At the Wall Street Journal Steven Hayward explains the four stages of “climate change” an epitome for climate change activism:
A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding†pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity†as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ †Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.
The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out.
This outcome was predictable. Political scientist Anthony Downs described the downward trajectory of many political movements in an article for the Public Interest, “Up and Down With Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle,’ †published in 1972, long before the climate-change campaign began. Observing the movements that had arisen to address issues like crime, poverty and even the U.S.-Soviet space race, Mr. Downs discerned a five-stage cycle through which political issues pass regularly.
The first stage involves groups of experts and activists calling attention to a public problem, which leads quickly to the second stage, wherein the alarmed media and political class discover the issue. The second stage typically includes a large amount of euphoric enthusiasm—you might call it the “dopamine†stage—as activists conceive the issue in terms of global peril and salvation. This tendency explains the fanaticism with which divinity-school dropouts Al Gore and Jerry Brown have warned of climate change.
Then comes the third stage: the hinge. As Mr. Downs explains, there soon comes “a gradually spreading realization that the cost of ‘solving’ the problem is very high indeed.†That’s where we’ve been since the United Nations’ traveling climate circus committed itself to the fanatical mission of massive near-term reductions in fossil fuel consumption, codified in unrealistic proposals like the Kyoto Protocol. This third stage, Mr. Downs continues, “becomes almost imperceptibly transformed into the fourth stage: a gradual decline in the intensity of public interest in the problem.â€
While opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard climate change as a problem, the issue has never achieved high salience among the public, despite the drumbeat of alarm from the climate campaign. Americans have consistently ranked climate change the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues on the annual Pew Research Center poll, while Gallup’s yearly survey of environmental issues typically ranks climate change far behind air and water pollution.
“In the final stage,†Mr. Downs concludes, “an issue that has been replaced at the center of public concern moves into a prolonged limbo—a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest.†Mr. Downs predicted correctly that environmental issues would suffer this decline, because solving such issues involves painful trade-offs that committed climate activists would rather not make.
Unlike many of my readers I think that human-induced climate change is a genuine problem. I don’t know how urgent the problem is and, frankly, I’m skeptical of anybody who tells you that they do know.
I also think that the measures that have been proposed to reduce carbon emissions are horribly regressive and, sadly, ineffectual, since carbon emissions increase geometrically with income. Tax-based schemes will only affect the poorest; the rich will just pay the taxes. That’s why I think that capture and sequester are better strategies for reducing carbon emissions than carbon taxes. But that assumes that you want to reduce carbon emissions rather than increase taxes and control.
I would be one of those readers who don’t find the case that it matters very compelling. I suppose now is as good a time as any to put forth real commentary rather than snark:
1. The theoretical underpinning is easy. CO2 simply is a gas with greenhouse properties. Period. Unfortunately, materiality of effect has not been demonstrated relative to other natural and periodic phenomena. If material at all, it looks like a fourth or fifth order effect, totally dominated by other variables.
2. As such, it has not been predictive. In fact, the proponents have had to modify their predictions to fit their story, even doctoring data. That’s the scientific kiss of death. We are now decades past the predicted calamities. Just recently advocates moved the goal posts down the road some 50 years so they wouldn’t have to do anything but cry wolf.
3. The second stage (cited above) predictably was pounced on by politicians and anti-growth zealots to advocate for taxes, grinding industrial economies to a halt and redistribution.
4. No effective solutions get traction with the AGW proponents. Sequestration is nice, but there is no real effort. Nuclear power is the obvious solution, even the French do it. Not a chance here. It lays bare the proponents real motivations. Electric cars are currently a fraud. The total environmental footprint equals or exceeds internal combustion vehicles. Mass transit? Only in very limited locales. And see #5.
5. The hopelessness of compliance should be obvious. The Chinese, Indians etc have no intention of compliance and our efforts would be lost in far decimal places compared to them. More importantly, here in the US very, very few really take it seriously. People drive at a whim – for shopping, ice cream, joy rides. And its mostly one person per car. Car pooling? Mass transit. No thanks or very limited.
