The Climate Surprise

Recommendations

Info

Despite these differences, the first two narraves actually share quite a few posions: first that the climate is always changing and second that CO is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible. They also agree that adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming. Moreover, the narraves agree that atmospheric levels of CO have been increasing since the end of the Lile Ice Age in the nineteenth century and that over this period (the past two centuries) the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erracally by about . degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius—but only since the s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role. Finally, both narraves agree that given the complexity of climate, no confident predicon about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The acknowledged in its own report that “The long-term predicon of future climate states is not possible.” The most important commonality, however, is that neither of the first two narraves asserts that the burning of fossil fuel leads to catastrophe. This important point has oen been made by sciensts closely associate d with the first narrave. The situaon may have been best summarized by Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (a center of concern for global warming): “To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumpons which do not emerge from empirical or theorecal science.” Here is an exchange from John Humphry’s interview of Ralph Cicerone (President of the Naonal Academy of Sciences) in July . John Humphrys: You don’t sound, if I can use this word, apocalypc. I mean, you’re not saying “If we don’t do these things, we’re going to go to hell in a handbasket, we’re going to fry, in a few years.” Ralph Cicerone: Well, there are people who are saying those things, John. Humphrys: But not you. Ralph Cicerone: No. I don’t think it’s useful, I don’t think it gets us anywhere, and we don’t have that kind of evidence. Even Gavin Schmidt, Jim Hansen’s successor as head of ’s Goddard Instute of Space Studies, whose website, realclimate. org, is a major advocate of the global warming claim, does not agree with claims of extremes: General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media. . . . It’s this popular percepon that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the me, even though if anyone thinks about that for ten seconds they realize that’s nonsense. The third narrave is substanally divorced from either of the first two narraves. The take of Senators McCain and Lieberman (The Boston Globe, February , ) illustrates a common approach to pretending that there is a connecon between the first and third narraves: The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human acvies like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report 18
puts the final nail in denial’s coffin about the problem of global warming. Of course, the WG wisely avoided making the claim that percent of a small change in temperature constuted a “problem.” This, they le to the policians. More commonly, no attempt is made to relate the “scare” scenario to the first narrave. Here is President Obama’s constant refrain: Climate change is contribung to extreme weather, wildfires, and drought, and rising temperatures can lead to more smog and more allergens in the air we breathe, meaning more kids are exposed to the triggers that can cause asthma aacks. Pope Francis, President Hollande, and virtually all state leaders have chimed in with similar “learned” proclamaons. To be sure, the advocates of the third narrave aempt to cloak their bizarre views with claims of “science.” The following quotes from Secretary Kerry are characterisc: When I think about the array of global climate—of global threats—think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferaon of weapons of mass destrucon, all challenges that know no borders, the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them. And it is a challenge that I address in nearly every single country that I visit as Secretary of State, because President Obama and I believe it is urgent that we do so. . . . it’s compelling us to act. And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . . First and foremost, we should not allow a ny minority of shoddy sciensts and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scienfic fact. This is not opinion. This is about facts. This is about science. The science is unequivocal. And those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. Now, President Obama and I believe very deeply that we do not have me for a meeng anywhere of the Flat Earth Society. As usual, polical figures improperly associate science as a source of unquesonable authority rather than as a successful mode of inquiry. In addion, they cynically assert that science is the source of their authority. Somemes, the ignorance of the polician becomes painfully evident, as when the former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously intoned: “Natural gas is a good, cheap alternave to fossil fuels.” Thensenator Hillary Clinton, at a Senate Hearing, more modestly acknowledged her ignorance of climate science, but, nonetheless, confidently asserted that “CO can’t be good for kids with asthma.” At least some polical figures don’t bother referring to “the science.” People like Chrisana Figueres, the execuve secretary of the U.N. Framework Convenon on Climate Change, make clear the purely polical movaon. This is the first me in the history of mankind that we are seng ourselves the task of intenonally, within a defined period of me, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least years, since the Industrial Revoluon. Despite such occasional outbursts of honesty, the third narrave is generally defended as being due to those in the first narrave, with the 19
Page 1 and 2: The Climate Surprise Why CO2 is goo
Page 3: The Climate Surprise Why CO2 is goo
Page 6 and 7: as the climate hysterics claim. In
Page 8 and 9: industries and technologies—the c
Page 10 and 11: Figure 1.2: The rao, RCO2, of past
Page 12 and 13: The last report, by the Coalion mem
Page 14 and 15: Figure 2.2: The only difference in
Page 16 and 17: Figure 2.4: Higher levels of atmosp
Page 18 and 19: world with very few thermometer mea
Page 20 and 21: that the warming of the last years
Page 24 and 25: usual mantras of “ percent,”
Page 26 and 27: Capturing the narrave is a crucial
Page 28 and 29: ombed and sank the Rainbow Warrior
Page 30 and 31: Indonesia and the Philippines. Deep
Page 32 and 33: It does not appear as though anyone
Page 34 and 35: eaders that Germany could be a mode
Page 36 and 37: Figure 6.3: Consumer Energy Prices
Page 39: The CO2 Coalition is proud to be pa

The Climate Surprise

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?