Jonathan Holmes’ piece on the Carter Drum brouhaha (see Phil’s earlier post for general discussion on this topic) contains many disturbing aspects. But there’s one bit that particularly caught my eye:
Climate change is a vast topic, with aspects that are political, and moral, and even religious, as well as scientific. Principal relevant views clearly include those that hold that the science isn’t settled, and even that global warming alarmism is a global green conspiracy.
The first sentence is clearly true. But it adds nothing whatsoever to the truth or falsity of the second statement. In fact, the existence of additional dimensions beyond the scientific has no bearing whatsoever on the relevance of the tiny minority of scientists who think that the consensus science of anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally wrong. But since it seems to be confusing one of Australia’s most prominent journalists (one whose work I have long admired, for instance, his work on energy topics at Four Corners was truly excellent), it’s worth examining what the role of science, and scientists, in the broader public discussion on climate change is, and the role of journalists in reporting it.
The science of climate change is, at its core, a simple proposition: that increasing the proportion of carbon dioxide, methane, and sundry other substances in the atmosphere alters the Earth’s climate. Scientists have built computational models that attempt to predict the detail of the changes to the climate. The details of this numerical modeling are exceedingly complex, and there are still many uncertainties. However, virtually all of these uncertainties are squarely in the domain of natural science, the “home turf” of science. It is only human activity, and the consequent emission rates (and, to a small extent, albedo changes due to land clearing) which lie with the expertise of non-scientists. However, the uncertainties which science can’t answer are actually pretty easy to treat as parameters in models; consequently, climate scientists can give predictions based on a range of greenhouse gas levels; by contrast, understanding the interaction of the natural world with increased greenhouse gas levels, and turning such qualitative understandings into predictive models, throws up all sorts of very challenging scientific problems.
So climate scientists can, within certain confidence intervals , predict what’s going to happen to the climate. But the human consequences of that changed climate, let alone what the appropriate response to the knowledge? Not their turf. Yes, many climate scientists, because they understand what’s at stake, have thought a lot about those latter topics, and are undoubtedly worth hearing on it. But does their professional standing give them any right to crowd out other voices on these latter topics? Not on your life. In fact, the mass media often makes the mistake of paying too much attention to climate scientists on the how of mitigation and adaptation. James Hansen’s support of nuclear power is no more or less interesting than any other informed lay onlooker.
But, in the case of Carter, we’re not debating the merits of mitigation or adaptation strategies. We have a scientist, a representative of a very small minority of scientists with relevant expertise, querying the scientific accuracy of the conclusions, and predictions, of mainstream climate science. Does Carter – or any other “skeptic” dispute that this is a scientific question? Not at all. More generally, “skeptics”, or “denialists”, claim some combination of two factors at work – that mainstream climate science is the result of good-faith but incorrect science, or, worse, the result of the perversion of the scientific process, through some kind of conspiracy. In this case, how does an ABC journalist cover this essentially scientific dispute, regardless that a large variety of other forces have lined up on one side or the other?
In the first case, that of good-faith but wrong science, the first thing to note is that general-interest journalists are utterly unqualified to referee the detail of scientific disputes. Disappointing as it may be to journalists, unless they want to knuckle down and study a science at postgraduate level, they don’t, and shouldn’t, get involved in the nitty-gritty of scientific disputes. All they can realistically do is determine the spectrum of expert scientific opinion, and report it. In the case of climate science, as Jonathan acknowledges, the vast majority of experts agree on the broad outlines of anthropogenic climate change. There remain genuine, live, disputes on many issues, but, frankly, from a public policy perspective they matter little – they’re disputes over whether climate change will be merely catastrophic or civilization-ending if current emissions trend hold for much longer. Therefore, a diligent journalist operating under the ABC’s policy guidelines can best present the “diversity of relevant perspectives” on the scientific basis of climate change by presenting the vast array of scientists who all agree on the issue at hand – not seek to assist the lone iconoclast urinating into the hurricane of contrary expert opinion.