I won’t pay much attention to it all until I see real live predictable results, and practical (not ideological) and effective solutions proposed. From where I sit, the advocates have cooked their own goose through over reach.
Yeah, I like nuclear, too. IMO the perfect solution for power generation is small, modular thorium reactors. I think the Indians are likely to perfect those and deploy them rapidly while we’re still arguing over it. Just too many vested interests here.
… snark …
To be clear, I mock and deride. If you do not understand @Drew’s first point, you are unqualified to make a scientific argument, no matter how much you proclaim to be ‘science-based’.
It does not take a PhD in physics to understand his first point, but you must have some scientific curiosity. Quoting political pundits or regurgitating opinion polls is not science. It is the opposite of modern science – objective and experimental. It is Medieval science – subjective and philosophical.
To me, the biggest problem with the debate on climate change is that both sides see certainty where there is uncertainty.
While I think it’s pretty well established that human CO2 emissions have contributed to warming temperatures over the last century, and it’s also true that our pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere that wouldn’t otherwise be there comes, at the very least, with some big risks, the fundamental problem is that there is still so much we don’t know – even basic stuff.
And you don’t have to take my word for it, just read the IPCC reports which are the consensus view of the climate change research community (though the IPCC and its methods and conclusions are obviously not without critics).
– We don’t know the earth’s climate sensitivity to CO2. This is a big deal since the estimated range is currently very large – if it’s at the lower bound, then effects will be minimal and manageable, if it’s at the upper bound, effects will be unpredictable and potentially severe. We also don’t know if the effects of CO2 on temperature is linear or not.
So anyone who makes claims about the future effects of CO2 is either engaging in sophistry or is ignorant. We don’t know what future global temperature will be because we don’t know the climate’s sensitivity to CO2. It all depends on the assumptions you make.
But almost all the media reports on the future impact of climate change are based on a single IPCC scenario, known as RCP 8.5. This is the worst-case scenario out of all the potential scenarios the IPCC tracks. It is also considered one of the least likely scenarios, but the vast majority of predictions about future effects are based on it with nary a mention of the alternatives.
So, I could go on, but the point is there is so much we just don’t know. And the IPCC reports themselves are very clear about the uncertainties (for the most part), but those uncertainties never get addressed by advocates who either insist that climate change is a certain catastrophe or a complete hoax.
We need more study in this area and we need a debate that is less politicized to allow the research to proceed absent bias from outside political influence. Unfortunately, there’s zero chance that will happen.
I know nothing; NOTHING.
Andy
You are obviously free to have your own opinions and interpretations. I would simply encourage you to read very carefully the criticisms of the data. The data are chocked full of, ahem, “adjustments.” Those adjustments cranked down temps in past years to make curves appear upward sloping.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. In B School, when I thought I might go into futures trading (thank god I didn’t) I took a couple econometrics courses. Give me some data and I’ll give you any answer you want………..
The advocates for action (usually calling for tons of other people’s money to be spent the way they want) always leave out the uncertainties in their advocacy because to include them would be inconvenient, then blame the scientific community when the data stubbornly refuses to comply with their narrative. Hence the situation some years ago where scientists in Italy were criminally charged with a crime over an earthquake.
Don’t you remember that joke of mine?
Read the IPCC reports, and follow the science over many years and not just what some pro or anti blog tells you what you want to hear. I think it is pretty clear that we have man made CO2 warming. It is not a 4th or 5th order problem. I agree with Andy that we don’t really know the sensitivity to CO2. I also agree it is not good, actually harmful, to just use the worst estimates to try to scare people. That said, even the middle of the road predictions could be pretty bad. If you are at all risk averse, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to avoid that if we can at a reasonable cost.
Which I think there is a good chance we can do. There is still lots of ongoing research as Pruitt hasn’t been able to stop all of it. The Allam cycle plants may have some promise. The costs of wind and solar continue to drop, an din some places they are now cheaper than coal and gas. I wish we could get over the dichotomy of all renewables or no renewables. Maybe in the far off future we can have all renewables, but for the next 50 years or more, I think we need to use combinations of power sources, probably including nukes, and looking at reduced use of power. Coincidentally, there are probably significantly positive health effects from reducing some of our fossil fuel usage, so that is a bonus.
