to them, asking them to explain the two versions of creation in Genesis.
I would say that in the kind of venue, honestly mocking or openly laughing at the pathetic arguments of the supports could play well. It’s past time to play nicey-nice with these guys. It’s literally laughable that they would refer to cosmic rays as a plausible source of warming, so why not laugh? That can help the audience realize that they are jokers, and gets the emotional tone correct. Jon Stewart does an excellent job of attacking the right on some of their craziness. Point and laugh, it’s not normally nice, but it can well be effective. It’s the least these guys deserve.
15 mars 2007 at 12:53 PM
144 million cubic miles of earth water divided by 6 billion persons provides each person with about 50 square miles of water 6 feet deep. I gave up trying to figure out how to control the temperature of my share and decided to leave it up to the sun and the clouds. Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
15 mars 2007 at 12:55 PM
Re #25
“The climate science community really needs to create a site that lays out the the theories and the facts in a clear and concise manner […] There is an opportunity here for a brilliant web developer to make a major contribution toward saving the planet. Any volunteers?”
The planet doesn’t need saving. It’s been around for 4600 Myr and once had an atmosphere which was mostly CO2. As recently as 350 Myr ago, all the carbon now buried in fossil fuels was in the atmosphere, together with a whole lot more carbon which is now incorporated in low grade carbonaceous shales and limestones.
What we are talking about is saving the human species, not the planet. Personally I don’t think there’s any chance of Homo sapiens lasting a million years. The unassuming and unambitious mollusc Lingula has been around for 500 million.
15 mars 2007 at 1:01 PM
Some people cannot be successfully debated. These persons adhere completely to their leader’s or group’s position, no matter what facts are presented to the contrary, and they cannot be persuaded by adversaries. When denialists are down to that core group, which they seem to be, then the only purpose to debating them is to keep their influence in check. You will not change their minds. Some day, out of the blue, the Wall Street Journal editors and the big oil companies will adopt a position accepting human-induced global warming. At that time, 90% of the remaining denialists will follow right along with them, without questioning the change. I have seen this amazing transformation repeatedly in the field of energy efficiency.
15 mars 2007 at 1:16 PM
well cynically, if you guys are going to help the skeptics win support, then perhaps doing these publicity stunts is a bad idea!
Although considering uber-right-wing sites like FreeRepublic were following this, and they are notorious for stacking (”freeping”) polls in a childish attempt to facilely swap opinion, that could explain some things:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801351/posts
15 mars 2007 at 1:21 PM
re: 4 - “It is all a bit sad really that the USA is still debating this subject when action is required to curb their emissions. The USA knows very little of the rest of the world, the denialists are being overtly political in their zest”
My particular feeling is that non-climatologists supporting the AGC theory are as bad as non-climatologists attempting to dilute the issue. The opponents are going for the political argument because they perceive this is what the other side is doing. We’ve got more than enough hot air from both the debating and from GHGs, we need more climatologists explaining. That’s why I’m so interested in this particular event, although I find the poll numbers disappointing. My opinion is that it’s far better to appeal to the people, but probably more difficult.
.
re: 41 - “So debate is bad? USA is bad and dumb? Despite what you read in the papers and hear on the news, there is no “consensus” on the anthropogenic forcing issue. And since when was science by consensus anyway.”
Debate isn’t bad. But the opponents are suggesting that the climatologists are driven by their political views, then attacking them based on this assumption. The debate about the science has come and gone, yet past debates are being reintroduced as if they’re new ideas, giving the impression that there is great doubt, when in fact the competiting hypotheses did not hold up under peer review.
The talking points for the AGC theory opponents perhaps are (or were) based on acceptable science, but they still amount to little more than bricks atop the wall of evidence. What the debate is accomplishing is little more that putting a brick on the wall so the opposing side may knock it off. Now they’ve been reduced to using the same bricks. Clearly we’re getting nowhere, and the opponents haven’t actually disturbed the foundation of the wall.
There is consensus in science when many independent experiments produce data that leads scientists to the same conclusion. I know this is Crichton’s mantra, but his examples are an equation that is mostly unknowns, and something that was based on an unscientific assumption. Modern AGC theory is built around observed phenomena, the most likely possibility for those observations being GHGs, and the most likely possibility to account for the volume of the GHGs being mankind.
.
re: 45 - No one is asking you to do it all by yourself. What is needed is your cooperation, patience and some sacrifice to move away from conventional combustion-based energy to something else.