The perversion of the scientific process, particularly through conspiracy, falls more squarely into the remit of journalists. Indeed, the ABC’s own journalists have done excellent work exposing scientific fraud. So it’s entirely appropriate for journalists to report evidence of dodgy climate science. But isn’t it the job of journos to cast a skeptical eye on theories about “global green conspiracies” before giving them prominence? Despite considerable popular support, 9/11 truthers haven’t exactly gotten much of a run in the mainstream media; the idea that relatively poorly-resourced environmentalists and climate scientists could effectively, and secretly, construct an entire flawed scientific discipline, just to take down the profit centers of many of the world’s biggest and most powerful companies, shouldn’t even meet the laugh test.
Personally, I suspect it comes down to the fact that, unlike 9/11 truthers, the currently dominant faction of one side of Australian politics seems to believe this particular conspiracy theory. Therefore, as far as ABC journos are concerned, it deserves to be taken seriously. It may be the line of least resistance, but I can’t see how it’s living up to the ABC’s charter.
Well said.
I second Josh.
Me third!
Fourth!
Fifth!
“…not seek to assist the lone iconoclast urinating into the hurricane of contrary expert opinion.”
Errmm…Isn’t that just the sort of thing which DOES attract MSM interest? Even if it is rediculous?
“…secretly, construct an entire flawed scientific discipline, just to take down the profit centers of many of the world’s biggest and most powerful companies, shouldn’t even meet the laugh test.”
Precisely! Sooner or later, most reasonable people should get this point.
Paranoid conspiracy theorists like Monckton will of course bang on about it into the sunset. Trying to muzzle them might just feed their frenzy, whereas giving them extra airplay might also stoke them further?
Conspiracy theorists continue to bang on about many other wild ideas, while life goes on around them. Why should this one be any different?
By the way, wasn’t Monckton claiming that not only were virtually all the world’s scientists involved in a giant conspiracy, but also the political leaders in a giant conspiracy to form a global government?
I guess Copenhagen put paid to the latter plank of his conspiracy theory?
Occam’s Razor ought to put paid to the first plank.
If you have a mass of data pointing in one direction, then perhaps every bit of evidence from natural science has been forged in concert, to create a giant fraud. And scientists, who normally spend their time debating with each other and delighting in exposing errors in others’ work, are all in accord and keeping a giant secret. Yeah, right…
Alternatively, there is a straightforward explanation related to a common underlying cause.
There is a perception at the moment is that we are being asked to choose between the end of the economic world as we know or the the end of the ecological world as we know it. We are also being told that, the longer we wait to do something about emissions, the greater the risk of reaching some trigger point that sets of methane releases (or what-ever) that will accelerate the warming process. Then there is ocean acidification issue.
To make matters worse there has been a lot of good climate science going on for a long time. It makes matters worse because the research is making the science more complex rather than simpler. Given the above choices it is hardly surprising that the debate is attracting media attention.
As we investigate various temperature blips in the past the picture that is emerging is that of a climate that is influenced by more than solar cycles and human activity. For me, this uncertainty adds to the ecological risk and strengthens the case for climate action. For others, this is seen as an argument for avoiding any short term risk to the economy “until we have more proof.”
So what should supporters of climate action do? If our message is that we must go onto a “war footing” of have to bring CO2 back to 350 ppm from the current Mauna Loa figure of 388 ppm we are simply supporting the “end of the economy as we know it” perception, the outcome is likely to be no action at all. On the other hand, if we concentrate on action that will not damage the economy we will give the world more time to accept the science, convince people that reducing emissions does not kill the economy (and may actually stimulate it.)
Above all, climate action supporters should resist the temptation to try and keep people like Carter off the ABC. If the recent Quadrant article is an example of what he says it is certainly not going to help his scientific credibility and the perception of suppression strengthens his case without exposing his argument to scrutiny. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t complain about the lack of balance of the OZ but I am not sure that the same can be said about the ABC just because they thought about giving Carter a run.
Further to Robert Merkel’s observations at the start of this blog, Jonathan Holmes’ article is proposing a curious positive feedback loop.
If there are a vanishingly small number of people holding a whacky view that the dark side of the moon is blue, then they will be ignored. If the number gets slightly above vanishingly small, then it justifies coverage.
Coverage by a trusted news source is likely to make gullible people think this must be a relevant idea. The number holding this view then increases, justifying further coverage.
Etc, etc. Positive feedback loop. Bulldust amplified.