Steve
Medieval scientific method was consensus based, and had Galileo not pointed his telescope to the sky, the consensus would still be that the Earth is the center of the universe.
The Modern scientific method is experience based. @Drew’s second point is about the predictability required by modern science, and the same result should be obtainable by anybody. The consensus must conform to the result, and a ‘good guess’ is not the same as ‘validated’.
It is known that there is a physical phenomenon that results in CO2 retaining more heat as it gets higher in the atmosphere. It is known that CO2 levels have been increasing. It is known that humans are artificially exhausting CO2 into the atmosphere.
These are three facts, and to-date, they have not been validated as being dependent upon one another.
As @Drew notes, CO2 is a miniscule greenhouse gas, and the amount of CO2 that would be required to accomplish what is predicted is enormous. Basically, humans would be dead. Furthermore, the increased CO2 is adding heat because of the increased pressure caused from the mass of the increased CO2.
The cause of the increased CO2 levels is unknown. Because deforestation causes less CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere, it contributes to additional CO2. (The same consensus that says this is equalized is the same group that once discounted the oceans as a factor.) Off-gassing by the oceans occurs as additional heat is added to the water, and other natural phenomenon contribute as well.
The accounting of the amount humans have/are contributing is disputed. Cow farts add greenhouse gases, and humans have caused an unnatural number of cattle. So, should more cow farts be blamed on humans. Humans are chopping down forests and paving over the land. In any case, it is likely that humans will be dead before they can contribute enough CO2.
In addition to the oceans, the Earth’s magnetic field is vital to having and keeping any atmosphere, and this is rarely included in any discussions.
The IPCC is nothing more than a group of Medieval scientist, and like the Medieval scientists, they appeal to the Pope or government to enforce their worthless consensus. As @Drew pointed out, the data is compromised beyond repair, and they are too dishonest to allow anybody to test their consensus.
Integral to the modern scientific method is falsifiability. There is no ‘settled science’. The modern scientific method requires all science to be unsettable. Trying to falsify a hypothesis/theory is part of the validation process. A consensus is not required to establish the ‘settled science’ because nobody can falsify it, yet. (That last word is not negotiable.)
The wheels fell off the AGW bus in the summer of 2010, and now, fewer scientific people are chanting the mantra. The AGW experts are politicians, actors, musicians, political pundits, and statisticians.
(I am fully aware that I am not using the technical terms.)
I confess, Dave, that I had forgotten that post until I saw it again. However, I remember well the concept as you have applied it to economic data, where the adjustments dwarf the thing attempting to be measured.
steve – believe what you want. The popular data has been poisoned beyond repair. Those who remove the arbitrary adjustments (primarily from the type of measurement instruments and their location) come up with radically different results. Ultimately the issue comes down to repeatability and predictability. In science, you either have it or you don’t. You don’t bend or revise your predictions over time. Politicians do that. If you listened to the alarmists we’d all be under water. The global “scientific” community overplayed their hand, but the grants sure were nice………
That’s the reason I don’t pay as much attention to the BLS’s Employment Situation Report as I used to. The sad thing is that it didn’t used to be that way. They’ve been using adjustments for years but the adjustments haven’t always been so much larger than what they’re measuring.
“Medieval scientific method was consensus based”
That really wasn’t a scientific method, and religion dominated what people believed, not science.
“In science, you either have it or you don’t. You don’t bend or revise your predictions over time. ”
Actually, you do. Remember that Pi used to equal 3 1/7. We now have much more accurate characterization of Pi. We used to not have microscopes. Then we did and disease theory ended up changing. We used to not be able to measure very high temperatures of very low temperatures. Now we are better at it, so calculations change. That is how science works. We don’t say, well we had to guesstimate those numbers in the past because we couldn’t measure them well, but we don’t want to change those numbers because our new, more accurate devices for measuring give us different numbers. You are, in essence suggesting I go in to work tomorrow and exsanguinate all of my patients because that is what they used to believe worked. Well, we can actually measure Blood pressures now and we can do blood gases so we can actually evaluate what happens when we do that. We don’t do it anymore (on purpose).
