May 14, 2015, by Brigitte Nerlich
Lukewarmers
On 3 May (2015) Tamsin Edwards wrote an article for The Observer entitled “The lukewarmers don’t deny climate change. But they say the outlook’s fine” (see here for a discussion; I should point out that Tamsin didn’t choose the title for this article). This prompted Steven Mosher to write the following comment: “Lukewarmers have come a long way from the day in 2008 when we first recognized that there actually was a position that was INSIDE the mainstream of science but at odds with the public face of that science. Like I tell my skeptic friends there is a debate, its inside the science community and they are welcomed to join if they want to. Hmm one day I suppose I’ll have to write a history of the term and ‘team” lukewarmer.”
As I am interested in the emergence and spread of various labels used in the climate change debate, such as for example ‘greenhouse sceptic’, I wanted to know more about the label ‘lukewarmer’ and while I can’t write its history in this post, I can show how it was used in the news. I put ‘lukewarmer’ and ‘climate’ as search terms into my preferred news data base, Lexis Nexis, on 3 May 2015 in All English Language News and got (only) 43 results. There were 8 duplicates. So, in the end I read 35 articles, published between 30 January 2010 and 22 April 2015. Compared to the use of other labels, such as denier and alarmist for example, these are small numbers. What follows are extracts from this small body of articles and I’ll leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions.
Setting the scene
Alongside the label lukewarmer, I found some variants being used, such as global lukewarmer, climate lukewarmer, lukewarmist; there was even a verb: lukewarming; and lukewarm and lukewarmer were also used as adjectives.
I was curious to know who was involved in popularizing these labels, albeit on a rather small scale. It turned out that many of the more substantive newspaper articles were written by Matt Ridley (7) and David Rose (4). A frequent source for quotes was Judith Curry (quoted in 6 articles). Other names mentioned in the context of lukewarmism, to coin another term, were Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Patrick Michaels, Bjorn Lomborg, James Lovelock, Nic Lewis, and Richard Tol.
Only one or two articles put the label under a critical lens, one published in New Scientist in 2010 about Ridley and one written by Leo Hickman for The Guardian (28 August, 2013). Hickman writes: “John Abraham made an astute point the other day when he said that it rarely gets noticed that climate sceptics have actually conceded a lot of ground over recent years when it comes to the science. Many have begun to adopt a so-called ‘lukewarmer’ position, which means they now accept the basics of some since but don’t think it’s worth investing heavily today to prevent or limit a problem that will increasingly hit home in the decades ahead.” And of course he calls this an “irresponsible strategy”.
The political contexts in which the label was used changed over time. While in 2010 it was used in the context of various -gates (climategate, Amazongate, glaciergate), in 2013 and 2014, the IPCC reports, the so-called ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in global warming, and climate sensitivity were the backdrop to discussions. Towards the very end Ridley and Rose wrote articles about the way the label was used to denigrate their work and their lives.
The label emerges
The label was first used in English speaking news, as far as I can make out, in an article by James Delingpole for telegraph.co.uk entitled “Steven Mosher: The real hero of Climategate?” Delingpole calls him “the spokesperson of the lukewarmer set”.
The second article is based on an interview with Ridley in New Scientist (12 June 2010). He is introduced as the author of The Rational Optimist who dismisses two pessimisms, global climate change and the global financial collapse. The interviewer makes three critical remarks: “As I ask him about global warming, I suddenly remember who Ridley reminds me of. It is Doctor Pangloss, in Voltaire’s Candide, who believed ‘all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds’”; “In person, Ridley denies that he is a climate sceptic, preferring the term ‘lukewarmer’”. However, to the interviewer “he starts to appear as someone who is blind to facts that do not fit his ideological framework”.
The third article is by Ridley himself for The Times (31 August, 2010). He calls for the IPCC or “this discredited science body” to be “purged”. He thinks that the IPCC’s summary for policy makers has been ‘sexed up’ and that it might be prudent to read papers by Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels instead. He points out that he has become “a ‘lukewarmer’ who has yet to see any evidence saying that the current warming is, or is likely to be, unprecedented, fast or tending to accelerate” and that global warming “will most probably be a fairly minor problem” – ‘(mostly) harmless’ as the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy might say about our planet ‘Earth’.
A Hearing
At the end of 2010 the Federal News Service (17 November, 2010) publishes a transcript of a hearing before the US Energy and Environment Subcommittee that had as its subject “A rational discussion of climate change”. Curry participated in this hearing alongside various other experts. Before Curry is asked to contribute, a Mr Geer quotes some economists as saying: “Action on climate is justified, not because the science is certain but precisely because it is not.” Curry starts her testimony by saying: “Anthropogenic climate change is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood but whose magnitude is highly uncertain”. She points out that she has been “publicly raising concerns since 2003 about how uncertainty surrounding climate change is evaluated and communicated.” She stresses the need for climate scientists to engage with social scientists and the blogosphere which is “bringing much-needed scrutiny” to the issue.
At the end of the debate, the chair, Rep. Baird, comes back to the blogosphere issue and says that he is worried about what he has seen there. “It was snarky, it was non-substantive, it was ad hominem, it was juvenile, and it was unconstructive.” In her reply Curry points to ‘technical’ blogs where, she claims, this happens less and says that “the blogosphere has sort of developed that sort of ‘lukewarmer’ technical blogging community where people are actually looking at the data, debating scientific papers, people from both sides in a fairly civilized way.” Rep. Baird responds by saying: “[…] look, this idea of science by ad hominem attack, by politiciziation, by false accusation, by conspiratorial theory, by labelling things hoaxes, that ain’t science.” Curry replies that many people distrust climate scientists and see them as “arrogant” and that climategate provided a “concrete reason” for them to believe this. Rep. Baird asks: “Would you say that that, though, obliterates all the legitimate data that we’ve heard today?”
In his summing up he comes back to the meeting’s purpose and points out: “We have an obligation to approach decision making in a constitutional democratic republic with rational, empirical judgment and information, imperfect and uncertain but the best we can do. […] I don’t think anybody is going to say, well, dang, I was a complete skeptic before, now it has turned. Maybe some will go the other way. But the process that we try to follow and the process of science is what is going to get us there. And I would hope that that process, that legacy on this committee, if no other, is one based on empirical decision making, mutual respect, critical analysis, objective analysis.”
Lukewarmers, the IPCC and the ‘pause’
In September 2013, when the first part of the latest IPCC report came out, Rose published an article in the Mail Online (28 September, 2013) on the so-called ‘pause’ in global warming and quotes Curry as saying that by denying the importance of the pause the IPCC “’has thrown down the gauntlet.’ Should the pause continue, she said, ‘they are toast’.” He also refers to “other ‘lukewarmer’ experts – scientist who do not ‘deny’ the world has warmed, partly in response to humans, but do not expect imminent catastrophe”, amongst them Lindzen and Lomborg. The same day, Ridley publishes an article in The Times entitled “Global lukewarming need not be catastrophic”. He talks about “a lukewarm ‘third way – that climate change is real but slow, partly man-made but also susceptible to natural factors, and might be dangerous but more likely will not be” and “man-made climate change is real, just not very frightening” – again, it seems, climate change is framed as ‘mostly harmless’. The focus is on climate sensitivity and Ridley claims that even IPCC authors are now “tiptoeing towards the moderate middle” and are conceding what lukewarmers have always said; he even talks about the IPCC’s “conversion to lukewarming”. He refers to Curry “who used to be alarmed and no longer is” and he calls for a “grown-up conversation without name-calling”.