With this concept in place, presumably the ABC will soon be enthusiastically supporting all sorts of crap, like conspiracy theories from Monckton, Spanish Inquisitions from Carter, and who knows what else?
“the idea that relatively poorly-resourced environmentalists and climate scientists could effectively, and secretly, construct an entire flawed scientific discipline, just to take down the profit centers of many of the world’s biggest and most powerful companies, shouldn’t even meet the laugh test.”
perfectly said, tyvm
Elise @ 8, I made a point on the other thread about the absurdity of Holmes’ position in suggesting that the fact the 30% or whatever didn’t believe in AGW provided a warrant to trigger the ABC’s balance policy.
Very good post, Robert, but one minor point. Reference was made to “relatively poorly-resourced environmentalists”.
Carter’s talks have a whole section on the funds available to world-wide environmental groups. More than political parties, he says. I don’t know how accurate his figures are, but clearly chasing whalers in the Antarctic doesn’t come cheap.
WWF have offices in Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth and Darwin plus staff in regional areas.
Here are the jobs currently available in The Wilderness Society. This story refers to 140 TWS staff.
I’m not making some anti-green statement. More power to their arm if they are doing good for the environment. But I was surprised at the size of TWS in that last link.
John D @ 7, Hansen’s book says that methane clathrates leak out every so often. He reckons that after the PETM event 55mya it would have taken only a few million years to re-load the methane gun as it were. But there has been a long term cooling trend since then, which has kept the clathrates stored and presumably added to the store. So the whole thing is most likely quite precariously placed and is showing worrying signs.
They are conflating the concept of “skeptic” with the high office of “maverick”, which the Right always accede to when logic and/or facts are scarce.
Nicely put. I suspect that journalism, largely attracted to personalities, is confusing substance with flavour.
Sure, Brian, but put Greenpeace, WWF, TWS, the Sierra Club (in the US), etc. etc. etc. together, and throw in the salaries and research grants of every climate scientist in the world, and you’re still probably talking not much more than a billion dollars a year.
ExxonMobil alone earns that in little over a week.
I think “relatively poorly-resourced” is a fair call.
That’s logical, Robert. I’d still say that environmental groups are not poorly resourced, in case that impression was given. In climate science more resources are clearly needed. Hansen put up a proposal in the early 90s to measure aerosols more accurately, which he reckons is not hard to do technically and would resolve some of the uncertainty about their net effect. He was knocked back by a committee chaired by Al Gore at the time.
The stronger argument, I think, is that a grand conspiracy on the scale alleged simply could not be organised. To think it could is delusionist.
In a recent letter to the Queensland Country Life a correspondent claimed that there were only 10-15 climate scientists who genuinely believe in AGW, and on this site of the wholly delusionist Climate Sceptics Party there was a suggestion that Keith Briffa might be the first to break ranks, turn whistle-blower and blow the whole scam sky high. No particular reason was given.
BTW, here’s a delusionist view of the Holmes article, along with a knee-jerk sneer at Hansen.
Brian @: Thanks for the temp and CO2 data for the last 60 m yr. Hadn’t seen it before or realized CO2 may have got over 2000 ppm as recently as this.
Was the stuff on clatherates a response to to my talking about the perception of the need of the ecological world as we know it? All I am trying to say is that perceptions have a large impact on the extent to which climate action is supported and practiced. At the moment there are perceptions out there that are reducing this support including:
1. “AGW is crap/being exaggerated”.
2. “It is not worth doing anything because the Chinese are not going to do anything.”
3. “Climate action must destroy the economy/our way of life.”
If we want climate action we need to deal with all these perceptions.
Slightly off topic but relevent. The Oil Drum is bulging with interest today. Here is one link
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6271 climate data endurance
John D, it was really in response to this part of the comment:
I should have expanded a bit.
The IPCC in 2007 said we had to peak emissions on a world basis by 2015. A couple of my posts leading up to Copenhagen quoted modelling largely from the Potsdam Institute indicating how much more difficult the exercise becomes if you leave peaking to 2020 or later.
Hansen signed off his book in October 2009 and said we have to be “on a very different path” within 5 years. He’s very worried about the clathrates and thinks that if we mine all the coal, oil and gas in the ground there is a fair chance of triggering the Venus syndrome. He thinks we need to peak around 400ppm rather than 450ppm as now commonly assumed.