15 mars 2007 at 1:23 PM
Re #44. Excellent point in that reality is not peer-reviewed. Anyone who thinks that having the facts on their side helps them in the reality arena did not live through the Vietnam War or has not absorbed the lessons of Iraq. Humans are at least as emotional as rational and also have their opinions formed by a range of social pressures. Ideally it would be best to have a PR firm take the GW debate to the public but that would mean acknowledging the imperfections of human intelligence - which few academics are eager to do since it threatens the basis for their intellectual exercises.
But I do applaud Gavin’s attempt to go up against Crichton et al.
15 mars 2007 at 1:37 PM
While I’m sure you guys did well as scientists, I still feel that you shouldnt have even gone there. I feel that simply by debating with people like Crichton we loose. Science looses. Advocacy for a solution looses. You guys here at realclimate are too good. People like Crichton dont deserve to be seen in the same room with you. GW is a fact, its here. Dont debate it anymore. Lets just find solutions.
15 mars 2007 at 1:37 PM
kevin G wrote: “… Some day, out of the blue, the Wall Street Journal editors and the big oil companies will adopt a position accepting human-induced global warming. …”
With respect to big oil, that has already happened to varying degrees - even at ExxMob:
“…There is increasing evidence that the earth’s climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.
Climate remains today an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant - so despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, …”
Read the entire statement here:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/campaign/climate_view.asp
The Valdez is making a hard turn to port.
15 mars 2007 at 1:39 PM
Re 47:
Following your link I see (correct info?):
Last night, NPR and intelligence squared hosted a debate in New York City on the motion “Global Warming is not a Crisis.” The proposition, Michael Crichton, Prof. Richard Lindzen and Prof. Philip Stott, won by 46% to 42%. What makes the performance all the more impressive is that before the event the organizers found the motion would have been disapproved of 57% to 30%, so there was quite a swing as a result of the arguments deployed.
15 mars 2007 at 1:40 PM
Your comment “We are scientists, and we talk about science and we’re not going start getting into questions of personal morality and wider political agendas - and obviously that put us at a sharp disadvantage” bears further scrutiny. Why do you presume that since you talk about science that you cannot also talk about morality and have a political perspective? You must have some sort of moral and political perspective about the world and especially about the implications of global warming, climate changes, resources use, consumerism etc. These issues will be resolved, if we are fortunate enough, through a political process in which we must be involved. I strongly suggest that in the future you do engage “them” with the same polish and performance and make the selling of the science an integral part of the public presentation of these ideas. We are dealing with too many important issues not to take a persuasive stand.
15 mars 2007 at 1:53 PM
You need another website for the public. Real Climate is really ‘climate science for climate scientists’.
15 mars 2007 at 2:01 PM
A report on the debate:
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=debate_skills_advantage_climate_contrari&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
15 mars 2007 at 2:16 PM
It seems to me that someone should write a book that is understandable for non-scientists explaining the case for AGW. This issue is something that will require government regulation and laws if the CO2 emissions are to be cut. Such a book, if done without appealing to fear and emotion, and written in a readable fashion with simple pictures and charts to illustrate points, could be a real service to the voters and politicians of this country. If AGW is to be mitigated, slowed, or stopped voters must understand what they are voting on when a candidate talks about instituting laws and regualations that will curb freedom and choice. Very few people understand the details and are often skeptical of doomsday presentations like VP Gore’s film. There have been far too many dooms-day books published in the past predicting starvation, over-population, disease, and pestilence; none of which came true. Just a thought. Anyone out there with the expertise and willingness to do such a thing?
15 mars 2007 at 2:21 PM
Kevin G is right, I did not think much could come out of that debate. The contrarian camp is deeply entranched in an emotional view of reality. And they have already formed a camp, with leaders, doctrine, us-against-them attitudes, etc…
I have not read other blogs today but I’m sure that they are portaying this debate as a victory.
Anything favorable to their cause, regardless of validity, provides them with massive reinforcing brain chemistry. It is not really possible to establish a rational argument. At least it did not come down as low as the scientific-conspiracy-for-self-interest BS.
And of course, in pure Rovian inspiration, they accuse the other side of what they are themselves guilty, throwing confusion and doubt and essentially voiding the issue, which then becomes unusable against them.
The crucial thing about a Rovian argument is that, apparently, whoever launches first wins. So it does not help when counter-arguments against skeptics are trying to take an overly emotional tone. It seems that reality itself is the best antidote to mind-manipulation methods. In Australia, their 4 years (probably going on to 5 now) drought has definitely evaporated doubts as well as water, whether or not it is AGW related. Alexander Ac. is right in post 10: people believe what they can observe (look at Pat Robertson).