In an article about the IPCC press conference (29 September, Mail on Sunday) Rose repeats Curry’s quote from 28 September that the IPCC ‘is toast’. The title of another article puts it more strongly: “Washington: ‘Lukewarmist’ scientists Curry calls for end of IPCC” (US Official News, 5 October 2013). The article underneath this title is a news release from the Heartland Institute in which Curry (“who has gained a reputation as a ‘lukewarmer’ for agreeing with many climate assertions by global warming activists but calling for more scientific scrutiny of alarmist claims”) is quoted as saying that the IPCC “suffers from paradigm paralysis”, i.e. “motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking” and that it “failed to predict the decline” in temperatures. She is reported as saying that it is therefore time “to put down the IPCC”, as it is spreading an infection, a disease, against which not everybody is immune, especially governments.
In March 2014 Ridley publishes an article in The Australian (31 March, 2014) which goes back to issues around the pause, climate sensitivity etc and, like Rose, cites Nic Lewis “who has no academic affiliation but a growing reputation since he discovered a statistical distortion that had exaggerated climate sensitivity in the previous IPCC report”’. Ridley pits ‘warmists’, who are alarmists and scaremongers, against ‘lukewarmers’ “who think man-made climate change is real but fairly harmless” – mostly harmless. Ridley also publishes a review of a book by James Lovelock in The Times (5 April, 2014) in which he welcomes him to “the Lukewarmer Society”.
On 10 April 2014 we find a rare article outside the Times/Ridley and Mail/Rose set, written for the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail by Margaret Wente entitled “Don’t bash the global lukewarmers”. Wente writes: “Almost all reporting about climate change is binary: There are warmers and deniers, and few in between. But the real fight isn’t like that at all, observes climate critic Matt Ridley. It’s between warmers and lukewarmers – people who believe climate change is an urgent, existential threat and those who think it’s not that big a deal. Unfortunately, the warmers have done their best to lump the lukewarmers in with the deniers.” She accuses ‘warmers’ of ‘crying wolf’. Following this Canadian article, we find another one by Ridley himself for the National Post in Canada (9 September, 2014), written on the occasion of a climate summit. Ridley mentions the ‘pause’ and points out that it had been predicted by Bob Carter and David Whitehouse. He admits that he himself had been surprised by the ‘pause’, because, as a “’lukewarmer,’ I’ve long thought that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions will raise global temperatures”. A few days later an article for The Daily Oklahoman (15 September, 2014) refers to Ridley as a ‘lukewarmer’, “a person who’s somewhere in between when it comes to positions on global warming”.
Lukewarmers under attack
In January 2015 both Ridley and Rose publish articles defending themselves and their lukewarm positions against increasing criticisms, hostility and attacks. In an article for The Times (19 January, 2015), Ridley makes extensive use of religious metaphors tapping into the popular framing of climate science as dogma, orthodoxy or gospel and talking about his “apostasy from climate alarm”. He mentions ‘coming out’ as a lukewarmer and how this led to him being ostracised by leading scientists and activists. Rose writes about an increasing ‘climate of hate’ in a Mail Online article (31 January, 2015). He thinks, like Ridley, that renewables are “ruinously expensive and totally futile”. “Some would say this makes me a ‘lukewarmer’ – the jargon for someone who is neither a ‘warmist’ or a ‘denier’”, he writes. “But true believers don’t recognize such distinctions; to them, anyone who disagrees with their version of the truth is a denier, pure and simple.” He refers to Ridley, “The Times columnist, Tory peer and fellow ‘lukewarmer’”.
Mostly harmless?
A few articles talk about the issue of labels themselves (New York Times, 17 February, 2015; The Guardian, 6 March 2015). One article attributes this “memorable coinage” of ‘lukewarmer’ to Ridley (The Australian, 27 February, 2015). And finally, one article by the Media Research Centre USA (3 February 2015) mentions that Pat Michaels is working on a book entitled The Lukewarmers’ Manifesto…
It will be interesting to see what this book says and whether the position adopted by lukewarmers, who claim that climate change is ‘mostly harmless’, is ‘mostly harmless’.
Two posts by other people might also be of interest
One on Climate Resistance
One on And then there’s physics with an interesting follow-up with interesting comments
And here is another which is worth looking at by Don Aitkin
And yet another reaction here by Tom Fuller
So, if anybody wants to write about the history, use and identity politics surrounding this label/title, go ahead! There is a bit of material here.
Image: Labelled for reuse
The fundamental problem I have with the Lukewarmer position is that it appears to be based on the idea that everything could be fine, therefore let’s proceed as if it will be fine. That’s why Eli Rabett calls them Luckwarmers – we’ll be lucky if they’re correct. One thing to bear in mind is that the Lukewarmer position is already included within the IPCC position; even the mainstream position does not preclude the possibility that warming could be on the low side of the range – that’s why there’s a range. The problem, though, is that it’s hard to see how one can develop effective policy if one ignores that the impacts could be severe. That doesn’t mean that one has to behave as if they will be severe; it simply means that one can’t assume that this won’t be the case. It is odd that many self-professed Lukewarmers also seem to be self-professed policy experts. I don’t see how these are consistent positions.
Yes, in the end it’s a choice of what ‘as if’ position one adopts on climate change: ‘as if’ its mostly harmless or ‘as if’ its mostly harmful. Risk experts will probably be able to advise on what ‘as if’ is more or less risky, costly etc. in various types of scenarios and over various time-frames. Betting on ‘luck’ is probably not advisable.
This is … not exactly true. ATTP et al want to sell this position and simplify their opponents positions but the situation is a bit more complicated and has a bit of history behind it
Within the ‘sensitivity’ framework, palaeoclimate estimates of high values have always created tension. If one goes back to the late 1970s, when the question was first posed, the US government research agencies adopted a compromise position of advocating and funding more research in an attempt to increase the levels of confidence in the estimate of the effect of GHGs, especially CO2. Much research has since been conducted. There is significantly more data and measurements from newer instruments that have added real data points to the matrix. The question is whether to estimate sensitivity using instrumental data, aerosol measurements and narrow the uncertainty bands in line with the original objective of the reserach programs.
Speaking purely from a scientific perspective, there should be no problem with the above. What climate alarmists do in response has been to abandon nearly one whole framework of sensitivity estimation. They morphed overnight into ‘risk management experts’, accusing lukewarmers of accepting science because it suited their policy preferences. They point out of model- and palaeo-derived estimates for sensitivity which hold up the high end of the range.
But this is inconsistent at several levels. Remember that the original objectives of research was to narrow the uncertainty bands and increase confidence in our estimates of sensitivity. Only models and newer observational data can do this. When these newer estimates trickle in, and came in with low values, climate activists suddenly changed tack, called themselves ‘risk experts’ and do not want to let go of the original wide uncertainty bands. This is important – *it is the climate alarmists who imply that notions of risk should influence what values of climate sensitivity we accept*, not lukewarmers.
Of course, the alarmists argument on this count is shallow and can be thrown back at them in no time. You can bet climate activists would have adopted a pious and shrill “the science speaks”, “this is what the data shows” posture – if observational data and energy balance model estimates for climate sensitivity had thrown up high values.