Obviously it is hard for politicians to get to far beyond public perception, which is why we need real leadership that will seek to bring public perception along with the necessary action if we want decent odds on fixing this thing.
I’m waiting for a politician with a proper sense of urgency apart from places like the Maldives. Until that happens I’m pessimistic.
Brian @14:
Dont confuse the rationalist Australian Skeptics (http://www.skeptics.com.au/) with the agmates The Climate Sceptics Party loonies.
Brian @17: Yes, I put that one in because I think that there really is a dilemma. Do you argue for what really ought to be done when the likely outcome is a drop in support for action and a growth in support for the “don’t act until we are sure of the science” brigade and risk that the outcome will be that nothing at all will be done? OR do we argue for what has a much better chance of being supported so that at least we delay the crisis?
My line is that action will always sound scary if we have no experience of emisisons actually being reduced and the proposals for action are things like carbon tax systems that end up being complex. By contrast, a simple direct action plan is less scary because it can be understood.
For example, our per capita power consumption is about 10,000kwh/yr. So a one cent per kWh increase in price adds $100/yr/person to our annual power bill. My calcs suggest that, a 32 yr cleanup program using a combination of renewables and CCGT transition would increase the price by only 0.76 cents/kWh by the end of the first 10 yrs and 4 cents/kw at the end of the cleanup program assuming no technical advances and ignoring inflation. (Assumes investment driven by contracts for the supply of cleaner electricity.) Bit hard to run a scare campaign on these figures. Post pending.
There’s a kind of popular liberalism that argues that everybody has their own truth and morals and lets all just get along ‘toleration’, well represented in some responses to the challenge of religious fundamentalism. Holmes represents this. In fact liberalism should be a fighting faith as Arthur Schlesinger argued.
John D @ 19, Don Dunstan, bless him, was one of the first pollies to use opinion polls. He used them not to see which opinions he had to follow, but which opinions he needed to change if he was going to govern in the public interest as he saw it.
Unfortunately we don’t have that kind of political leadership these days, but it’s what is needed if we are going to achieve a safe climate with reasonable risk.
In the post I linked to you can see how the gravity of the problem ramps up in Figure 3 if we don’t get cracking. Figure 4 illustrates the the “remaining emissions budget” perspective, which takes into account global equity. If we are similarly placed to the US then we have 6 years at current emissions rates. Beyond that we are depriving developing countries the right to pollute their way to wealth.
When it comes to strategies I’m torn between what ought to happen and what is likely to be possible given the absence of visionary leadership. I reckon 45% reduction by 2020 as advocated by the Greens and zero by 2030 is a reasonable compromise. That’s what I said at the end of the linked post. Then go negative from 2030 to 2050 to get down to 350ppm.
How you get there is another story. I’d readily concede that process engineers would have a better idea than would I.
Steve @ 18, yes I misnamed the Climate Sceptics Party. Fixed now.
Brian, if there is a political leadership vacuum on the AGW issue, what are the chances that it could get filled by some charismatic leader outside of politics at present?
Brian @21: You can get zero gen by 2030. All you have to do is close down all coal mines, oil wells etc. that do their emissions offset in some way by 2030. However, it is a bit hard to say to what extent the world could set itself up in the next 20 years so that we could all live reasonable lives after this has happened.
Keep in mind that the “we” includes Chinese,Indians etc. who have got the same rights as us to aspire to “a reasonable life”. So we are talking about generating a lot of emissions building the extra infrastructure, factories etc. that are required to allow Indians etc. to live reasonable lives in a zero gen world as well as the not insubstantial action to convert our infrastructure.
I am sure the Barnaby Joyce’s of the world would turn all the above into pretty scary stuff that would be used to justify no action at all. Arguments in favour of intermediate solutions would be lost in the media frenzy re the debate between alternate ways of ending the world as we know it.
The reality is that we can make a lot of progress doing things that would ahve little effect on quality of life or standard of living.
Europeans manage to lead reasonable lives with per capita emissions at 36% of the Australian figure. So perhaps we should start by developing a plan to match Europe? Barnaby could hardly argue that getting to this level means the end of Australian civilization.
