Comments on: STERN BUT NOT SHAKEN

By: david price

david price — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:56:34 +0000

You need not be a climate denyer to realise theat the Stern report is alarmist and unscientific. Reading the websites most climate scientists think a doubling of co2 will lead to a temperature increase of 3degC. Stern goes far beyond this.
In fact one can detect Gordon Brown’s hand in this. Every time he wants to raise taxes he commisions a report that tells him what he wants to hear. Stern was his masters voice.

By: Stephen O'Kane

Stephen O'Kane — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:08:25 +0000

My own speciality is social science and history rather than what used to be called ‘natural’ science. A few comments on that basis – first, the Stern Report is explicitly intended to scare the financiers and corporations and appeal to their interests, and since nowadays most of us have pension funds, bank accounts, etc., as well as buying the consumer products the corporations sell, that really means almost everybody in affluent societies. But will it work? Second, with all respect to Chris Shaw, it seems to me that the stuff about progress and Western ‘liberalism’ has always been a misconception – if we look at who actually denies climate change we see that it’s actually opponents of liberalism and progress (as those terms are normally understood) who provide the numbers. Obviously, if climate change is as drastic as it appears it will be, the issue is survival not progress. But the orthodox critic of what historically was (so far as ideas are concerned) the legacy of the 18th century Enlightenment is someone who relies upon tradition and social authority as their basis, and so cannot handle radical change even when that comes from a desperate attempt to survive, and not from dreams of a future utopia.
All by way of saying that the 19th century ideologies most of the political class, and also journalists and intellectuals, are bred on, are quite unsuitable for what we need to think in terms of now.

By: chris smith

chris smith — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:38:15 +0000

Lawson was perfect on Newsnight! Just what’s needed. Why? because he came across as being nutty, old, posh and weird. Completely out of touch and entirely self interested. Telling the former chief economist of the world bank that he’d got his numbers wrong and that his conclusions were ‘with the birds’. Perfect.

The naysayers can be left alone to roll around in their pit of weird eccentricity. Don’t rise to it, just patronise them, ignore them and sideline. That’s far more powerful.

Harmless old fools……. bless.

By: Jack Betterly

Jack Betterly — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 22:08:20 +0000

The most common way of denying global warming is to argue about how bad it will be if and when it happens. This is rather like the press constantly speculating about what might happen should Iraq have a civil war. Millions of very real human beings, insects, fish, animals and plants have died since human caused global warming began, at least twenty-five years ago, when I first brought it to the attention of my history classes. (I am 71 and a retired high school history teacher who taught for 42 years.)
Concerning denial – global warming is a result of human production and consumption. These are incredibly daunting to reverse, as anyone knows who has tried – successfully or unsuccessfully – to give up cigarettes. In the case of global warming, as with cigarettes, the producers actively work to frustrate and obstruct success. Those in command of international finance today know that it is far, far too late to reverse global warming. Therefor their aim is to accelerate it while enhancing their own chances of survival. Their assumption is that the survivors will make up an extremely miniscule percentage of the human population today. Where they make their biggest mistake (of many) is in their failure to realize that, for the most part, starving people do not conveniently die. They just get sick, and the financial structures they are depending upon fragment and shatter. As I am in an inexcusably uncharitable mood, I am tempted to say, “Good enough for them.” I won’t say it, because when the chips are down I believe in charity.

By: Chris Shaw

Chris Shaw — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:12:53 +0000

Ok, well I am with you Mark, and orientate towards worse case scenarios. Look what the people in charge have done to Iraq and then extrapolate from there. I think science has ceased to be useful on this topic – enough measuring already! Further, scince is based on the notion of knowing the world that it might be managed by humans for short term gain. It is a way of being in the world that has brought us to this crisis very quickly (300 years or so). I’m a ‘noble savage’ utopian, a ‘future primitive’ if you will, and see no problem with jettisoning the ideology of progress.

By: Mark Ritzenhein

Mark Ritzenhein — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:59:37 +0000

I am beginning to understand the earnest myopia of the scientific community and the resultant hesitancy to draw broad conclusions. I feel that I have a basic if superficial understanding of planetary life systems, and I do understand that it is hard to separate the data noise from a real trend. I would say that, from my perspective, there is no time left to argue about whether something is actually happening right now, but that collective action must take place in the next four years or it will be too late. I base my thoughts primarily on the close correspondence between CO2 levels found in ice cores and average Earth temperature; if CO2 is 300ppm or 750ppm, then the average temp will rise accordingly. As a lay person, this seems to be the only “fact” which I can fully rely on.
Still, my recent confusion is not allayed. I have read extensively popular books on these matters for twenty-five years (the detailed scientific accounts would be a little too tedious for me, really). I wonder if the too-close focus as found on RealClimate is simply not useful at this point, at least for the matter of how human beings should respond (but a very timely article posted right now there). Bad policy can be built from sloppy conclusions, however, and we shouldn’t think that this is not possible with GW. Example: iron filings in the Antarctic Sea–does anyone really want to implement such an idea? I think such broad swipes at planetary systems are very dangerous but politically appealing because of their simplicity. So, I must caution myself against my own hysteria.
No one really knows what will happen, precisely, and only fools predict the future (I’m a fool, thus). Still, Life has persisted on this planet through many tribulations, and I wonder if it won’t survive the coming one–with or without us present (I suspect without, by necessity).