Many lukewarmers I know of hardly get into climate risk mitigation arguments at all. It is fundamentally dishonest to apply names like ‘luckwarmers’ to them. Such attempts at labeling rather demonstrate how climate alarmists posturing as being ‘science-based’ has become untenable. It serves as a signpost in their move towards a ‘risk-based’, black swan/Pascal’s wager precautionary principle backed position.
ATTP, it’s obvious that you haven’t been reading what Lukewarmers have written, then. I’ve been writing since 2011 that global warming is real, quite likely to be a threat especially to the developing world and that we should commit time, money and attention to lessening its impact through both mitigation and advance adaptation.
But you’re so busy looking for ‘deniers’ under every bush that it isn’t necessary to actually read what we write. Steve Mosher has been saying for almost a decade that we are within the envelope of IPCC projections–and he’s been saying it on your blog.
As for developing effective policy, how’s that been working out for you with your more strident screeds? Is it getting you what you want?
As I have written countless times, the first steps in responding to 3C or even 4C are exactly the same as those we would take to address 2C. Revenue neutral carbon tax, technology transfer to the developing world at about $100bn, investment in energy storage, improved efficiency and uprating turbines in hydro, dismantling air traffic restrictions left over from the Cold War, etc., etc.
But you have no interest engaging with us. Much easier to call us luckwarmers or mitigation skeptics or confusionists. So every time you stumble into a thread like this you are arguing from ignorance. But it’s a chosen ignorance. The will not to know is powerful and prevalent with the people like you.
The real “fundamental issue” with lukewarmers is that nuance complicates a debate that consensus enforcers — no names — have spent much time and energy policing.
Few argue anything as simple as “everything could be fine”, therefore do nothing. The lukewarm claim is more that the catastrophic story presupposes a great deal, which is passed off as the product of science. In earlier debates, these presuppositions were legitimated by instituting the Precautionary Principle, to precisely the opposite framing of the debate that ATTP offers: everything could be catastrophic, therefore we must act as though we’re under an imminent, total threat of complete annihilation. But the PP proved not to be sufficiently compelling to get the entire world to do what a fairly narrow reading of worst case scenarios seemed to be telling it to do. So certainty was emphasised — the debate was over — but which was ultimately no more compelling, and simply led to more people questioning the available evidence and options. Moreover, it raises the question of consensus enforcement and its motivations. In particular its open hostility to debate, and why it isn’t able to let lukewarmers — dismissed as ‘deniers’ — speak for themselves.
Consensus enforcers should probably realise that it was probably their uncompromising and aggressive interventions which created the space for ‘lukewarmism’.
Brigitte, Regarding the history and origins of the term, there is a nice link with your previous article on climate scepticism in Australia. John Daly, who as you say in that article was one of the first ‘greenhouse sceptics’, living in Australia though originally British, was also one the first – perhaps the first – person to set up a website expressing scepticism. His website was called “Still waiting for Greenhouse” and its byline was
“A Lukewarm View of Global Warming – from Tasmania by John L. Daly”
The internet archive has a snapshot of his site from 2001. This is the earliest use of the term that I am aware of.
That’s really interesting! Thanks.
Misrepresenting the Lukewarm position isn’t helpful; I don’t think anyone is advocating business as usual. The fundamental problem lukewarmers have with the position taken by climate activists is that the course of action they campaign for isn’t like taking out a sensible insurance policy against an uncertain future, it’s more like parking a fire engine outside everyone’s house in case a patio heater malfunctions.
History essay part 2:
In the blogosphere, the word “lukewarmer” was used occasionally at Climate Audit, for example here in 2006. But it seems to have come into widespread use in 2008, when Lucia Liljegren wrote a blog post Lukewarmer: New word?. There is a definition there,
I am a “lukewarmer” who thinks that the world is warmer than it would otherwise be due to anthropogenic gases (but doubts that the impact will be extreme)
which seems to be as good a definition as any. There is also more discussion there of the term and its history including the link to John Daly.
The ‘outlook fine’ argument is not a correct representation, imho
It is, (if there is such a consensus position) there are other issues to be concerned about aswell, and that AGW, may not be the biggest, and/or only problem.. (which is NOT to say, not potential problems, nor the outlook is fine)
Tamsin’s Guardian article: the headline and subheading is the Guardian’s.. (not Tamsin’s words)
Thus the Guardian misrepresents the content of the article, presumably with the intent to get across, lukewarmers are evil/stupid/dangerous because they believe in everything is going to be ‘fine’..
Thus the pushback from the very climate concerned, who can’t be having people that previously the ‘denier’ label worked on, to shut them out of the debate. To be actually revealed as actually accepting climate change, actually accepting AGW, actually accepting CO2 is a greenhouse gas,and the earth has warmed, and that man contributes, etc,etc. this might make the ‘public doubt’.
Lomborg has always been a lukewarmer, and has always been called a climate denier, that just doesn’t work anymore, a more critical eye has been focussed on those that shout ‘climate denier’
Arguably most sceptics are lukewarmers, ie all the above, AGW – yes, co2 a GHG – yes, etc, etc
(Anthony Watts, Andrew Montford, Jo Nova, Steve Mcintyre Ross Mckitrick, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, etc,etc)
but wait, weren’t they all shouted down as ‘climate deniers’ and put into denier disinformation databases.. Might the public now ‘doubt’ all those very climate concerned people shouting ‘climate denier’ at people that do not deny?
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
and now we have Bill Mckibben saying Obama is in climate denial, has he not realised shouting denial just doesn’t really work as well as it used to. I call ‘peak climate’ (the shark has been jumped)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/13/nyt-claim-obamas-catastrophic-climate-denial/
Climate communicator (career activist actually) George Marshall certainly used to think denier works better than sceptic….
Marshall:
“- Look at the word “sceptic”. It’s a very carefully chosen word.
– I rather use “denier” – and I’m delighted to say it works.
– But they’re [Climate Change sceptics] doing a better job than us at the moment [on communications].”
worked to achieve what George?
fyi – my bio has said this since day one on twitter:
‘lukewarm thoughts’
https://twitter.com/BarryJWoods
For reference, here is earliest available Archive.org page for yr Twitter Barry: https://web.archive.org/web/20130815074843/https://twitter.com/BarryJWoods
thanks
Just look at the people who originated the term in order to understand its political function.
seriously!! get a grip
The term “lukewarmer” is an old one, and while there is much debate over exactly what it implies the key point is that lukewarmers agree that the climate sensitivity is positive (so adding more CO2 will, in the long run, warm the planet) but believe that the climate sensitivity is significantly lower than the mainstream position of the IPCC.
The range of sensitivities within the lukewarming position is quite large. Some, such as Nic Lewis, accept most of the mainstream, and just tweak things down a bit. Some are sceptical about feedbacks, and believe the climate sensitivity to be near the no-feedbacks value. Others such as Lindzen believe in strong negative feedbacks, so the sensitivity will be very low.
Beyond that many lukewarmers share common positions on two other topics, which are not strictly part of lukewarming but sometimes get conflated with it. First many lukewarmers are sceptical that the effects of warming will be as bad as the IPCC believes: indeed many lukewarmers believe that modest CO2-induced warming plus CO2 fertilisation will lead to a “nicer” world overall. Secondly, many lukewarmers are highly sceptical about proposed policy responses, believing that the current popular solutions (essentially, a dash for renewables) are expensive and ineffective. But these secondary positions are not fundamentally part of the lukewarming view itself.
