Apparently George Monbiot eventually debated climate change denier Ian Plimer on Australian TV and challenged some of the claims in his book "Heaven and Earth." It's fascinating to see the way in which Plimer tries to change the subject every time an awkward question is asked. And yes, I do believe it's appropriate to label people who engage in blatant fraud and deception as deniers.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
Monbiot briefly touches on the subject of the hacked e-mails. I think in retrospect the most serious error of judgement made by the scientists involved was to treat the data and code they used as proprietary rather than publishing it on the internet, as was done with the GISTEMP series of data from NASA some years ago. This unwarranted secrecy has allowed mischevious people to whip up some of the more ludicrous "conspiracy" claims.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
A tale of two treaties
Very few people noted that 2009 was the two-hundredth anniversary of the Treaty of Schönbrunn, a shabby deal which ended the fifth coalition against Napoleon, dismembered Austria, and gave the French emperor control of lands as far east as modern-day Slovenia and Croatia. It was described thus in the Gentleman's Magazine of 1809 (courtesy of Wikipedia):
The main difference between this and the "non-binding agreement" from Copenhagen - at least the Schönbrunn "deal" was more honest. No doubt over the next few days, more information will come out that will help us to unravel the reasons behind the dismal failure of the summit last week.
However, it seems the key sticking point was the basic unwillingness of the developed countries to offer cuts in their carbon emissions of anything like the magnitude required to tackle global warming, and instead offering a "bung" of $10 billion a year or so to the developing world in return for restraining or reducing their own tiny CO2 output. In effect, the countries involved are jockeying for position over who can have the rights to emit so much carbon dioxide, with the rich nations unwilling to give up their share so the poor can have more. Just as in 1809 the squabble was over land, now it's over the ability of the atmosphere to absorb the CO2 we produce.
The bottom line is that any future deal will have to be based on equity - that is to say that each person on the planet should have the right to emit the same amount of CO2. Given that the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb carbon without causing climate change is finite, that means that the rich countries must reduce their emissions so that the world's poor can have a bigger slice of the pie; they should not be able to wriggle out of this using loopholes such as the "clean development mechanism" in the Kyoto treaty. It seems that the willingness to do this just wasn't there.
Perhaps the only upside to this fiasco is that the deal that might have come from Copenhagen was so bad that at least there is now no fig leaf behind which people can hide, and the pressure will still be on politicians to deliver over the next few months. For everyone's sake, let's hope so.
This Treaty is certainly one of the most singular documents in the annals of diplomacy. We see a Christian King, calling himself the father of his people, disposing of 400,000 of his subjects, like swine in a market. We see a great and powerful Prince condescending to treat with his adversary for the brushwood of his own forests. We see the hereditary claimant of the Imperial Sceptre of Germany not only condescending to the past innovations on his own dominions, but assenting to any future alterations which the caprice or tyranny of his enemy may dictate with respect to his allies in Spain and Portugal, or to his neighbours in Italy.
The main difference between this and the "non-binding agreement" from Copenhagen - at least the Schönbrunn "deal" was more honest. No doubt over the next few days, more information will come out that will help us to unravel the reasons behind the dismal failure of the summit last week.
However, it seems the key sticking point was the basic unwillingness of the developed countries to offer cuts in their carbon emissions of anything like the magnitude required to tackle global warming, and instead offering a "bung" of $10 billion a year or so to the developing world in return for restraining or reducing their own tiny CO2 output. In effect, the countries involved are jockeying for position over who can have the rights to emit so much carbon dioxide, with the rich nations unwilling to give up their share so the poor can have more. Just as in 1809 the squabble was over land, now it's over the ability of the atmosphere to absorb the CO2 we produce.
The bottom line is that any future deal will have to be based on equity - that is to say that each person on the planet should have the right to emit the same amount of CO2. Given that the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb carbon without causing climate change is finite, that means that the rich countries must reduce their emissions so that the world's poor can have a bigger slice of the pie; they should not be able to wriggle out of this using loopholes such as the "clean development mechanism" in the Kyoto treaty. It seems that the willingness to do this just wasn't there.
Perhaps the only upside to this fiasco is that the deal that might have come from Copenhagen was so bad that at least there is now no fig leaf behind which people can hide, and the pressure will still be on politicians to deliver over the next few months. For everyone's sake, let's hope so.
Thursday, 17 December 2009
The illogical, the bizarre and the downright confused...