By: Almuth Ernsting

Almuth Ernsting — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:27:24 +0000

Reply to Mark:

What is the worst that could happen? I recommend that you look at a recent discussion between a number of climate scientists: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1726869.htm#
I suggest you particularly read what Andrew Watson has to say about the possibility of a runnaway greenhouse effect which will end life on Earth for all times. As he says, the likelihood may be small, and it certainly isn’t too late yet to take action. If you look at the Real Climate website, they will rule runaway global warming out only in models which exclude cloud feedbacks – but we know there will be cloud feedbacks, just not exactly what they will be. And just this week they said that the unlikely event 10% of methane hydrates going into the atmosphere within a few years would be the equivalent of raising CO2 levels ten times (ie it would finish us off pretty quickly, although they don’t spell that out).

I’d say that climate change is about interfering with Earth Systems in a way which is unprecedented in the history of the planet and we can only partly predict the results – although what can be predicted is horrifying enough. This makes it absurd to see ‘adaptation’ as a strategy. Only steep and fast emission cuts gives us hope a climate to which we could adapt.

BTW I recommend some caution about high CO2 figures from the distant past (ice core records are good, but go back less than 1 million years). You are looking at proxy records, and the further back you look, the harder it is to get precise time-scales and estimates. Plus the position of the continents would have affected temperatures on land, and remember that the sun has been continuously getting stronger since the Earth formed, so if we had the same level of CO2 now as there was hundreds of years ago it would be quite a bit hotter. However, if the warming spike of the end Permian is anything to go by then you are looking at desertification, not a hot humid planet.

By: John L. McCormick

John L. McCormick — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:22:59 +0000

Mark, you asked [What is the worst that could happen–a humid tropical globe, or a decertified globe?]

I am not a climate scientist but am an avid reader and student of climate change.

A warming earth means warming oceans, which, in turn, mean greater evaporation and cloud formation. Clouds rain out when climatic conditions are right: dew point, cold front. Where the rain falls is a geographic matter and we can be certain that deserts are expanding so the rain is not falling there.

I does seem to be falling in the North American mountains less as snow and more as drenching rain. The consequences there are obvious; diminished stream flow and less stored water from reduced snow melt. About 50 million people rely on the waters of the American Colorado River and less snow and early rains spell hardships for farmers and cities.

Warmer atmosphere means warmer air flowing over mountain glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas. Those glaciers provide melt water to rivers that provide water to farmers and cities in Peru, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, China.

Warmer air and oceans are melting the Arctic ice cap more rapidly and extensively than ever witnessed or projected.

Forest clearing and warmer atmosphere are turning areas of the Amazon rainforest into barren land. Could desertification of the Amazon occur before 2050? Possible.

Do these examples of some consequences a warming earth represent the worst of what could happen?

To me, they are a part of a steady progression towards an unpeeling of the ecological systems on which humans and critters survive. And, warming begets more worming via positive feedbacks; permafrost and tundra melting.

I see the worst case in every example of the impact on our planet of climate change. I see millions of paper cuts happening to us and our children in the future…none being serious enough to bring an end to our civilized life…collectively they have that capability.

I am where you appear to be Mark. Now, I think more about the kinds of serious adaptation measures that will have to be put into place soon in order to give our children fighting chance to survive the chaos we are bringing to them.

By: Bernd Eggen

Bernd Eggen — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:10:01 +0000

I think climate change is one of the topics that, if taken seriously by any individual or group of people, is all-encompassing and has implications on almost every aspect of one’s life. I am not surprised how successful the media and industry etc are in denial or schizoid behaviour. To take in the whole picture may simply be too much for most of us.

Personally I tend to think along the lines of Thomas S Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions): Kuhn quotes Max Planck’s observation (p. 151) that sometimes “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Unfortunately, with climate change, we may not have the time to wait for all the denialers (denialists ?) to evaporate, so we may need something like a revolution.

While I think in the UK and most of Europe we now have some sort of awareness / concern (even if there is still a lot of denial), it’s an altogether different story in emerging economies (I’m thinking of China and India), and I belive a lot more effort needs to go into convincing billions of consumers there (especially the young generation) that drastic shifts in living patterns are required – and who are we to tell them ?

Still trying to be optimistic (:-)

By: Mark Ritzenhein

Mark Ritzenhein — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:57:47 +0000

In all seriousness, and with hope of no ranting replies, I would like to ask whether all the speculation as to impending ecological doom is overblown or unwarranted. I am most assuredly NOT a contrarian, but rather hold to the deepest despair on the matter of global warming and its consequences. However, I am also subscribed to another blog run on a strictly scientific basis (which I do not actively participate in because I am not a climate scientist, nor a scientist of any kind), and the statements and inquires are specific, small in vision, and full of the hesitant observations which honest science demands. This, along with a recently read statement about CO2 levels being incredibly higher at a certain point(s) in the Earth’s history has led me to doubt my own certainty on this matter. I start from a position far-gloomier than one usually reads anywhere else, because my amateur conclusions kept leaving me short of the seriousness of the latest scientific observations. Thus, instead of leaving room for hope with a 2100 AD deadline I’m left with one much closer to our own time, with no hope of overcoming it–circa 2020.
So, I would be interested in some replies–no harangues or rants, please. What is the worst that could happen–a humid tropical globe, or a desertified globe? If the planet becomes warmer and wetter, then human beings will continue, if the opposite, we will spiral into total self-destruction, taking everything else with us.