Blair King writes well on the secondary positions: see for example http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.ca/2015/05/on-being-modern-pele-pragmatic.html
The term ‘lukewarmer’ has some of its roots in some skeptics trying to distance themselves from the extreme portrayal that was directed at skeptics. These skeptics tried to hijack and smuggle away whatever acceptable facets there were, so they could be spared the smearing and tarring. Skeptics would then be left holding only greenhouse gas skepticism, contrails, US govt agency meddling etc.
In reality lukewarmers are just skeptics, they are a timid bunch that’s all.
This is my sociological definition of lukewarmism. This is quite different from the science-based lukewarmism – which simply refers to people who take in the whole picture – particularly around climate sensitivity estimation – and ask uncomfortable questions or write papers showing this.
hey I’m technically a ‘lukewarmer’ – not sure I’m timid though. LOL
I think you are mistaken Shub. The ‘lukewarmer’ has roots is people distinguishing their position from ‘coolers’ or ‘no-effectors’. The word “skeptic” has come to be nearly meaningless. I prefer “coolers”, “lukewarmer” and “hell-fire and brimstome warmers”. But that’s just me.
Lukewarmers are warmers, but not of the “hell-fire and brimstone” variety. I believe the term arose specifically to distinguish from both ends.
Lukewarmer disagree with those who:
1) Believe CO2 has no net warming effect.
2) Believe the warming effect is so small that any observed rise in measured global temperature is 100% due to natural causes.
3) Believe the measured global temperature rise purely or mostly a result of “fiddling”.
4) Believe the world is more likely to cool over the next 100 years than warm.
And so on. People who believe 1-4 exist. In large part the term was developed to distinguish our beliefs form those not because of the “portrayal” of those people’s views- which are what they are. It was created to accurately convey our position which is not theirs but also not that of a group I would call “hell-fire and brimstone” warmers.
It’s true that some people use rhetoric to lump lukewarmers in with “coolers” and often want to call both either “denialists” or “skeptics”.
But I don’t think the term lukewarmer arose because of how skeptics are portrayed but due to the the desire on the part of lukewarmers to call out the fact that we wanted to make it clear were were warmers but of in a group who does not take the sort of view communicated at sites like Joe Romm’s or any other number of sites on the web were we find posts whose tone is “hell fire and brimstone” warmer .
Deniers vs Alarmists? It’s Time To Lose The Climate Debate Labels – Shaman/Howarth
http://innerself.com/content/social/environment/political/10191-deniers-vs-alarmists-it-s-time-to-lose-the-climate-debate-labels.html
a relevant article, time to lose the labels, including ‘lukewarmer’?
– except for we are all – ” members of the public”
Meanwhile over at Denial101x the political wing of the climate activist movement is making strenuous attempts to convince its students that lukewarmer is just another word for denier.
On the bright side that almost makes ATTP’s comment look like a glowing endorsement.
The concept of a Lukewarm view of climate change is actually entering a somewhat wider range of discourse these days, as witness Tamsin Edwards’ recent Guardian article, Matt Ridley’s adoption of the term, Clive Hamilton’s rant against the concept, etc. We’re not the popular kids yet, not by any means, but the idea is getting enough traction to merit a disparaging perversion of the term (‘luckwarm’) and considerable gnashing of teeth in the usual places by the usual people. Heck, they’re gnashing their teeth because Tamsin Edwards didn’t gnash her teeth. (Tamsin, be careful–they will cheerfully throw you under the bus if you don’t start harping on how evile we are. Case in point, Eli Rabett saying Tamsin is just a careerist)
They’ve also introduced a new term–‘mitigation skeptic’–with which to objectify us. I suppose it’s better than denier or delayer. A mitigation skeptic apparently is someone who accepts the basic tenets of climate science but doesn’t think we should do anything to mitigate human-caused climate change. It is being hurled at all the usual suspects–Lomborg, Ridley, The Breakthrough Institute, Roger Pielke Jr. and myself, at the low end of the totem pole.
Of course it’s not accurate, but since when have Alarmists ever been accurate? Truth for them is over-rated and outdated.
Take The Breakthrough Institute. Reviled by the Alarmists for not being on board with centrally mandated emission reductions, they are now accused of being mitigation skeptics. Of course, they are still called deniers and delayers too. (Maybe we should just think of the term as another arrow in the quiver of insults always at the ready for the Konsensus Brigade.)
Back in 2008 The Breakthrough Institute published policy recommendations in Harvard Law and Policy as part of an essay titled ‘Fast, Clean and Cheap.’
1) Establish a Price for Carbon Dioxide That Is Consistent With What Present Technology Can Accomplish
2) Establish a Dedicated Source of Public Funding for Clean Energy Investment That Can Rapidly Drive Down the Deployed Cost of Clean Energy Technologies
3) Ramp Up: Invest $300 Billion in Research, Development, and Deployment of Clean Energy Technologies
4) Insulate Federal Clean Energy Investments From Pork-Barrel Politics
5) Buy Down the Price of Solar Technology Like We Did With Microchips
6) Play the Field: Make Strategic Investments in Key Energy Sectors and Technologies
7) Create a Framework for Global Carbon Regulation Tied to Living Standards
And the Breakthrough Institute has been working to realize these goals ever since.
Perhaps opponents can disagree on certain points. Perhaps they can say it is insufficient. What they cannot say without lying is that The Breakthrough Institute doesn’t think we should do anything about mitigation.
In the Hartwell Paper the easy opportunities that they highlight include getting rid of a lot of black carbon (atmospheric soot) and ozone in the lower atmosphere; both are responsible for a lot of harm independent of the warming that they cause, and thus easier to act against than carbon dioxide. Others have made this point, but it doesn’t hurt to repeat it, since it is a good one. They approve of reducing deforestation, too, which is a completely mainstream view.
Those are part of what is now being called ‘Fast Mitigation.’ Not No Mitigation.
As Roger Pielke Jr. is part of The Breakthrough Institute we’ll skip over him for the moment.
As Bjorng Lomborg is author of a book called ‘Smart Solutions for Climate Change’, (endorsed by both Bill Gates and Rajendra Pachauri), one would think it obvious that he has a mitigation strategy. And he does, including repeated calls for phaseout of all fossil fuel subsidies. He also advocates putting a price on carbon. The central thesis of his mitigation strategy is to make green fuels cheaper than fossil fuels.
As for me, you can call me a denier, delayer, luckwarmer, mitigation skeptic, whatever. You can butter my bum and call me a biscuit.
But as I wrote 5 years ago,
“Although there is only one supremely important question regarding the science of climate change (sensitivity—remember?), when it comes to the potential impacts of climate change a host of issues appear. Both the Alarmists and the Skeptics tend to ignore the sober comments about uncertainty that accompany almost every scientific paper and they actively twist scientific comments to better make their case.
But even though I believe sensitivity is lower than what Alarmists claim, it is scant comfort when I have also projected that our planet will consume six times more energy in 2075 than it did in 2010. The brute force emissions of both CO2 and conventional pollution is almost certain to cause significant problems for regions of the world that don’t have the resiliency (for which you can almost substitute the word wealth) to prepare for it and adapt to it.
One of the common criticisms of Lukewarmers is that we advocate doing nothing, that we are delayers. It isn’t true. So here is what I think we should do while waiting for clarity regarding sensitivity and other unresolved issues with the science:
1. Tax CO2 at a starting rate of $12/ton and revisit the rate every 10 years, adjusting the rate to reflect changes in CO2 concentrations and a pre-agreed metric for observed climate change that has occurred in the interim. Where possible (especially in the U.S., to offer some hope that conservatives may eventually support the concept) the carbon tax should be arranged so as to be revenue neutral. In the U.S. that might involve reductions in Social Security taxes for both employers and employees.
