In
Nature this week I review books by Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Steve Schneider and Dieter Helm and Cameron Hepburn. It looks like the full review is freely available
here. Here is an excerpt to whet your appetite:
Together, these four books highlight that climate policy is at a crossroads. The journey so far has emphasized science and exhortation: that facts, spoken loudly enough, are enough to win the argument. That path has succeeded in bringing climate change to the attention of policy-makers and the public as an important global problem. At the same time, that approach has shown its limitations. Climate science has become deeply politicized and climate politics is in gridlock. Climate change is at risk of becoming an issue of cultural politics, similar to the evolution debate in the United States and elsewhere. If the climate-policy debate is to continue as it has, we should expect more of the same.
Please have a look at the
whole thing and then feel free to come back here and discuss or ask questions.
22 comments:
Can one comment on your review over at Nature?
-1-Luke
I don't think so, unless they post on it on one of their blogs
This was a very nice counterpoint to Nature's recent editorial, "Climate of Fear".
I think it interesting to flip the trust problem around and consider that what really needs fixing is that Scientists need to trust the policymaking layer to do the right thing with relatively 'raw' climate science information (not dumbed-down or exaggerated). If that trust doesn't exist then some fraction of the scientists will always be tempted to slide down the slippery honesty vs. advocacy slope.
Humility.. always a good idea.
"There is no absolute knowledge.
And those who claim it,
whether they are scientists or dogmatists,
open the door to tragedy.
All information is imperfect.
We have to treat it with humility."
Jacob Bronowski
I like your blog Roger.
Of the 4 books I've only read Hansen's. In a democracy you are allowed to criticise democracy, participate in demonstrations, be arrested etc. How else can protest against business as usual take place? For example, this is what happened with anti-Vietnam war protests in the 60s which eventually over a decade did change mainstream politics. As far as I can see Hansen is being a good citizen based on his strong beliefs about progressing too far towards a slippery slope. I'm not clear about how you can separate the politics from the science cleanly, to say that one is always primary over the other. That's only true for "politics as normal". The issue is what degree of urgency is appropriate given the science as best as we can evaluate it. If it's not urgent then Hansen's going over the top but if it is urgent given the time line for swapping over to nuclear, the inertia of the ice and ocean systems etc. then his activism is what a good citizen should be doing.
Still reading other material referenced at this site by Daniel Sarewitz, Richard Tol, your Lomborg submission etc.
Excellent article Roger.
Bill Kerr
It is clear that Hansen has pathologically extreme views on global warming. His credibility is severely compromised.
He endorsed the book this quote appears in
Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/
The theory is disturbing enough, but Hansen appeared along with a man of similar extremes, Zac Goldsmith, in a UK court to defend an 'act of terrorism' against Kingsnorth power station. that resulted in £30,000 of damage.
Kingsnorth report in the Guardian
Hansen, a Nasa director who advises Al Gore, the former US presidential candidate turned climate change campaigner, told the court that humanity was in "grave peril". "Somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations."
Bill Kerr
"How else can protest against business as usual take place? For example, this is what happened with anti-Vietnam war protests in the 60s which eventually over a decade did change mainstream politics."
The Vietnam protests were huge and the anti war movement was supported by a large majority of young people. Despite the best efforts of publicly funded environmental NGOs, there have been no significant protests against AGW.
The British government has spent countless millions promoting global warming. Unlike America, there has been virtually no substantial opposition and still only 26% believe in AGW.
In what must be a strong contender for the dumbest (and most self revealing) political statement in history, environment minister Ed Miliband called for suffragette like, direct action against his own government.
"When you think about all the big historic movements, from the suffragettes, to anti-apartheid, to sexual equality in the 1960s, all the big political movements had popular mobilisation,"said Miliband. "Maybe it's an odd thing for someone in government to say, but I just think there's a real opportunity and a need here."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/08/ed-miliband-climate-politics-environment
There was no response. The conclusion must be that voters are nowhere near as stupid and gullible as politicians think.
I think the underlying fallacy is that alarmists- who are being proven wrong- should be seated in control seats at the table at all.
From your Nature comments:
"Incremental approaches to climate mitigation that can be modified by experience offer a chance that realistic and democratically grounded actions might rise to a challenge that will be with us for decades to come."
Picking up on what Dr. Curry has written, what is your confidence factor in any of the mitigation approaches, either singly or or combination, to actually mitigate climate change? I come back to my belief that humankind roughly has a 5-10% impact on climate change. How do those mitigation efforts change the direction of the 90-95% natural rhythms?
Interesting and well written reviews, predicated on an assumption as to the size, nature and urgency of the "climate change" problem.
I am reading Hansen and Schneider now. You are way to kind to Gore's book - which reads as much like a puff piece for C&T, which can be summarized as "Trust me it will work".
Hard to believe Hansen and Schneider are taken seriously as "objective" scientist given there untempered conviction that the fate of civilization hangs in the balance. Schneider, in particular, has been like this from the very start of his career, almost 40 years ago.
The title of Hansen's book made me laugh.
Are you going to review:
The Hockey Stick Illusion, by A W Montford
Climategate: The Crutape Letters, by S Mosher and T Fuller
Climate Confusion, by Roy Spencer
An Appeal to Reason, by Nigel Lawson?
