IPCC: Now that we've all agreed, let's disagree

Opinions on the Fourth Assessment Report

Posted by Kate Sheppard at 3:51 PM on 02 Feb 2007

Read more about: James Hansen | climate science

Ahem, Scientific American, a few days ago:

Global warming skeptics are already gearing up to deconstruct the IPCC report, whatever its conclusions. The Fraser Institute -- a Canadian think tank devoted to denying climate change -- plans to release its own independent summary on February 5, and conservative Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has decried the politicization of climate change science. IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri's comment that he hoped the report "will shock people" into action has led some, including political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., of the University of Colorado -- proponent of a middle of the road plan neither denying the existence of climate change nor succumbing to extreme solutions -- to question the organization's credibility.

And of course they have. Why do some skeptics and polite disagreers have their chaps in a bunch? Here's a look:

Surprisingly, there's only a press release on the report posted on CEI's website. They seem to have put most of their efforts re: IPCC into this wicked boring, poorly lit (and inaccurate) video put out last month. But CEI's Iain Murray posted this overly cheery blog post in which he ~~claims~~ hopes that the report actually signals the IPCC moving toward a skeptic stance.

Did he miss the whole "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level" part?

And via Junkscience.com: "Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing."

Editing. Bizarre. Because they find this whole "consistency" and "grammar" thing so strange, they decided to break the embargo. Hey, they did it, not me.

Fox News, so steadfastly fair and balanced be they, highlighted, of course, the departure from conclusions of the last IPCC report on the topic of hurricanes. Shocking that scientists and informed government officials can, when confronted with new and convincing evidence, change their minds. So shocking that they had to dig up some guy saying something contradictory sometime last year. But then they don't actually quote him.

And no please-just-give-up-so-we-can-stop-making-fun-of-you post is complete without Inhofe, who has nothing at all interesting to say on his blog. But of course, we're just part of the media cover-up.

And though I can't read the full release and am not willing to pay to do so, the summary on this International Oil Daily ~~article~~ release made me chuckle.

This is not to say that there isn't actual debate among informed folks on the report's findings -- namely, on the report's claims about sea levels and hurricanes. Chris Mooney over at Seed has some well-stated thoughts on hurricanes and language, and of course there's Pielke, Jr. But both of them pretty much agree that there's not really a big conflict here.

And finally, James Hansen was on today's Living on Earth weighing in on the sea level issue. An excerpt:

Curwood: So with that in mind, how should we view predictions from this latest IPCC assessment? What did the report leave out or underplay from your view?

Hansen: Well, I think that there is a natural reticence, which may derive from the scientific method, which says you should be skeptical. You should check all sides of a story before you make a very strong conclusion. The difficulty here is that I think we have very limited time to get on a different path with our energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions or we're going to end up with unstoppable problems in the future. And I would have preferred an even clearer statement about the dangers of future sea level rise if the ice sheets begin to disintegrate. And I think that a business as usual scenario will guarantee future disintegration of West Antarctica and parts of Greenland.

Curwood: So your concern about the chance of loss of large sheets of ice and the considerable impact that that could have on sea level rise is echoed by, um, Ohio State University scientist Lonnie Thompson, and he says that those issues are gorillas in the room that the IPCC isn't paying as much attention to as he thinks it ought to.

Hansen: Well that's a very good point because IPCC addresses a lot of things, but there are a small number which deserve very great attention. And this, I think, is the number one item just because of the inertia of the system. If we get it started, it will become very difficult to stop it, perhaps impossible to stop it.

For story: IPCC: Now that we've all agreed, let's disagree
14 Comments | Post a Comment

Don't forget Exxon Mobil!

Continuing in its quest to become the Philip-Morris of the 21st century, Exxon-Mobil is offering $10,000 to economists and scientists who write reports that criticize the IPCC findings. Which brings up a few questions:

Is this bribery? Of course not. ExxonMobil is merely fueling the debate with some high-octane cash.
Will ExxonMobil pay for my travel expenses as well? You bet!
Can oil execs detect caustic irony? We'll see...

vigorousnorth.blogspot.com A field guide to the wilderness areas of American inner cities.

by cneal at 5:52 PM on 02 Feb 2007

A few tips to the sceptics

If climate change sceptics want to be taken seriously, it would probably help if they could actually sound like they know what they're talking about. First of all, advice to Iain Murray: if you're not good at talking in front of camera, prepare and practise what you're going to say! Otherwise, you sound like a bit of an idiot. Unless, of course, that is the overall impression you want to leave.

I was also greatly amused by Inhofe's conspiracy theories - I know everyone likes a good conspiracy theory, but are they really supposed to be taken more seriously than actual science? Then there was good ol' impartial Larry King:

At one point, CNN host Larry King cautioned Nye against making a bet with Lindzen over who was correct about the science of global warming.
"[Lindzen's] from M.I.T. he knows what he's talking about," King warned Nye.

Yep, and George W.'s from Yale and Harvard, so of course he knows what he's talking about. It's not who teaches you that matters, it's what you learn...

Also, to all the people saying that a 90% certainty isn't enough: what is enough? After all, taking action won't harm the environment, so surely, anything over 50% should be enough?

By the way, "I would have preferred an even clearer statement about the dangers of future sea level rise if the ice sheets begin to disintegrate."? Aren't the dangers rather self-evident (floods?)?

