While over at Megan’s I noticed a discussion she has about Bjorn Lomborg and her main criticism of him. That is that he doesn’t give enough weight to low probability, but catastrophic events. That is in fact a weakness (and she notes in his defense that it is a very contentious and difficult issue) and some of the discussion in the comments is pretty good. One of my favorite comments came from our own Keith who shows uncommon good sense in his answer, though my impression is that he is more skeptical about human induced global warming than I:
he doesn’t really address the problem of low-probability, but catastrophic systemic failures.
So, how much should we devote to asteroid defense, which would be even more catastrophic then climate change?? The problem with devoting resources to anything is there are always other things to devote resources to.
Alarmism isn’t helping promote solutions, it causing the issue to be deeply divisive. Either you believe the world is going to end from AGW, or you’re sticking your head in the sand.
The science of climate change isn’t quite there yet, especially the computer models. There is a bunch of uncertainty in the models. But the trick is figuring out if the uncertainty is enough to bet the whole farm on. And there are still quite a number of respected meteorologists who are less then convinced about the whole thing. For me, it isn’t, not yet, primarily because of the computer models. In another decade, things may be refined enough to know where we are going.
Beyond that, there are still good economic reasons for reducing energy use, increasing efficiency, and reducing overall emissions and pollution. I think if we really want to change, we need to come up with cost efficient solutions.
Most people will only care about a problem when they see that it is directly effecting them. Everyone is dealing with high energy prices, so show people how cost effective conserving energy is, and you’ll get more people conserving energy.
I have a lot of problems with the way the science is being interpreted, at least at the popular level. I don’t deny that GHG’s are a primary cause, but I don’t believe we know enough to confidently do anything about it. The issue manifests itself in regional and local scales, and the magnitudes of the effects are very much in dispute. Global models are insufficient. But people who point this kind of thing out, such as Roger Pielke and Lomborg who are within the mainstream of climate science in their views, are routinely thrown in with people who do have their head stuck in the sand, while people who are way out of the consensus of the IPCC (such as Al Gore) are lionized. This is dysfunctional. Keith is right. Alarmism is destroying the debate and breeding knee jerk skepticism among many. It is too momentous an issue to be dealt with in this manner.
[tags] global warming, IPCC, Roger Pielke, Bjorn Lomborg, greenhouse gases [/tags]
Don’t forget Freeman Dyson. Here’s some video too.
yours/
peter.
I’m a skeptic, but more an agnostic skeptic. However, we can remain skeptical and still be cautious.
I don’t know if climate change will have as big an impact, or as catastrophic an impact, as some people say, but we can still work on reducing the potential impact of AGW.
I’m a big believer in following a conservation ethic, as opposed to following environmentalism, as a movement (which tends to look like a religious cult.)
Skeptics and those entirely convinced of AGW, ought to be able to find ways to work together to curb pollution, reduce mans impact on the planet, and plan for mitigating the effects of climate change.
However, I think, many of the alarmists, and the overly zealous, want 100% buy-in to their premise, before they will allow help from the “other side.”
Excellently put Keith, excellently put.
Thanks for the links Peter.
I’m not entirely sure that my colleagues in the field of climate science would agree with you about Lomborg.
Sorry, my second blockquote tag disappeared.
(Lance- I fixed it.)
Kav,
On what issues does Lomborg fall out of the consensus established by the IPCC? He explicitly stipulates their conclusions as a given in his analysis. I may be missing something, but nobody ever seems to tell me what it is. I respect your opinion on this Kav, so help me out.
By the way Kav, I still would like to have an online discussion with you on this. I trust you to be fair, and I think I and others might learn a lot about the subject if I could discuss it with someone who is reasonably informed on the state of the science who isn’t just trying to “win the debate” and who have read each other enough to discuss this in an atmosphere of trust. When I typically try and discuss it with AGW enthusiasts any questions I have are routinely treated with disdain, which hardly addresses the point. Anyway, I never heard back from you, so I wanted to re-extend the offer.
Might be a good topic for a podcast. I can set it all up if y’all are interested. I’d sure like to see the discussion take place.
Lance, I will get back to you in the near future about a discussion. Deadlines at work (bloody real life) get in the way here!
It sounds like a good idea, I tend to avoid online debates regarding AGW since they tend to get bogged down really quickly (and bizarrely personal in some cases). However a discussion with you would likely be enlightening and interesting.
Lance to start with, why not send me any questions that you have? Or post them on ASHC.
Please remember that I am not a climate scientist, I am a solar-terrestrial scientist. I keep up with the climate science since I think it is an important subject and I have colleagues who work in the field (particularly in the solar influence aspects). My point is that I come from it as someone with a decent, yet incomplete, knowledge of the subject.