2. Spend a global total of $100 billion for the transfer of technology to the developing world for the purpose of reducing the impact of development technologies, in hopes that they can leapfrog one or two generations of energy development. If nothing else, donating scrubbers for Asian coal-fired power plants will reduce conventional pollution and black soot that degrades the Arctic snows.
3. Commit to spending over the course of this century on moving roads inland, removing permission for construction on threatened coasts and flood plains. The EPA found that this would cost about $400 billion for the United States about 20 years ago–adjust for inflation. But that’s a one-time cost.
4. Continue Steven Chu’s investment strategy for reducing costs in renewable energy, storage and transmission. Continue with ARPA-E at full funding. Institute high value X Prizes to reward innovation in these areas.
5. Encourage the U.S. EPA to continue to regulate CO2 emissions from large emitters.
6. Accelerate permitting for new nuclear power plants to restore nuclear power’s percentage of electricity to 20% in the U.S.
7. Uprate existing hydroelectric plants to take advantage of advances in turbine technology.
8. Mandate uptake of GPS within the air traffic control infrastructure and controlled and one-step descent on landing.
9. Homogenize permitting and regulation for installation of solar and wind power to make it easier to gain approval. Maintain current levels of subsidies and RPS.
10. Increase utilization of Combined Heat and Power facilities in the U.S. from its current 7% of primary energy production to the world average of 9% and then by steps in northern regions to benchmark levels found in Denmark, Holland and other northern European countries.
11. Support introduction of charging stations for electric vehicles.
12. Force existing coal power plants to meet best available technology standards or close.”
As is consistently the case, the Konsensus is wrong about this. I do not know a single professed Lukewarmer that does not support mitigation in one form or another. Not one.
But it doesn’t matter. Truth is just another obstacle to be overcome on the long, weary road to Climate Jerusalem.
It seems that what I found in the quick news analysis I did is perhaps a bit of a caricature compared to other lukewarmer definitions that one can find in the blogosphere.
That’s ok. One way to learn the meaning of a term whose use sprung up on blogs is to blog and wait for those who first used it and who use it to describe themselves really use it.
This is especially important if the current discussion is debating claims about what lukewarmers think. Obviously, in this context you need to find some lukewarmers and read what they say they think. So your post was useful all around.
Okay, so people think that my interpretation of the Lukewarmer position is incorrect and that it is more nuanced than it seems. This seems a little odd in that some seem to have described in a manner consistent with what I said. However, to clarify, can anyone present an example of someone who is a self-professed Lukewarmer, or who presents arguments that are consistent with a Lukewarmer position, who openly acknowledges that climate sensitivity could be high (above 3 degrees C, for example), that what matters from a climate change perspective is how much we emit (not how fast), and that climate change is likely irreversible on human timescales? I can’t think of an example. Most of what I’ve seen appears to be people who argue that it will probably not be high and that it might, initially at least, have a positive impact. I’m not trying to misrepresent the position, so if someone could actually clarify what it actually is, that would be appreciated.
You seem preoccupied with consistent categories of debater… perhaps at the expense of the debate. Labels are sticky, and they’re no substitute for understanding what case is actually being made at any moment. People — or their arguments — fall more or less near to each other. But would a taxonomy of the arguments in currency really help anyone to understand the coordinates of the debate? They might risk setting up another order of problem like the science-vs-denier framing of the debate.
The phenomenon of categories confounding progress is discussed here – http://www.climate-resistance.org/2014/01/science-advocacy.html – after similar attempts to identify positions and camps within the debate.
I don’t really care. I’m just surprised that people here seem to have objected to my description of a generic Lukewarmer. I can’t really see much of a difference between how I desribed it and how it’s been described by others. It also wasn’t intended to be pejorative, so I’m surprised people seem to object. It’s almost as if people want to hold such a position but don’t want people to describe it in that way, as it makes it seem like a rather weak position to hold. Also, does being a Lukewarmer require spending most of your time complaining about how others have characterised you, or is that just a subset of Lukewarmerism?
“I don’t really care. ”
And this is not a sentence.
You are prolific enough to establish that categories are an important part of the perspective you offer.
“I can’t really see much of a difference between how I desribed it and how it’s been described by others.”
As far as I could tell, your position was that lukewarmism was an untenable, or contradicted position, based on your ‘description’ of it, which was somewhat forced. My point is that rather than taxonomies of characteristics, you might make more progress if you engaged in debate to establish what positions people *actually* hold. If such a position turns out to be incoherent, or whatever, so be it. But by arguing with categories and nouns — rather than with arguments — you preclude debate that would reveal it to be so.
Sure. I can present an example: Me. I think the ECS is probably in the lower end of the IPCC range published in the AR4, and that I thought for various reasons, the range was biased high relative to what the data suggest, but have always openly acknowledged that I could be incorrect.
I am not the only one.
This idea is orthogonal to the original definition of “lukewarmer”. The definition was originally based on estimate of ECS.
Besides that: while how much we emit matters– as most lukewarmers agree– you are being obtuse when you write statements that suggest the only things that matter from the climate change perspective is how much we emit or that change is irreversible on human time scales. The ECS also matters. If it is lower, the impact of a set amount of emissions is less than it would be if the ECS is higher. That this lower impact is irreversible on human time scales may be true– but if it is lower, then so what? (BTW: it may not be true that the impact is irreversible on human time scales. What is true is that we currently do not have the technology to reverse it; this does not mean developing such technology is impossible.)
In passing, I would add it is just such over-egging by some like ATTP that prompted the term ‘lukewarmer’. It contrasts those who recognize that both the actual ECS and the amount we emit matter from those who want to convey the notion that only the tiny possibility of high ECS and the amount we emit ‘matter’ to policy. Yes– tiny possibility matters– and that is incorporated by correctly accounting for the tails, and while not biasing the entire estimated range of ECS high.
But proper, unbiased estimate of ECS with correctly computed tails on the high end is important to creating policy. Those whose rhetoric suggests otherwise sound and likely are foolish.
As noted before: there are many examples. But your not knowing any is rather unsurprising. After all, you don’t seem to visit or read lukewarmer blogs. Most lukewarmers avoid your blog because you delete comments of people with whom you disagree which makes the threads uninteresting. I would speculate your direct exposure to the lukewarmer philosophy is practically nil. For this reason, the fact that you can’t think of any examples is evidence of your narrow exposure rather than the numbers who exist.
I would suggest the difficulty is that you are taking no meaningful steps to learn what the position is before telling people what you think it is. Eli Rabbet, who you quote as a source, does visit lukewarmer blogs. But that doesn’t mean he is faithfully describes the positions of lukewarmers. It’s not even clear he understands what they say when they write it. My guess is that you– like many others who visit your blog– have no idea which people are lukewarmers nor which are ‘colder than a witches elbow coolers’ nor who falls where inbetween.
I didn’t say they were the only things that matter. In fact, that sentence started with climate sensitivity. I’m struggling to see how your response presents a version that differs from mine.
“I’m struggling to see…”
A recurrent theme of your statements on the internet.
Perhaps ATTP needs eyeglasses. In any case, I don’t think he his ‘struggles’ are very vigorous. I don’t think they even rise to the level of ‘squinting hard’.
Yes, because I do struggle to see what some people are getting at. It’s constantly amazing.