And I don’t agree either that all debate is necessarily good. Once I saw the example of a HIV positive child whose mother did not “believe” in antiretroviral therapy. The child died of PCP, an opportunistic lung infection. The mother in denial managed to find a pathologist willing to “debate” whether the death might have had other causes, despite the evidence from the autopsy. That kind of debate pitting fantasy against reality, is not only useless but harmful. The AGW problem might not have yet the same kind of certitude as an autopsy but it is getting pretty darn close. Proof is that, according to Gavin, there was actually little argument about the science, except from Lintzen sticking to his usual rusty guns. So there might still be hope after all.
15 mars 2007 at 2:23 PM
Re #59: David M. Brown — I suggest you read
W.F. Ruddiman
Earth’s CLimate: Past and Future
W.H. Freeman, 2001
to obtain a correct understanding of climate.
15 mars 2007 at 2:28 PM
Chrichton may be a loser but at least he knows how to spell.
15 mars 2007 at 2:41 PM
#74: “debate skills” would play differently in front of a different audience, or one more attuned to the realities of our situation. I think that what is apparent now is that the general public is still somewhat amused by all this “global warming nonsense” and enjoys a good show/laugh. In some ways this mirrors the last days of the Roman empire, where mass entertainment involved feeding humans alive to fierce animals, or watching them hack each other’s limbs off, as a partial antidote to the angst they were experiencing due to threats at home and abroad. You can draw whatever expectations for *our* future that you care to based on what happened to the Romans. Only worse, because the Romans weren’t burning down the entire world, just Rome.
Though I’m not sure it was properly recorded, we can probably assume that the last leaders of the Roman empire finally took ahold of the situation and tried to react in a measured and sensible way to their impending doom. All we know for certain now is that they did not succeed. But you know what, I think I know what they were feeling as they faced the end of everything they knew because I’m feeling it myself now.
15 mars 2007 at 2:52 PM
Re 71:
Steve,
Thanks for posting the results of the debate…not sure the moderators of RC would have gotten around to it. For more information on the before and after poll numbers see the event’s website .
-Chip
15 mars 2007 at 3:16 PM
It’s prety humorous that “I lost the debate” = “the audience just wasn’t smart enough to understand the science.”
As Albert Eistein, a reasonably smart scientist with several peer-reviewed papers to his name once said “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.â??
Maybe the problem is that predicting 3C warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration when the radiative forcing is only ~1C and nobody can cite a single example of a climate model that has demonstrated predictive skill for gloabl temperature (actual prediction, not ‘hindcasting’) over a period of 10 years, never mind a century, has something to do with why the audience remained unconvinced.
15 mars 2007 at 3:32 PM
[[Maybe the problem is that predicting 3C warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration when the radiative forcing is only ~1C and nobody can cite a single example of a climate model that has demonstrated predictive skill for gloabl temperature (actual prediction, not ‘hindcasting’) over a period of 10 years, never mind a century, has something to do with why the audience remained unconvinced. ]]
Look again at Hansen’s middle scenario, scenario B, from his 1988 testimony. Then look at the GISS temperature record for the period of his prediction.
15 mars 2007 at 3:49 PM
Roger Pielke Jr. (#51),
As usual, you did not engage a single point. Instead, you used a reply as a way to hawk your latest opinion. This time it’s a book instead of a op-ed or other sort of opinion piece.
Please deal with some substance. [edit]
15 mars 2007 at 3:53 PM
This is unrelated, and for that I apologize. I just posted an answer to a question on the 800-year lag, and I just wanted to see if anyone could help either verify what I’ve said or show me where I went wrong. Thanks.
15 mars 2007 at 3:53 PM
Re: 82
Barton:
Thanks for the reply. Jim Hansen is a great example of how scientists usually maintain standards of intellectual honesty, when speaking as researchers in their area of expertise, that other participants in the public debate should emulate.
Hansen’s own evaluation of the forecast that you describe through 2005, in his 2006 peer-reviewed paper from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, was that:
“a 17-year period is too brief for precise assessment of model predictions, but … comparison with the real world will become clearer within a decade”.
In other words, even according to the author, we have to wait another 5 - 10 years before we can empirically evaluate the accuracy of those specific models. It’s not that the forecast was wrong, simply that we are simply in a period when the forecast signal can not yet be statistically distinguished form noise.