Michael, a podcast is an intriguing idea but I am not sure the world is ready for my dulcet tones
Kav,
That is great. I’ll try and put something together for this weekend and send it to you. I am curious about my inquiry about Lomborg at the moment, so no need to wait on that. I suggest we start with a written discussion and then look into a follow up as a podcast. Since we both come at this as non climate scientists who have a decent, yet incomplete, knowledge of the subject, we both would be best served by initially being able to peruse sources, ask questions of others and compose our thoughts. The gotcha atmosphere around this subject means neither you nor I probably want to get caught with our pants down.
Thanks for your interest. Done right this could really help me in sifting through all these things.
Sorry missed your Lomborg question before.
Lomborg is somewhat disingenuous (I have heard him likened to a concern troll), though I may be being unfair to him since you are correct in that he acknowledges the conclusions of the IPCC.
That said I have heard several folks describe how he cherry-picks information to essentially suggest that things are not as bad as they might be. Essentially he is a master of spin and is an incredibly gifted writer.
I suggest you have a look here to start with. Of course I don’t need to tell you to approach the critique with a critical eye; there is too much hyperbole and spinning on both sides of the aisle for anyone to do that.
Also read some of the controversy surrounding The Skeptical Environmentalist; you can decide for yourself whether the DCSD got it right. The ruling was dismissed by the MSTI on what seemed to be procedural grounds but the DCSD declined to revise their opinion.
In some ways it is interesting to consider that Lomborg is in something of the same boat as you and I; he has no direct specialty in climate science (being a political scientist by training) but is clearly has a keen interest in the subject.
Fair enough, and thanks for the link. I have several problems with the complaints of the author, and would like to explore them a bit, but not now.
I guess my issue with such a complaint is that that is a spin and bias of its own. He is cherry picking information to suggest things might not be as bad as some claim. That seems a pretty useful discussion given the political atmosphere many scientists and their allies in the environmental movement have created.
It seems rather unfair for such people who have in public made very firm statements, including summaries of the IPCC, that the underlying science cannot be said to sustain, to then complain that he picks out the information that may not disprove the more alarming claims or certainty of the claims in general, but do show some weaknesses. His points do show it might not be as bad as some claim, and of course as scientists shouldn’t they admit that is true? When on sites criticizing him they fervently deny making such certain claims (including the link you gave me) and then simultaneously in many public forums act as if any skepticism is putting ones head in the sand. I find that very disconcerting. Especially since almost every criticism he levies is expressed by scientists who worked on the IPCC. To put it another way, while scientists who work on the document seem to defend the science as a whole, their individual work is widely variant. That should be a source of strength in such a relatively new area of endeavor, and pointing out the issues a way of of driving the science forward. Instead it is treated when addressing those outside the field as if it is acknowledged then nothing they are doing is valid. That is silly when Lomborg agrees on the basics, he just doesn’t believe the most alarmist claims and certainty can be proven to be strongly established. So we have scientists and environmentalists supporting Al Gore who is making claims way beyond the IPCC’s ranges but endorses it as if it is holy writ (illogical, but so he does) while attacking Lomborg for showing the issues within the data but accepting the ranges as reasonable. I find that mystifying. The only explanation I can come up with is that Gore does nothing to challenge the science (thus not threatening anyone doing it) while expressing their political goals (which they have little expertise in assessing, though Lomborg and his colleagues do) while Lomborg fails in both aspects.
Of course many scientists recognize this, though they are busy toiling away, not making political speeches. I remember seeing one (I believe it was 60 Minutes) pointing out that the critiques had been important, that they had forced he and others to refine their conclusions. He admitted that many of the criticisms which some (Hansen et al) had resisted so forcefully had had merit though he felt that the data was showing more clearly problems in Greenland. I suspect most scientists feel that way, we just don’t see them in the spotlight, which is a shame. I’ll use an example from the first part of the link:
I see that as nitpicky considering his book was for a general audience. His point that forecasts of 6 degrees centigrade aren’t plausible still stands. I didn’t get the impression he was saying their were no ranges, just that the 6 degree claim he sees as less than compelling. He may be wrong about that, but this comment seems to be the type of argument that acts as if the thrust need not be addressed because he should have stated in that paragraph (though he certainly does elsewhere) that there are a range of outcomes modeled. He is really arguing against the alarmism that is being popularized, not that the IPCC has no range of outcomes. Meanwhile Gore is claiming far higher ranges and pretty much dismissing most of the less alarming scenarios. Yet who are the voices we hear the most from the climate modelers lauding? The skeptical inquiry into the science which accepts the ranges while stating that the higher ones are not very likely, or the one who paints alarmist scenarios well outside of the ranges?
Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to engage in this discussion with an open mind. I assure you mine is open on this subject, though that means I am as willing to accept heterodox views which cast doubt on the extent of greenhouse gases being the key variable as the opposite. In fact, I am becoming more and more convinced that human influence of other types may be a far larger factor than the burning of fossil fuels, which means we may be devoting far more concern to them than more pressing and important ways that humans are altering the climate. In that sense I am finding Pielke more and more relevant. His analysis of the issue seems more and more compelling as I read more and more from fields which are not based on climate models, but show more skill in explaining actual changes in conditions on regional and local scales.