” I do struggle to see what some people are getting at”
And yet you make judgements about those you do not understand so quickly — paradoxically, about *their* bad faith. Perhaps it is time to own up to the fact that you are the factor common in all your misunderstandings…
“lukewarm” can encompass many things. As I’ve pointed out to you on many occasions, the term ‘denial’, much as the term ‘consensus’ more often than no has no object. So one could come to the position of ‘lukewarm’ because one believes in low sensitivity of climate to CO2, or low sensitivity of society to climate — and perhaps more ways than this. It has been explained to you here, there, many places… It’s not a complex point.
If we are to take you at face value, and in good faith, it is your desire for categories which prevents you from understanding the arguments made by the populations of those categories. But it would be closer to the mark to observe that you divide the debate into ‘scientists and deniers’ before you’ve even read it.
You omitted ECS and did so in context of a discussion of lukewarmers views about ECS. This conveys the impression that you are suggesting lukewarmers are incorrect to believe ECS matters. It matters alot.
Lucia, the term “climate sensitivity” in that sentence referred to whichever form of climate sensitivity you wish to focus on. I wasn’t excluding ECS, I was allowing you to choose whichever climate sensitivity you wished to choose. Make it ECS specifically if you wish.
I should also add that with respect to the “struggles” to see, I would think anyone could see that
a) In response to your implication that no lukewarmers with particular views existed, I presented one: me.
b) I pointed out that lukewarmers agree with you that how much we put in the atmosphere matters.
c) I pointed out that lukewarmers agree that irreversibility matters.
Your posts all implied that lukewarmers do not agree with these claims– and yet most do. By itself, that already shows that you mischaracterized the lukewarmer position either by implying none believe these things or — and I think most people will see it this way– saying so rather directly.
To expand, the list of things lukewarmers believe include:
* lukewarmersbelieve ECS is on the lower end of the IPCC AR4 range (note the AR5 range did move down). However, they believe it is inside that range. That is, they don’t think it has the optical properties of something like Nitrogen.
* lukewarmersrecognize the magnitude of the temperature change matters as does the rate of change. So the magnitude of ECS matters. (If lower, we the consequence of a set emissions level is lower than if it is higher.)
* lukewarmers think it’s important for the estimates of ECS used in economic models that are used to guide policy to not be biased by things like using inapproriate priors in statistical results or models that appear to be over-predicting the level of warming. In contrast, your comment specifically omitted this in your list of what is important.
* lukewarmers disagree with the rhetoric that suggests that we must all focus on the high end of ECS especially when the rhetoric seems to suggest this focus means we are to pay less attention to other features like the central estimates ( mean, median). In otherwords: they think we should use the full range out comes just as we normally do for things like life insurance car insurance and so on. We don’t base decisions only on the worst possible outcome. (This rhetoric that the high end is central exists exists– as your site and in your comments indicate. Some may tap-dance carefully when implying this but its evident in the tone and sometimes directly stated.)
* lukewarmers will generally correct those, who like you, make either unsupported or exaggerated claims about the irreversibility of climate change. It may not be irreversible– it might be possible to develop technologies to reverse the rise in CO2. Moreover, if ECS is low (or if the time scale for climate change is longer) we have more time to develop such technologies.
* lukewarmers will point out that people like you use rhetoric that implies that the possibility that ECS might be on the low side somehow doesn’t matter. Obviously it does. If CO2 had the effect on climate that Helium does, none of this would matter. So: the ECS for doubling of CO2 does matter, and it matters a lot.
That your response is you struggle to see the difference between your claim about the lukewarmer’s view and what I wrote speaks to your deficiencies in understanding, not to any lack of difference in the positions.
Of course sensitivity can be high. But every year that looks increasingly less likely–as the IPCC acknowledged in AR5.
How low does the likelihood of high ECS have to fall before you change your views?
What views?
Thanks to everybody who is now crowd-sourcing the history and semantics of the term ‘lukewarmer’. I’ll read it all this evening!
Here’s a long thread with me attacking lukewarming:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2064222
Although I am annoyed by lukewarmers sometimes, almost all skeptics I know have things in common with ‘lukewarmism’.
Shoot. No edit button. I didn’t close a number of blockquotes.
fixed now?
No. If you send me the html, I can send it back with proper blockquotes. I quoted ATTP a lot.
Lucia gave you a good answer, but for your specifics, I consider myself a lukewarmer, and
I acknowledge those 3 points as distinct possibilities. While not part of the lukewarmer definition, I think it is important to recognize that how fast we reduce fossil fuel use determines the cost of doing so (especially for developing countries). So matching the mitigation timetable to the likely threat will minimize the total harm from both warming and mitigation cost.
I’d like to thank all commenters for their contributions to the debate and to making it quite clear that ‘lukewarmer’ is a label for a rather fuzzy set of beliefs and of people. When looking through the newspaper articles I thought I had detected a core set of tenets or as Shub said somewhere in this link (http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2064222), an ‘archetype’. But it seems there isn’t. This diversity is quite difficult to detect for those not part of the fuzzy set and squinting hard might not help in such a situation. That’s why the comments are so helpful. They set out the diversity for all to see. For outsiders though this will make it difficult to actually talk about ‘lukewarmers’.
Hi Brigitte, are we reading the same thread?
Yes, it seems to me that we lukewarmers on this thread have been pretty consistent.
By using the phrase fuzzy set I don’t mean to say that what you said was ‘fuzzy’. I was trying to say that there doesn’t seem to be a totally well-defined set of beliefs or of members that fall under the label lukewarmer – using ‘fuzzy set’ metaphorically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_set). There seems to be quite a bit of diversity. I am not saying that’s a bad thing, but for somebody not in the ‘set’ it’s quite difficult to get to grips with.
Maybe someone can actually explain what it is then. If they did so, maybe everyone else would then understand it, they could then properly represent the position when they discuss, and those who hold it could then stop complaining – in every comment – that they’re being misrepresented, and that it’s all the fault of everyone else.
Shub seems to have sent you to a thread where Shub tells you what he thinks lukewarmers are and he criticizes them for being what he thinks they believe. It is important to recognize that Shub is not a lukewarmer and his characterization can be just as inaccurate as ATTP’s. My impression of Shub’s believes is he is a “no-warmer” (though not a “cooler”.)
Reading the thread he sent you to, it appears to be a discussion about lukewarmers by people who are not lukewarmers with one who doesn’t know many and another (shub) who gives his opinion and his opinion is that lukewarmers are wrong.
In contrast, TheBigYinJames , the lukewarmer shub is arguing with thinks it is warming and the warming may be caused by CO2. That he only thinks “may” puts TheBigYinJames in the absolutely coolest end of what qualifies as a lukewarmer. But Shub and others on that thread are not lukewarmers– because they are not “warmers” in any sense.
If you wish to learn what lukewarmer actually think it is best to read what self-defined lukewarmers say they think. Otherwise you either hear what those like Shub– characterizes them as thinking or those on the other end– like ATTP think.
The definition will remain fuzzy but so is the definition of “progressive”, “libertarian”, “socialist” or any other term. But if you want to know what lukewarmers think, it’s useful to ask actual lukewarmers, not coolers like shub, not hell-fire and brimstone warmers like ATTP. The definitions from those camps will make the range seem more fuzzy than it is because both will mischaracterize the beliefs of lukewarmers.
Over the weekend I’ll try to digest all that has been written here a bit more at leisure – I was not at work/near computer for most of the day.