Best,
Dana
[Response: Not so. The forecast signal is clearly distinguishable from noise - it not yet useful as a test of the precise values of the sensitivity. I may post on this soon… -gavin]
15 mars 2007 at 4:06 PM
You say “we’re not going start getting into questions of personal morality and wider political agendas” and then immediately go on to say “One minor detail that might be interesting is that the organisers put on luxury SUVs for the participants to get to the restaurant - 5 blocks away. None of our side used them (preferring to walk), but all of the other side did.” which sounds to me like just such an attack, and unnecessary, especially if we are to believe that the argument can be won without recourse to such comments.
It sounds as if you need to toughen up quite a bit, as the sceptics deploy increasingly better presentation (TGGWS excepted), and politicians get hold of the issue and as ever, go over the top, making people suspicious that some kind of tax and power grab is being built.
15 mars 2007 at 4:22 PM
We may have the reason why SETI [the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence] hasn’t found any space aliens yet. They all died in ecological disasters of their own creation, mostly global warmings. Hasn’t anybody mentioned what happens to the poor during a mass extinction event?
15 mars 2007 at 4:24 PM
I am deeply grateful for the courage of the scientists on this site. It would be so easy to say “Nuts to it - I don’t need this” and retire to your labs to quietly continue your very interesting and challenging work. You could do that fully aware that you know what you are doing and that the truth will win out sooner or later anyway. In the final analysis, no one can bluff nature. For hanging in and trying to make a difference, you have my gratitude, and that of countless others, I am sure.
15 mars 2007 at 4:31 PM
This ole skeptic thinks, from your description, that you carried your water just fine. These things never go as planned and certainly not to perfection. Everybody in the stands knows which play should have been called, or that we should have played on a different field, or maybe even played a different game. That’s the way things go. Though they are well-intentioned.
I’m curious if you think you had a credible moderator. I heard it was Lerher (sp??), who like McNeil leans a little left but none-the-less has, also like McNeil, a stellar reputation for factual and fair journalism. [I think the PBS nightly news hour is by far the best news/reporting broadcast.]
[Response: The moderator was excellent. Brian Lehrer (no relation I think) of the WNYC morning program. -gavin]
15 mars 2007 at 4:35 PM
Well, I wasn’t there, but if, as recorded on the sciam blog (see #74), Mr. Schmidt made the “fatal debating error of dismissing the ability of the audience to judge the scientific nuances”, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the arguments of his side didn’t carry the day. People don’t like being insulted. Also, if one is arguing that something constitutes a crisis, one had better be aware that we non-experts are being bombarded day in and day out by experts’ warnings of all kinds of crises e.g. the “crisis in education”, the “housing crisis”, the “crime in the streets” crisis, etc. The word “crisis” is simply worn out. So, if Mr. Schmidt, as an expert in the field, wishes to argue that global warming is a crisis, he will have to have some pretty convincing proof to satisfy non-experts such as me, when where I live we’ve just endured the longest winter we have had in quite a few years and have had to put up with a blizzard and -26 C. temperatures during the last 24 hours (somewhat unusual for the 15th of March even at this location). Until then, I am afraid I will have to fall back on Churchill’s reported statement that experts should be kept on tap not on top.
[Response: Just so you know, ‘crisis’ was not the word of our choosing. The debate was put together sceptics side first and only after a wide search did they find enough people to counter. -gavin]
15 mars 2007 at 4:45 PM
On moral issues and presentation: Get Al Gore, or John McCain, or David Attenbourgh or someone like that on your team to level the playing field.
On the poor: Inexpensive, clean, decentralized energy will help the poor. Even if the price of oil goes down; if one has cheap solar and cheap batteries, one will simply leapfrog over expensive centralized power distribution systems were they don’t exist and stop maintaining them where they do. (For example, there are many places in the third world that don’t and never will have landlines for telephone service because cell phones are much cheaper.)
On the poor: The irony is that many of the denialists claim that global warming is a socialist, communist, environmentalist, leftist, UN hoax to redistribute wealth. So is Stott’s a commie, but on the wrong team?
Do a search on,
global warming is UN way to redistribute wealth
(note: an interesting “Did you mean..” pops up.)
On the AGW debate:
When John Howard of Austriala bans incandencent light bulbs, when George Bush praises the IPPC, when venture capitalist are pouring their money into alternative energy projects, when US auto makers are ready to agree to emission cut backs and a “cap and trade” system, it would seem that the debate over AGW is over.
“Out of the ashes of the Internet bust, many technology veterans have regrouped and found a new mission in alternative energy: developing wind power, solar panels, ethanol plants and hydrogen-powered cars.”