It has been rather a disspiriting week. Firstly we've had the unedifying spectacle of the Copenhagen talks making limited progress because of arguments about money and jockeying for position instead of the urgency that is needed to tackle climate change. However, the story that has been setting the blogosphere alight is not the conference itself, but the hacking of e-mails at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which has had climate sceptics bouncing off the walls all claiming that the whole theory of man-made global warming is a "hoax".
There has already been a great deal written on the internet about the subject of the CRU e-mails (this site is a good "clearing house" for information that rebuts some of the more sensational claims), but whilst they may show some scientists in a bad light, they have almost no relevance to the scientific basis of our understanding of climate. However, the whole thing has been a PR coup for the sceptics; in fact, the response by the UEA in the media was so dilatory that one lecturer in communication studies said he would use it as an example in future courses of what not to do in the event of a revelation like this. Whilst sceptics were furiously spinning for a fortnight, the university sat in complete silence as if it hoped the whole story would just fade away. In fact, the whole "scandal" is a typical diversionary tactic used by sceptics - instead of bringing forward scientific arguments that challenge the basis of the current consensus and publishing it in scientific journals, they instead take some small factoid, such as some remarks in a personal e-mail, then blow it up to the point where it somehow proves that the work of hundreds of scientists across many different specialist fields is a fraud.
So in the face of this severe threat to humanity's future, instead of working out what action to take we are instead sitting around arguing with people who believe that the threat does not exist. Great.
So just to put the tin hat on things, I noticed that a couple of newspapers yesterday picked up on a report from the European Foundation about global warming, entitled "100-reasons why global warming is natural". This fairly obscure organization has hitherto confined itself to worriting about European integration, though a fair balance of its contributors seem to be right-wing Tories. However, it has obviously decided to branch out into new fields, and take on the orthodoxy of climate science. Now, the report was apparently authored by "political analyst" Jim McConalogue, who is presumably not an climatology expert, but neither am I. So one should never dismiss something without reading it.
So, what of these 100 points that knock the scientific orthodoxy into a cocked hat? They contain such devastating critiques as:
"55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers."
Really. And my dad's bigger than your dad as well! I assume this is some kind of response to the fact that global warming sceptics are sometimes referred to as "flat earthers," but at least I think that people who use that phrase realize that's rhetoric, not an argument in itself.
"79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun)."
OK, I must be missing something here. I thought this was supposed to be 100 reasons why global warming was natural - simply asserting that global warming is natural and then describing the consequences isn't evidence that it's natural.
"74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions."
Well, arguably the author has a point, but our inability to act effectively in the face of the threat is hardly evidence that the threat does not exist. I'm beginning to wonder whether Mr McConalogue would have been better off sticking to a smaller number of slightly more substantive points.
So I'll ignore the tangential and irrelevant statements, question begging and just plain abuse and instead look at a couple of the "serious" arguments.
"12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds."
Exactly right. No serious climate scientist has ever suggested that CO2 is the only driver of climate change, but there is very strong evidence that (along with other greenhouse gases) it is responsible for much of the late 20th Century warming. A classic straw man argument.
"24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder."
Well, warming is warming whether it's caused by natural variation or not. It's also false that Greenland and the Eastern Arctic aren't warming, though it's possible (given the standard of the other arguments) that Mr McConalogue is confusing the Arctic with the Antartic (it is true that the Eastern Antarctic may have cooled a little, or at least not warmed much). I just hope this guy never has to lead an expedition...
There are, however, more sophisticated attempts to mislead, such as:
"35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything."
The inputs into computer models are not simply a "think of a number" exercise to mix together various different factors like a recipe until the magic formula that explains warming is found. The warming caused by CO2 must be related to the known physical properties of the gas, as it must be with sunlight and other factors.
"54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot."
In fact warming caused by any other factor should produce the same "hot spot", which is in fact a feedback effect of water vapour. It is true that the "hot spot" has not been seen as clearly as expected from weather balloon records, but that may be party due to the fact that weather balloon coverage in the tropics is very poor. However, the disctinctive "signature" of greenhouse warming is simultaneous warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere (as more of the incoming radiation is retained) which has been clearly observed and in fact is not even controversial.
What is a mystery is not so much why most of these points are inaccurate, badly researched and simply absurd, but why even right-wing newspapers such as the Torygraph and the Express should imagine that they are worthy of a single column inch. It was heartening that several of the internet commenters on the column posted the following link to the excellent New Scientist magazine, which demolishes the first fifty of the arguments:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html
This link exposes some of the tactics used by climate change sceptics to obfuscate the science.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18279
Let's hope that the negotiators at Copenhagen can ignore the background noise of the sceptics and get on with delivering us a strong deal to address the problem of climate change.