This is a genuine question - your views on these books would also be of interest.
-12-PaulM
I intend to review the first two for the blog. But it may be summer before I can do so. Thanks.
One common thread that seems to run through the Gore, Hansen, and Schneider books is an ethno-/West-centric framing of the issue--it all starts and ends with us and our values. Not to mention that their understanding of the world, history, human nature, and how thing really are and really work, seem pretty simplistic and naive.
I don't think the comparison to evolution is quite right. Creationists try to create an appearance of scientific debate when in fact there is none, while AGW alarmists try to pretend there is no legitimate scientific disagreement when in fact there is.
Roger:
You say
"An alternative way forward would start by admitting the limitations of science in compelling political agreements, and by admitting that we do not know how to complete the challenge of decarbonizing the global economy."
But total "decarbonizing the global economy" is not necessary – or desirable – a point that neither you nor Hansen or Schneider address.
'Reduction' in the burning of fossil fuels, an end to deforestation, substantial increases in energy efficiencies AND the bio-sequestration of 8 to 13 GtC/yr , for example.,
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9626-y
and
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9625-z
can provide a feasible route to the end of AGW.
Discussion of such possibilities 'might' turn around the mindsets of both scientists and the public – without having to "compel" political agreement!
Len
Or instead of all that we could just add CO2 scrubbers to the smoke stacks and ignore all the rest. The lack of any real effort in this direction is in stark contrast to the SO2 reduction experience for which nobody suggested a total societal change. All these other ideas are nice to think about but are they less or more feasible than just removing it at source?
I'm inclined to think that CO2 is just a convenient excuse for everyone to hang their ideological baggage onto, not the least of which has been nuclear power greenwashing and newborn Malthusians.
Here's some of those "mitigation" strategies being employed in Montana: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_a8d908e8-32c4-11df-be84-001cc4c03286.html
Canceling those leases for climate concerns reminds me of the European flagellants over the “Black Death.” About as effective too. Again, as Dr. Curry has put, what is the confidence factor that this is meaningful?
eric144:
I agree that AGW protests have not had the same trajectory of development as anti-Viet war protests. I used the analogy to make the point that politics can change from "business as usual" approaches and at times such a change can be fairly abrupt, within a few years. That hasn't happened wrt AGW but that fact, current failure to alarm the public to the point of activism, doesn't actually demonstrate that Hansen is wrong about his science projections.
Hansen makes the point in his book that human civilisation developed in the past 7,000 years with relatively stable sea levels and that future sea level rise will probably be more rapid than IPCC extreme projection of 59cm by 2010 given business as usual. I was glad to see Richard Tol's piece on WAIS taking up that challenge directly.
Hansen wrote a puff piece for a book he probably hadn't read which advocated different methods of activism to those which he advocates. That's politically naive but it doesn't make him an eco-terrorist. In his own book he advocates Ghandi type protest methods which are generally accepted as legitimate.
The Greenpeace protest was just another Greenpeace protest. Hansen is trying to raise consciousness based on his 350ppm CO2 projection limit. I agree it's not going to happen, China is calling the shots, but Hansen might be changing some minds. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on the science.
Roger wrote in his review: "Hansen's complaint that leaders of sovereign countries have not acceded to his demands implies a criticism of democracy ..."
He hasn't stepped outside the accepted principles of democratic protest.
Bill Kerr
Thanks for the reply.
Hansen wrote a puff piece for a book he probably hadn't read
That isn't atypical of the environmentalist's creative relationship with reality
The Greenpeace protest was just another Greenpeace protest
The $45,000 criminal damage caused some very negative attitudes in the UK, even in the Guardian comment pages. There were other similar events. Hansen flew from America to endorse illegal, direct action of the kind advocated in Farnish's book. Admittedly, they didn't raise any cities to the ground,
George Monbiot endorsed the actions of protesters who sabotaged Scottish mine equipment and encouraged future similar action.
But while the government undermines its own targets, some people in Scotland are putting its climate change policy into effect. The Scottish camp for climate action has declared war on opencast coal mining. Yesterday people associated with it did what the government should have done years ago, and cut the conveyor belt used to carry coal from the Glentaggart pit in Lanarkshire to the local rail terminal. Now they propose to take on other pits, as well as Scotland's biggest coal-burning power stations. They have chosen the right targets. Coal is the dirty word that threatens to destroy attempts at Copenhagen in December to prevent climate breakdown. If governments won't take it on, we must.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/07/monbiot-scotland-climate-policy
In a spirit of curiosity rather than anger, I complained to various Scottish and British legal authorities. I received a single reply from environment secretary Ed Miliband who did not approve of criminal damage.
jgdes #17:
Though the CO2 problem seems similar to the SO2/acid-rain ‘waste problem’ that was largely ‘fixed’ with Cap and Trade approaches, the much larger amount of CO2 is also naturally and ‘desirably’ emitted through respiration by all living organisms, and so is harder to characterize as a 'pollutant'.
"Removing it (CO2) at the source" is more expensive, more disruptive, less effective and less 'natural' than using 'new' bio-sequestration – all as described in the links.
Post a Comment