And if you want people to properly represent your position it might be nice if you didn’t completely misrepresent that of others. Here’s my current view of Lukewarmers, based mainly on this thread. Somewhat ill-defined/variable science position. Policy position defined as a counter to some other policy position, that they regard as existing but probably doesn’t. A great deal of whining about people misrepresenting their position, while constantly misrepresenting the position of virutally everyone else. Does that sound any closer?
Come on ATTP. Cool off a bit will ya? 🙂
If you read carefully you’ll see many common elements between my characterization and yours.
Are you suggesting I mis-representend some position of yours? Could you tell me which?
Lukewarmer position doesn’t exist to “counter” any position. It is a position that stands alone independent of “other” positions. However, one can observe other positions exist. Among other things: those who disagree with the lukewarmer position criticize it. We can read criticism both from those who believe warming will be swifter and more catastrophic and those who think it will be lesser and uneventful (or won’t even occur.) If you have not observed these ranges of views, I would suggest you get out more. It will be easy to see that the ‘lukewarmer’ position happens to be in between. This does not mean it is “defined” as counter to anything.
State what you specifically think is mis-represented. My impression is:
1) You think the odds or for more warming than lukewarmers tend to expect.
2) You think the need for action is more urgent than lukewarmers tend to believe.
Am I mistaken? Is saying this a misrepresentation? If so, let me know and I’ll happily change my views.
Rather than going further into the rabbit hole, here’s a suggestion. When you discuss you preferred position, why not just say what it is and why? Why not avoid mentioning the existences of warmists/alarmists/fire-and-brimstone/…., just say what your position is and why you hold it? Also avoid complaining about how it’s being misrepresented and how people are mean to you. If your position is strong and based on solid evidence, people will stop doing so.
And now ATTP asks for nuance and precision, and complains about misrepresentation. I look forward to his upcoming posts about the error of framing the debate (and admitting there is a debate), as one between two opposing categories, only one of which is grounded in science.
ATTP/Anders
Can you point to any instance where I complained that someone was being mean to me? Here or elsewhere? No. I thought not.
As for complaining that lukewarmer position is misrepresented: you have done repeatedly on this post. Your mischaracterizations have been both on a general and a specific level. When replying, I responded directly– even to the extent of providing you examples of lukewaremers who believed the various “X’s” you wanted to discover. Others have also responded specifically.
I think it is rather amazing that you should imply things that are completely without foundation (that I complain anyone is mean to me) or even that people are mean to me.
Moreover, I would suggest that the notion that people would “stop being mean” to someone because their position is solid and based on solid evidence is rather naive. I would even suggest that there are many who would suggest that people are “mean” to Michael Mann and those same people think Mann’s position is solid and with evidence. But if you think no one is being mean to him or that they are only being mean because his position is weak, feel free to tell us which. We’re all ears.
But in anycase, I haven’t noticed people being “mean” to me. and never were. So presumably, if
is true, I should feel secure in the notion that my position must be stupendously strong and based on rock solid evidence because people are nice to me.
Anders
Oh heavens. We’ll get to what you wrote in your first comment in a moment. But let me return to your transforming “more likely” into “certainly” just now. This will relieve readers of haiving to scroll back to see how obvious your error is:
Blair wrote:
You actually quoted him and characterized that statement as
Highlighting mine.
Clearly Blair’s quote does not ignoreevidence that the ECS might not be in the low end. Anyone whose is at least on the level of “hair dresser” or “truck driver” knows that “more likely
doesn’t mean “certainly”.
Now, returning to your valiant attempt to avoid admitting that by alluding to your first comment. Oh. Heavens. In your first comment characterizing lukewarmer’s position, you includes this
Highlighting mine.
What you wrote at least implies that lukewarmers ignore that impacts could be severe– I would suggest that most people would interprest you as outright stating they are ignoring this.
So:
(a) In your first comment, you implied that lukewarmers ignore that impacts could be severe. This was incorrect when you wrote it and remains so.
(b) In your characterization of Blairs comment, you interpret “likely in the low end of the range ” to imply that he ignores the possibility that something could be on the high end. That is incorrect.
Moreover, when commenting on Blair’s comment, you made this claim even while quoting a statement that showed Blair — a lukewarmer– clearly did not ignore any such thing.
I get that you would rather we all stop criticizing your mischaracterization. But perhaps if you stop mischaracterizing people position, they will stop correcting you. Possibly, you might stop mis-characterizing if you learn to recognize that people who think something is “more likely X” are not saying it is “certainly X”. Or perhaps you will continue to struggle to see the difference as that was your previous response to our valiant efforts to get you to see the difference between your characterization and the correct one.
Oh come on. If the Lukewarmer position is one in which you think/believe/feel (choose whatever word makes you feel best) that the lower values are more likely than the IPCC suggests, and that the higher values are less likely, then you’re ignoring evidence. Playing silly word games is tedious and makes me think that you don’t actually have a position that you can defend without having to delve into pedantic trivialities.
Lucia, The BH discussion thread was … a discussion. It is relevant here as fodder for discussion and not as an attempted definition of the term ‘lukewarmer’. My opinions as a non-lukewarmer are just as valid as a lukewamer’s per se as I am not trying to pigeonhole them with my characterization.
Of course. I’m just giving Brigette context since she might get the impression that discussion is a good place to learn the definition of “Lukewarmer”. It’s a thread that will let her know your opinion of lukewarmers. That’s a slightly different thing.
Coming late to this party I can repeat what I wrote at my blog on the topic http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.ca/2015/05/on-broader-definition-of-lukewarmer.html
but to do so simply repeats what Lucia has written above. The current definition of a Lukewarmer is much broader than is represented by the likes of ATTP and includes a number of us who believe that action on climate has to be initiated to address climate change both through mitigative actions to address the heating already in the pipeline and to move us off the current path and toward a low carbon future. The critical difference tends to be that Lukewarmers include scientists who see a need for action, just not one for panic.
Thanks Blair. What do you mean by ‘panic’?
I should think he means the the sort of sentiment conveyed by people like Romm
Note loaded terms like “destroy”, “catastrophic”.
in that article.
Or equally, running emotional whiplash articles like
thisor
this which inform us climate change is associated with ‘brain eating parasites”.
Romm is likely the most prominent blogger of the alarmist sort, but others exist.
I would suggest that taking the actions called for by 350.org would be a fine example of panic. But to be more concise, as I have written in the past, many of the policy attempts to address climate change have been carried out with insufficient forethought and in the case of biofuel requirements for fuels have actually put us further into carbon debt (as described here http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.com/2014/12/on-renewables-and-need-for-compromise_28.html).
These are the panicky moves of people who think that any action is better than inaction. Similarly a recognition that all renewables may not be applicable in all locations. Rather regionally-appropriate renewables are the key.
Maybe you should look up the meaning of strawman?
How is it a strawman to believe people like Joe Romm promulgate alarm and have followers?
Joe Romm isn’t a scientist. Joe Romm also does not represent some kind of generic mainstream position. If Lukewarmism is based on a desire to counter people like Joe Romm, your motivation, in my opinion, is rather weak.
ATTP:
1) I didn’t say Joe Romm was a scientists. Warren asked for examples of what “panic” would be. He is an example of “panic”.
2) I didn’t say Lukewarmism is based on a desire to counter Romm. I have no idea what caused you to inject that idea into my response to Warren.