Time to stop messing about with distortions on AGW and the IPCC, and the “dodgy science” myths.
Here’s a good starting point – people at the sharp end debating the real issues, and brought to you – wait for it – by the ABC. All from the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting.
AAAS President 2010 Peter Agre
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2834029.htm
AAAS forum – Public trust in science
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2837916.htm
John D @ 24, here’s one way carving up the pie, here’s another. In both cases agriculture and land use represent difficult problems. I reckon 45% by 2020 for an advanced nation is achievable, but zero is going to be quite difficult.
Then as you say we have the developing countries. We are going to have to put as much effort into solving poverty and providing opportunity for development for the poor without causing more emissions, indeed reducing them. Having them go to zero too is really hard.
Brian: I know you’re a local: you might be interested in hearing a talk tomorrow (10th) eve by
Dr Doone Wyborn; Chief Scientific Officer, Geodynamics – “Enhanced Geothermal Systems: the answer to Australia’s requirement for large scale base load clean power”. It’s being put on by Doctors and Scientists for Sustainability and Social Justice (D3SJ), as part of the regular meeting program.
Details: 5.30pm – biscuits, coffee/tea 6.00pm – presentations & discussion 7.00pm – meeting concludes – enthusiastic participants are encouraged to continue discussion over dinner at another venue
Venue: Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology Boardrooms, 134 Whitmore St (Swann Rd end), Taringa. Go to reception (off upper car park) & signs will direct from there. Parking is available on site (upper car park- anywhere there is a space or lower car parks in the non reserved spaces). There’s also plenty of nearby on-street parking (with no meters/time limit) at that time of day.
Who should attend: Any intelligent person interested in the common good.
Cost: FREE!
Danny, thanks, I’ll see how I go. Desperately busy these days.
The Science Show on the ABC last night would have been of interest to contributors here. Much of the show was devoted to the question of how Climate Scientists communicate the science to the general public. I found this interesting, but in the last 8 minutes, or so the issue of nuclear hazmat management in Sweden came up along with a broader discussion of nuclear energy policy in general. Interestingly, two communities were competing over the right to have a nuclear wast repository before one finally won out. The speaker made the point that the phase out of siome nuclear facilities led directly to a greater resort to Danish coal fired power.
The commentary was very positive and Gen IV even got a mention. Robyn Williams spoke of nuclear power as “green”.
Next week nuclear power comes up again on the Science Show, where the major options in nuclear fission and the state of fusion will be discussed.
Brian: Thanks for the world emission data. The IPCC 2005 data is in a particularly useful form. I think that the agriculture figure is largely a furphy since most of the methane and nitrous oxides are part of natural cycles rather than the movement of carbon/nitrogen from storage to atmosphere. You haven’t got a similar chart for Australia have you?
I will put my mind to the high speed plan and maybe produce a guest post. However, when you say
it is just too general. For example, Sweden manages to have one of the worlds highest standards of living on just 29% of the Australian 2007 per capita CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. (China is not much lower at 22%) So, while Australia could reduce its emissions by 45% by simply cleaning up electricity, Sweden is unlikely to have the same option. Countries have got to be considered on a case by case basis whether developed or undeveloped.
The figure for India is only 6% of Australia with over half its population getting no electricity at all. So, India it seems unlikely that India will achieve a quality of life that we would find acceptable without major infrastructure development and its associated emissions.
And of course John D, most of Sweden’s stationary energy is supplied by hydro and nuclear … Gas is probably one area where they could cut back in stationary as it still makes up a fair slice.
They do a fair bit of biomass for home heating, and of course import a lot of energy (mainly oil for transport fuels).
John D, the big problem with accounting for agricultural emissions is that we (and our livestock) are eating oil.
Without the enormous petrochemical inputs into agriculture, it’s unlikely that we’d be growing as much rice and as many ruminants.
Fran: Quite so. Sweden shows what can be achieved when you have enough clean infrastructure in place and a population that only grew 0.17%/yr between 2003 and 2007. (Aus= 1.24%/yr). The whole of Europe per capita figure was only 36% of the Aus figure.)