As I said, I ignore the alarmists. I think we all should. I think most of us do, except for people on the right like you (and some on the far left which I will admit, is becoming just as big a group as the far right). Those are the only opinions to which you are exposed. Tis a shame. When you read the real scientists, which you won’t when reading in your own bubble, you see a lot of different opinions and much less alarmism. You do see the desire to effect change.
The “tiny” amounts of CO2 not being able to cause changes is a common right wing trope. Very tiny amounts of a chemical causing massive changes in a system is actually a fairly well known phenomenon.
Steve
@steve
Medieval scientist was based upon Greek knowledge, especially Aristotle, and it was the consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe. The Pope got involved because the Medieval scientists complained about Galileo taking away their business.
PI has been PI since the Greeks first worked out the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle. It has been 22/7, and anybody can calculate it out to as many decimal points as they desire.
The ‘tiny amount trope’ is not a right wing conspiracy. It is a scientific reality. CO2 is a small fraction of the total atmosphere density, and it is a poor heat conductor. On the geological time & size scale, ‘tiny’ is not quite so tiny, and it is going to take a lot of it to make any difference.
As to the Medieval scientific method, it was philosophical based. Interestingly, many who still use the Medieval scientific method also use Medieval logic.
As to you bleeding your patients, the problem is that it does not work, but because it was the consensus, people died. The advances in medical science have been due to objective based research, and this includes during the Greek and Medieval periods. If you believe in consensus as a basis for medical science, you should follow the Medieval medical practices.
“PI has been PI since the Greeks first worked out the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle. It has been 22/7, and anybody can calculate it out to as many decimal points as they desire.”
Hope you don’t really believe that though it would explain your beliefs about science. Pi is, arguably, the most famous irrational number. Feel free to look that up. It is also, as boy genius likes to remind me, transcendental.
Steve
Archimedes calculated the upper bound of pi as 22/7 in 250 BC (he calculated the lower bound as 223/71). He calculated the value of pi to 7 digits using a geometric method.
Dave- All you have to do is pull out your calculator. Divide 22 by 7 and you get 3.142857. Surely everyone who took math beyond grade school knows the first few numbers for PI. 3.14159265 is what we had to know, but folks should at least know 3.1415. Maybe I am showing my age here. You don’t really have to calculate Pi your self as you can look it up out to a zillion places now. At any rate, there is no reason to believe it equals 22/7 and hope TB was just engaging in odd humor.
But, should TB actually care to calculate Pi, this youtube will help. Love this guy’s enthusiasm. (And yes, we celebrate at our house on 3/14. Usually cherry but we are flexible.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrRMnzANHHs
Steve
@steve
There are no technical limits to calculating PI. Unless you have an astonishing memory, you need paper, pencil, and time. Since it is irrational, there is no limit to the number of decimal points, and the time would be infinite. More importantly, Greek geometry is objective, and if somebody can demonstrate it is incorrect, no consensus will help. (non-Euclidean geometry excepted)
The Greeks were able to calculate the circumference of the Earth, and they were not far off. They did not require a supercomputer, and their predictions are still used today.
Capture and sequester and thorium are turning into 21st Century fusion power: alway promised, never delivered.
But that assumes that you want to reduce carbon emissions rather than increase taxes and control.
Exxon and Shell both commissioned research into AGW in the 1970s. Both teams concluded it was real, and the consequences could be dire should we wait for further confirmation. Roughly forty people, the boards of directors and CEOs of those two companies, chose to bury the reports.
Forty people, unaccountable for the act, made a decision on behalf of every human who lived and who would every live, and on behalf of every complex species on this planet. They didn’t ask, they didn’t get our permission to dictate our futures, they just did it and to hell with voluntary consent.
Increase control? We’re already living under centralized control any dictator would find admirable.
Well, the skeptics might get their day in court: Judge Orders EPA to Produce Science behind Pruitt’s Warming Claims.
My guess is that it will be Discovery Institute-level “science”.
Small modular thorium reactors are in a different class: they’re known to work. The Netherlands has one online right now.