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

by tico89 at 8:02 PM on 02 Feb 2007

please-just-give-up-so-we-can-stop-making-fun-of-u

>>>You should check all sides of a story before you make a very strong conclusion. >>>

Toxics have sent the world's minds into a spin, a stupidity spin.
The oil companies do not want released what they already know, and scientists are only as good as their data.

But at least the spin today is sounding more grave.
But oil is entirely left out of contention, even down to the computer models on climate. LOL what a f'nmess.

>> please-just-give-up-so-we-can-stop-making-fun-of-you >>

by Zarkov at 9:10 PM on 02 Feb 2007

Don't forget Republican faves

like Roger Pielke Jr....After he gave his less than brilliant testimony, he got linked by two sites.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/aut ...

Reason Magazine and Junkscience.com. Nice job Pielke.

Benny Big Eye

by Benny Big Eye at 10:26 PM on 02 Feb 2007

Turnaround from Exxon Mobil

The skeptics in the news are noisy, but not really important. The important players are the big corporations who are in the midst of abandoning the failed strategy of skepticism and denial.

Stuart Stanford at The Oil Drum reports that Exxon Mobil invited some green bloggers in on a conference call with their VP of Public Affairs:

We had a first session last Friday, where they went through their message and we got to ask questions. In essence, they are saying that they now agree that climate change is really happening, the debate on the science is over, and the right question now is what is the proper policy response.

This makes sense to me - the execs at Exxon Mobil did not get where they are by tilting at windmills.

But it takes a while for a big organization like Exxon Mobil to turn around. Hence the money offered to scientists to rebut the IPCC report. According to Stuart, this seemed to come as a suprise to the PR people he was talking to.

...I got the distinct feeling he was finding it a herculean job turning around ExxonMobil's public image on climate change, and he was bummed that it was going so badly on this particular Friday.

As incredible as it may seem, we apparently have won.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 11:35 PM on 02 Feb 2007

A little joy

Shhhhh, let Bart have a happy moment. Don't wake him up.

Typing while dreaming, now that's a blogging first! Sleep walking..err typing? Som-blog-ulism?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:08 AM on 03 Feb 2007

If I'm dreaming, don't pinch me

It's not just me who thinks we're passing a turning point. A number of people are noting the same thing, such as The Economist and Bruce Sterling (Viridian Greens).

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in a press conference yesterday accepted the findings of the IPCC reports and tried to paint the Bush administration's record in the greenest of tones. BTW, I think that Bodman is one of the best people in the administration - though I disagree with his optimism on technical solutions, he is reality-based (perhaps his background as a scientist).

It's important to recognize when the tide has shifted and change strategy accordingly. For example, the noisy skeptics just look like losers now, rather than a real threat.

Rather than waste energy on them, maybe it's time to get serious about developing solutions and communicating them.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

by Bart Anderson at 2:31 PM on 03 Feb 2007

Communicating risk

I've been meaning to link to this for a while, and this seems like as good a place as any:

Peter Sandman on communicating risk.

It's an interesting website, and I guess a good place for us all to start if we think the risk can maybe now be communicated to others (I'm skeptical, myself, that the climate skeptics are no longer relevant, but it's worth finding out how generally to go about convincing people anyway).

by willa at 2:44 PM on 03 Feb 2007

Balloon Burst, Boo Hoo

>> we're passing a turning point

Its really called a lag phase,.. yes a shift, but IMO, so late that it really does not matter.

To now put this new heart into action will require another lag phase... and then another...

[b]Who is really convinced that the world is facing extinction ?[/b] What resolve really has been won?

THEY have not even achieved a distinction in their science... a fail at present

THEY do not know what the real cause is, let alone any real solutions.

Put your heads back in the sand, and get someone to kiss your ass goodbye.

It is too late.

by Zarkov at 3:24 PM on 03 Feb 2007

Good points Bart

Communicate with the enemy. It's advice we try to give the other side on Iraq, I guess we could take that advice ourselves.

I like to propose compromises. Like the one with nuclear power. And now one with the forces behind clean coal.

I don't think they are quite ready to negotiate, but maybe they will soon?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 4:39 PM on 03 Feb 2007

Coal is the enemy, not people.

by sunflower at 5:48 PM on 03 Feb 2007

As Pogo Said ...

Well you know the cartoons and posters about Pogo and what was used for Earth Day 1971, I believe it was.

All that has been released by the IPCC is a policy summary of some kind, without any meaninglful science. Many folks are acting like the conclusons are a done deal even while the IPCC is still messing around with all kinds of flak. A serious environmental scientist would never pass judgement until the entire report, complete with the appendix, was released.

The draft IPPC policy summary seems extremely "soft" on climatology anf meteorology, even though some claims have been made - at least on my first skim. Polar ice melt and freaky hurricanes simply are something to be discussed two years from now when the IPCC reconvenes and does another document.

In other words, the average air temperature may be rising, but storms are caused by temperature differences between cold and warm air, and none of this works in the Global Warming paradigm just yet. The places expected to generate high atmospheric pressure, high temperature, and stagnation which causes no storms are exactly the same ones expected to be most volatile - the semi-tropics in the hurricane alley. Crazy, man!

/Sammie

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 9:23 PM on 03 Feb 2007

AR4 on storms

Sam, bear in mind that the document with all the details won't be out for few months yet. Also, in terms of the short-term effects of global warming, the air temperature effect you refer to is very slight, whereas the shift in storm tracks is large: See this RealClimate response and the referenced paper here.

by Steve Bloom at 11:04 PM on 03 Feb 2007

Correct paper link

Here.

by Steve Bloom at 11:08 PM on 03 Feb 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.