I’m a sucker for taxonomies. I find them handy ways of organizing my thoughts. When I was a kid I remember poring for hours over the huge trees illustrating the relationships among species of animals or the Indo-European languages. Some of my earliest posts were attempts to identify a taxonomy of blogospheric positions on the war in Iraq.
For similar reasons I found this classification of positions on climate change from physics prof Richard Muller at Huffington Post interesting. The positions he identifies are:
- Alarmists
- Exaggerators
- Warmists
- Lukewarmists
- Skeptics
- Deniers
For a more detailed explanation read the linked post.
I don’t know that I’ve seen a better example of how revealing naming something can be about how you think about it. For some reason those classifications give me the impression that anyone other than a “warmist” or “lukewarmist” would object to the classification under which they found themselves.
My own view as is so often the case doesn’t fit handily into the classifications. Maybe a “warmist” or “lukewarmist” but with a difference: I’m much more interested in the policy prescriptions. Far too often I find the prescriptions of the “alarmists” are only tangentially related to the problem they’re trying to solve. I keep remembering (I still don’t remember who said it) that when Party A wants to take money from Party B to help Party C, smell a rat.
I think that when you start trying to nail down an effective policy that could be politically possible you end up with a hybrid energy future that includes fossil fuels and nuclear as well as “alternative” sources coupled with engineering approaches to reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Otherwise you always run afoul of the economic equivalent of Augustine’s wisecrack: “O Lord, grant me chastity and continence but not yet.”
Far too often I find the prescriptions of the “alarmists†are only tangentially related to the problem they’re trying to solve.
How so? Most ‘alarmists’ say we need to reduce drastically CO2, the output of which is the problem we are trying to solve. Their plans about how to do this might be terrible, but they are hitting the nail on the head, albeit with a bad hammer.
An objective is a diagnosis not a prescription. The most commonly encountered prescription is a carbon tax. No foreseeable carbon tax would accomplish the objective. No measure in which China does not participate will accomplish the objective.
Yep, they diagnosed the problem and are now offering solutions that probably would have been brilliant 30 years ago. I think that’s why I can’t get too worked up over the issue, it’s being ridden like a rented mule by all manner of luddite yelling that the barn door must be closed NOW. . . now that the horse is ten miles down the road. Dear Marin County: no, you are not saving the world by riding your bike, you’re just screwing up traffic flow.
The way I see it the key problem goes back to 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol (which we never ratified) was adopted. The countries of the world other than the U. S. and a few other holdouts decided they’d rather pretend to solve the problem rather than acknowledge that without Chinese cooperation the problem was insoluble.
After Kyoto was rejected, what happened? Nothing, basically, for a long and significant amount of time. Bush made PR noises, while every conservative around him mocked the idea that it was happening, and gladly went after actual scientists. Obama has been better only on paper.
So the question is whether or not the stated reason for rejecting Kyoto–the lack of inclusion of China and India–is going to be believed. I’m going to say no–that it won’t be. The key problem won’t be China, then; it will be that our government never took it seriously.
What’s weird is that people think that there’s an escape clause to being held responsible for inaction simply because a physicist tries to make the inaction sound reasonable in a short trite essay. I have a feeling that the release of the email archives of the CEI will be revealing, if it happens.
“The key problem won’t be China, then; it will be that our government never took it seriously.”
Kyoto shmoto. The issue is that without BRICKs, especially China, the US can do nothing material short of returning to the Stone Age, which would suit some alarmists just fine. For those who believe this to be a real problem, at least get behind strategies that are viable. After all, we have only 6 weeks until certain planetary extinction………………again.
BBC has an update on geo-engineering: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160425-how-a-giant-space-umbrella-could-stop-global-warming
I’m between a warmist, lukewarmist and a skeptic, depending on the specific topic (There can be large differences of opinion between contemporary and historic temperature measurements, study of the global climate system and the effect of CO2 on that system, and predictions of future effects given different levels of warming). I actually read the IPCC reports which summarize the science. Even on basic questions (like the sensitivity of CO2), the science actually contains a lot of uncertainty. I agree with the author that the extremes pretty much ignore the actual science in favor of a “truthy” interpretation of it.
I have considered myself a skeptic for some time. By the definitions presented in the piece posted such a designation remains unchanged. While I do believe the climate is changing, the reasons behind these changes are far from being “settled,” IMO. There have refuted said science, along with innumerable flaws noted and data dismissively treated that brings in alternative POVs. Even the role of CO2 has been contested as to how it effects the environment – how harmful or marginly beneficial it might be.
I think that until we can agree that the world is warming (still denied by much of the right) and its cause (mostly human input) it is premature to talk about policy. As to China it is a problem that will at least partially solve itself. They are having major pollution issues. They are investing in natural gas, nuclear and alternative energy in big numbers.
“Even the role of CO2 has been contested as to how it effects the environment – how harmful or marginly beneficial it might be.”
Just to pick one item, this has largely been based upon studies where they flood a greenhouse (lab) with a lot of CO2. The plants grow better and give better yields. However, in the real world, carbon is seldom the limiting factor in plant growth. In nature, or in agriculture, nitrogen, phosphorus and other elements/compounds are usually the rate limiting factor. When you add CO2 in a greenhouse prepared to reflect realistic growing conditions, you don’t reliably get better growth.
Steve
There are literally tons of alternative theories regarding climate change out there, if you’re willing to peruse differing published articles and, with an open mind, consider the information presented within them. This is why, IMO, being a skeptic is not a derelict position to have — especially as there is even conflicting evidence as to whether or not we are truly warming, cooling or remaining in a relative “pause” or temperature stasis. It has also been long asserted, by those dealing with weather science, that opposition voices to global warming have been routinely hushed, their data belittled and given no recognition — let alone funding — in the IPCC’s concerted efforts to dominate these discussions and politically control outcomes.
In this USA Today column the Weather Channel founder, John Coleman, opines about how much influence politics and closed scientific thinking has in upholding the concrete metrics applied in interpreting current global warming theories and trends.
Furthermore, where is ongoing work, showing conflicting weather models, that might challenge and/or update the settled science meme surrounding the unchanged and “acceptable models” being used by the IPCC ?