by Judith Curry
[P]ublic support for the environment is at more than 30 year-low, cap and trade is dead, perhaps for good, and global warming has become as partisan and polarizing an issue as abortion and gun control.
Climate Pragmatism offers a framework for renewed American leadership on climate change that’s effectiveness, paradoxically, does not depend on any agreement about climate science or the risks posed by uncontrolled greenhouse gases.
Posted in Policy
by Judith Curry
There is much hype and debate surrounding Spencer and Bradwell’s new paper “On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in earth’s radiant energy balance.” So lets sort through all this.
Posted in Sensitivity & feedbacks
Posted in Week in review
by Judith Curry
So, who are the “cool dudes”? Well, if you are reading this post, odds are that you are a “cool dude”.
Posted in Skeptics
by Judith Curry
Nature has just published an editorial on the Heartland Conference entitled “Heart of the Matter” with subtitle “The Heartland Institute’s climate conference reveals the motives of global warming skeptics.”
Posted in Skeptics
by Judith Curry
The thread on the recent Loehle and Scafetta paper (here and WUWT) have spawned the term “cyclomania” in the context of searches for natural cycles that can explain 20th century climate change and potentially predict climate change in the 21st century.
Posted in Attribution
by Judith Curry
So, when do you think America’s first climate debate took place, and who were the participants? Here is a hint:
As the tumultuous century was drawing to a close, the conservative Yale grad challenged the sitting vice president’s ideas about global warming. The vice president, a cerebral Southerner, was planning his own run for the presidency, and the fiery Connecticut native was eager to denounce the opposition party.
Posted in History
by Judith Curry
A Scientist’s Manifesto challenges scientists to think about their work in a broader context, and to engage more fully with the society that supports them and ultimately stands to be impacted by them – for good or bad.
Posted in Communication, Ethics
by Judith Curry
There is an interesting new article at boingboing entitled “Lowercase theories, uppercase Theories, and the myth of global cooling.” (h/t Keith Kloor).
Posted in Scientific method
Posted in Week in review
By Judith Curry
On the first anniversary of Steve Schneider’s untimely death, it is worth reflecting on his contributions at the intersection of climate science, policy, politics and media in the public communication of climate change. Schneider’s views on this topic are infamously characterized by his 1989 statement (page 5 of the link):
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Posted in Communication
by Judith Curry
This article aims to portray and communicate the important role played by natural variability in our evolving climate. Understanding and acknowledging these variations is important for society and policymakers. Much of this variability is chaotic and unpredictable but some significant fraction is potentially predictable, providing an opportunity to narrow the uncertainty in climate predictions of the coming decade.
Posted in Attribution
by Judith Curry
Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project aims to “reveal the complete truth about the climate crisis” and “bringing the facts about the climate crisis into the mainstream and engaging the public in conversation about how to solve it.” Gore’s promotional video accuses “Big Oil” and “Big Coal” of evil manipulation.
Posted in Communication
by Judith Curry
Much has been written on the need for better communication of climate science and for rebuilding trust in the wake of Climategate. Such efforts are generally dismissed by climate skeptics as manipulative and further increase distrust. But surely there must be better modes of communication between climate scientists and the lay public?
Posted in Communication
by Judith Curry
The consensus on anthropogenic climate change provided by the IPCC is the source of much controversy. Central to the controversy is the meaning and implications of “consensus,” in both scientific and sociological contexts.
Posted in Scientific method
by Judith Curry
Two key questions in the climate debate are:
Posted in Attribution
by Tony Brown
The IPCC AR4 projected sea level rise in 2100 to range from 18-59 cm, depending on the emission scenario. More recent projections are for a 1 m sea level rise in 2100 [here and here]. Apart from the issue of uncertainty and reliability of these future sea level projections, how do these magnitudes of sea level rise compare with historic variations in sea level rise?
Posted in History
by Judith Curry
I’ve just come across three really interesting words, that I have somehow missed up to this point in my studies on uncertainty and ignorance: agnotology, agnoiology and cognitronics.
Posted in Uncertainty
by David Ritson
After the Copenhagen meeting and Himalaya-gate the IPCC has been faced with serious credibility problems. Himalayan-gate was largely dismissed by the establishment loyalists as a minor error that slipped through the system and was then corrected. What was so disquieting was not he occurrence of a mistake but the subsequent reaction of the IPCC chairman, Dr. Pachauri. Dr Pachauri, when questioned in an interview (youtube), not only reaffirmed the correctness of the original report but characterized the Indian government report, whose disaster-predictions were measured in centuries not decades, as “voodoo science”. Only after a month’s delay, and under pressure, was the mistake admitted (youtube).
Posted in IPCC
by Judith Curry
Nic Lewis sent me the following message in an email:
I have some news to report on a response to the letter forming this post from the IPCC authors. Gabi Hegerl, joint coordinating lead author of Chapter 9, emailed me late yesterday afternoon to say that she had brought my letter to the attention of the WG1 AR5 Co-Chairs to initiate the appropriate handling of the alleged error, and that it will be dealt with in accordance with the recently approved “IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports.
Posted in IPCC
JC note: Pursuant to Nic’s post on “The IPCC’s alteration of Forster & Gregory’s model-independent climate sensitivity results,” he has sent a letter to Gabi Hegerl, who was coordinating lead author on chapter 9 of the IPCC AR4.
Posted in Sensitivity & feedbacks
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) contained various errors, including the well publicised overestimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers would melt. However, the IPCC’s defenders point out that such errors were inadvertent and inconsequential: they did not undermine the scientific basis of AR4. Here I demonstrate an error in the core scientific report (WGI) that came about through the IPCC’s alteration of a peer-reviewed result. This error is highly consequential, since it involves the only instrumental evidence that is climate-model independent cited by the IPCC as to the probability distribution of climate sensitivity, and it substantially increases the apparent risk of high warming from increases in CO2 concentration.
Posted in IPCC, Sensitivity & feedbacks
by Judith Curry
A new paper has been published in PNAS entitled “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008.”
Posted in Attribution
by Judith Curry
In the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the EPA (discussed previously here) included this footnote:
“For views opposing EPA’s, see, e.g., Dawidoff, The Civil Heretic, N. Y. Times Magazine 32 (March 29, 2009). The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.”
Posted in Skeptics