David: This chart referred to by Brian above suggests that most of the greenhouse gases are coming from methane generation , not petrochemicals or energy inputs. It also highlights how unimportant rice emissions are in the scheme of things. You are right of course. If we used less fossil fuel derived chemicals and energy in agriculture there would be less to eat.
The thing is, John, that a lot of the ruminant-generated methane can only happen because we have an overpopulation of oil-fed ruminants. (Fertilisers, herbicides and petrochemical-powered agricultural equipment.)
You’re right of course, if we weren’t eating oil a lot of us would go hungry. I’m really worried about the consequences of peak oil.
DI(nr), in this part of the world there is a lot of free range grazing. A recent government report on the beef industry in Qld found them emissions neutral, including the support industries, because of woody vegetation regrowth and thickening under Qld’s now ferocious tree-clearing laws.
Apparently biodiesel is not hard to make. A few years ago I heard a radio segment suggesting that in growing grain etc it would be like before we had tractors and had to devote a portion of the land to a horse paddock.
John D it’s a bit late tonight, I’ll have a look tomorrow, also for the article about India where they are putting a tax on coal and using the proceeds directly to develop renewables. A form of direct action which might gladden your heart.
John D here’s the Indian article. It’s a proposal.
Incidentally, also found an article about research funded by the US Army, would you believe, on carbon munching bacteria. Too tired to think about what that might mean.
John D@33 said:
Of course, if humanity stopped/radically reduced the raising of livestock (and by extension the food to feed them) and instead used fossil fuels needed to raise vegetable protein and carbohydrate sources and then only/mainly for actual food rather than for consumables of little nutritional value, then humanity would use much less fossil fuel per capita and yet produce far more food per unit of fossil fuel/land/water and potentially per capita.
As always ceteris paribus applies.
Brian, I think we can probably still afford (from an emissions perspective) to grow some ruminants in parts of Australia. I don’t believe that’s the case in other parts of the world, or even in Australia once you consider grain-fed and/or feed-lot cattle.
In the case of feed-lots for foe cattle, pigs and chooks, I’m an animal liberationist irrespective of the emissions issue.
John D @ 30, the emissions flow chart is the only one of its kind I have seen and I don’t think it has been updated since 2005. It’s from the World Resources Unit site, story here.
The usual source of Australian information is Australia’s National Greenhouse Accounts. They do the counting.
On agriculture, I think the methane from ruminants and manure at 5.4% is real enough. By contrast, DR(nr), fuels only account for 1.4% of the whole. A big worry, of course, is peak phosphorus. A major factor is emissions from soil at 5.2% of world GHGs. I understand this is not well measured. Fixing agriculture is major concern, both modern corporate industrial agriculture and smallholder agriculture. But soils should be able to be turned into a net carbon sink by changes in agricultural practice and ditto to minimise the use of fertilisers.
We need to get serious about assistance to developing countries in improving agricultural practice as well as reviewing our own. But a world trend has been to spend less on agricultural research in recent decades. In Australia we produce 700 ag sci graduates pa against an estimated need of 2,000.
But there is a huge challenge also in cities in developing countries, where the people increasingly live. Here again we need to give major help. If we don’t we’ll be overrun by population movements down the track, there will be increased state failure and international co-operation, a sine qua non in fixing this thing, will break down.
BTW I understand the 1.7% in air travel is the fastest increasing component.
End of sermon.
I’ve been meaning to check out a group in Melbourne mentioned by Philip Sutton (of Climate Code Red fame) who are saying we can reach zero emissions by 2020. I think it is beyond ZERO emissions and from a quick look they seem to be focussing on the electricity grid.
Brian: Will look at the zero emissions stuff with interest. There is probably no fundamental reason why Aus can’t reach zero power emissions by 2020. The only stopper may be our ability to mobilize the construction teams etc. More difficult on a world basis because first you have to build the factories to build the bit to make the windmills etc to allow for a world wide surge.
You might be interested in this article on China and green cities. Message is that China is acting while we are debating Clayton schemes.
In terms of feeding the world and reducining emissions we need a number of action plans:
Population reduction plan
Bypassing the market action plan. (The US pays farmers not to produe while others starve issue.
Living fairly without economic growth action plan.
Emissions reduction plan
Carbon storage plan