There has already been a great deal written on the internet about the subject of the CRU e-mails (this site is a good "clearing house" for information that rebuts some of the more sensational claims), but whilst they may show some scientists in a bad light, they have almost no relevance to the scientific basis of our understanding of climate. However, the whole thing has been a PR coup for the sceptics; in fact, the response by the UEA in the media was so dilatory that one lecturer in communication studies said he would use it as an example in future courses of what not to do in the event of a revelation like this. Whilst sceptics were furiously spinning for a fortnight, the university sat in complete silence as if it hoped the whole story would just fade away. In fact, the whole "scandal" is a typical diversionary tactic used by sceptics - instead of bringing forward scientific arguments that challenge the basis of the current consensus and publishing it in scientific journals, they instead take some small factoid, such as some remarks in a personal e-mail, then blow it up to the point where it somehow proves that the work of hundreds of scientists across many different specialist fields is a fraud.
So in the face of this severe threat to humanity's future, instead of working out what action to take we are instead sitting around arguing with people who believe that the threat does not exist. Great.
So just to put the tin hat on things, I noticed that a couple of newspapers yesterday picked up on a report from the European Foundation about global warming, entitled "100-reasons why global warming is natural". This fairly obscure organization has hitherto confined itself to worriting about European integration, though a fair balance of its contributors seem to be right-wing Tories. However, it has obviously decided to branch out into new fields, and take on the orthodoxy of climate science. Now, the report was apparently authored by "political analyst" Jim McConalogue, who is presumably not an climatology expert, but neither am I. So one should never dismiss something without reading it.
So, what of these 100 points that knock the scientific orthodoxy into a cocked hat? They contain such devastating critiques as:
"55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers."
Really. And my dad's bigger than your dad as well! I assume this is some kind of response to the fact that global warming sceptics are sometimes referred to as "flat earthers," but at least I think that people who use that phrase realize that's rhetoric, not an argument in itself.
"79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun)."
OK, I must be missing something here. I thought this was supposed to be 100 reasons why global warming was natural - simply asserting that global warming is natural and then describing the consequences isn't evidence that it's natural.
"74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions."
Well, arguably the author has a point, but our inability to act effectively in the face of the threat is hardly evidence that the threat does not exist. I'm beginning to wonder whether Mr McConalogue would have been better off sticking to a smaller number of slightly more substantive points.
So I'll ignore the tangential and irrelevant statements, question begging and just plain abuse and instead look at a couple of the "serious" arguments.
"12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds."
Exactly right. No serious climate scientist has ever suggested that CO2 is the only driver of climate change, but there is very strong evidence that (along with other greenhouse gases) it is responsible for much of the late 20th Century warming. A classic straw man argument.
"24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder."
Well, warming is warming whether it's caused by natural variation or not. It's also false that Greenland and the Eastern Arctic aren't warming, though it's possible (given the standard of the other arguments) that Mr McConalogue is confusing the Arctic with the Antartic (it is true that the Eastern Antarctic may have cooled a little, or at least not warmed much). I just hope this guy never has to lead an expedition...
There are, however, more sophisticated attempts to mislead, such as:
"35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything."
The inputs into computer models are not simply a "think of a number" exercise to mix together various different factors like a recipe until the magic formula that explains warming is found. The warming caused by CO2 must be related to the known physical properties of the gas, as it must be with sunlight and other factors.
"54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot."
In fact warming caused by any other factor should produce the same "hot spot", which is in fact a feedback effect of water vapour. It is true that the "hot spot" has not been seen as clearly as expected from weather balloon records, but that may be party due to the fact that weather balloon coverage in the tropics is very poor. However, the disctinctive "signature" of greenhouse warming is simultaneous warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere (as more of the incoming radiation is retained) which has been clearly observed and in fact is not even controversial.
What is a mystery is not so much why most of these points are inaccurate, badly researched and simply absurd, but why even right-wing newspapers such as the Torygraph and the Express should imagine that they are worthy of a single column inch. It was heartening that several of the internet commenters on the column posted the following link to the excellent New Scientist magazine, which demolishes the first fifty of the arguments:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html
This link exposes some of the tactics used by climate change sceptics to obfuscate the science.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18279
Let's hope that the negotiators at Copenhagen can ignore the background noise of the sceptics and get on with delivering us a strong deal to address the problem of climate change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