Believing ECS is on the more likely in the low end of the range in the IPCC AR4 published range is not based on any desire to “counter” anyone.
Except, my strawman referred to Blair’s comment which referred to scientists.
Yes, but it does ignore evidence that it might not be on the low end of the IPCC AR4 published range which is essentially what I described Lukewarmers as in my first comment. If believeing that ECS will be on the low side of the IPCC AR4 range largely defines a Lukewarmer, then I think I do understand what the position is and my first comment is my thoughts on that position. You don’t need to like it. I don’t need to change it just because you don’t.
Nonesense.
Blair’s statement about what is “more likely” is not one that ignores the possibility that the ECS might not be on the low end. More likely does not mean “certainly”– which you ought to know. If you don’t you should bone up a bit on english usage and probability.
You keep transmogrifying “more likely” into “certainly” when characterizing lukewarmer’s beliefs. That is inaccurate. I get that you might “struggle” seeing the distinction but I think if you squint a little you can manage it.
Which bit is nonsense, that it is not likely to be higher, or that it’s not what I said in my first comment? If the latter then try reading my first comment in light of my suggestion that this is what I was intending to say. Are you actually able to do that?
You said “believing”, that’s why I used “believing”. Also if I use the words like “if”, “appear”, “seems like” then you’re free to correct my impression. If you say you believe it is “likely” on the lower side of the IPCC range, then you are ignoring evidence that it is likely not on the lower side of the range. The range defines the likelihood of a particular outcome. By giving extra weight to one side of the range is essentially ignoring evidence that it is not likely to be what you believe.
By the way– I can see one cause of confusion. My reply to Warren mentioning Joe Romm is held up in moderation (likely for links). So you still can’t have read my bringing him up as an example of “panic”, not “scientist”.
Sorry, was cooking!
O shoot, I hate the threading on this comments thread.
My reply to
Anders which appears here
https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/05/14/lukewarmers/#comment-970532
ended up here:
https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/05/14/lukewarmers/#comment-970702
yes, it’s not ideal!
Brigitte Nerlich: Thank you for delving into this issue. I suspect that your article searh was completed prior to the posting of:
“Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes” by Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Consensus-the 97%, The Guardian, May 13, 2015
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/may/13/lukewarmers-the-third-stage-of-climate-denial
Yes it was!
I could start with “needless to say”, but likely it does need to be said: Dana is not exactly an good source for the definition of “Lukewarmer”.
The idea that lukewamers want to gamble the future on the small chance of the best case sceneario is inaccurate and wildly so.
Lukewarmers generally want to include the entire range of ECS, but they want the estimate of ECS to be unbiased, and they want policies to either be based mostly on the low probability tails and certainly not solely on them. In other words: We want policy to use uncertainty the same way it does in other areas like, for example, life and car insurance. Few suggest one should by insurance with the notion that it is certain the main bread winner will be hit by a bus tomorrow particularly if the price means kids can’t have socks, shoes or school books this winter.
In contrast, one finds rhetoric at blogs and by pundits banging the drum for the need to based policy on the upper range. Of course one doesn’t ignore it– but it needs to be weighted with it’s low probability, and that probability should not be overestimated by known biases like selecting improper priors in Bayesian analysis or down playing empirical observations of warming during the thermometer record relative to numerical experiments performed by climate modeling groups.
It is true that lukewarmers believe it is likely the ECS falls in the lower range of that published in the AR4. Different people believe it for different reasons– there are a number of lines of evidence for why it might be lower– many empirical — and some of those papers are now being published. In fact, the range in the AR5 is lower than in the AR4.
Also false. The belief that the sensitivity is more likely in the lower half of that published in the AR4 is not a belief it “must be close to the lowest end of possible values”. (Possibly Anders/ATTP got the impression Lukewarmers believe this from Dana? In anycase, it is incorrect.)
Oddly, this is even a bit of a stretch and is a weak defense at best. First they observations are just barely inside the range– and that’s only if you look at pure anomalies.
But what is worse is that ‘anomalies’ are defined using a chosen baseline. The IPCC has changed their definition of the baseline shifting things a bit relative to what they would have been using AR4 baseline. This ability to rebaseline is a feature somewhat unique to climate modeling and has interesting features with respect to testing models. Among other things it means that observations being outside the range of models is a near mathematical impossibility near the time of the baseline. The reason is the difference between the model and observed mean is subtracted to obtain anomalies and so the mean difference is by definition zero during the baseline.
Because modelers can (and do) pick and chose the baseline and different ones were used in the AR4 and AR5, the models appear to still be in agreement. But there are probably other choices that put them out of agreement. (There have been period just before the AR5 was published where the observations were outside the range based on the AR4 baseline– but I haven’t been rerunning recently, so I’ll have to redo to state more confidently at this particular date. )
I could of course continue with additional quotes– but basically, Dana is mischaracterizing lukewarmers position. I won’t speculate on his motives.
Expanding the meaning of ‘denial’ to include those who don’t deny climate change suggests that ‘having an enemy’ is the key aim for some debate participants.
you noticed!
There are alternative interpretations.
Note below Anders/ATTP suggests “There are alternative interpretations.” He does not, however, suggest what the alternative aims might be.
Had he bothered to suggest any so we could discover whether the ones he’s dreamt up sound remotely plausible and whether they might not reflect even more badly on those who use the term than the interpretation you suggested. For that matter, by failing to suggest anything specific Anders/ATTP leaves us wondering whether he or anyone he knows has thought of any plausible explanations or whether he just wrote what he did because he’s miffed that your suggestion is more plausible than anything he’s dreamed up.
It just makes it difficult to follow responses. Also, I responded to ATTP/Anders and he might not find it.
I know. But perhaps it’s time for a ‘good night’ anyway? 😉
I’m in Chicago. It’s 3:13 pm here. 🙂
Ah, I surmised that when I closed my eyes and went to sleep!
I love threaded blog comments! Although looking at a lot of the main climate sites, I appear to be in the minority.
I mostly dislike them. But it’s only when replies appear in weird places that they really bug me!
Brigitte,
The definition of lukewarmer has been discussed from time to time at my blog. (You’ll see lots of people point to mine for historic discussion. I’ve found this one that might interest you:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/reflections-on-climate-reality-what-people-are-saying/
People are posting their SWAGS (scientific wild assed guess– which is to say bound based on rough models.) The SWAGs should not be interpreted as people having 100% certainty in any single point estimate, they merely show different people basis for where they think the ‘best estimate’ upper or lower boudns might be.
You can see that in 2011, lukewarmers themselves were considering having central estimates between 1.5C-3C put one in “lukewarmer” camp. Estimating lower was more of a “cooler” and higher lost the “luke”.
Somehow (I have no idea how) Anders who dislikes labling intensely, wrote a whole blog post about lukewarmers
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/lukewarmers/
In that post he claims things like
He provides no evidence any lukewarmer thinks this and as you can see, I have evidence they do not.
He also claims things like this
I think if you read the discussion at my blog, no one suggestd anyone ignore any other estimates and more over certainly didn’t suggest one should do so because one can’t trust Jim Hansen or Mann.
Anders also claims lukewarmers have an additional reason for believing in low sensitiity:
This is not correct. I don’t think anyone says we ignore model estimates for this reason. That said: the fact that models over estimate trends over long time frames- for example 25 years does make some people suspect they might overestimate climate sensitivity. Example:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/leaked-spm-ar5-multi-decadal-trends/
Many lukewarmers are engineers and scientist accustomed to using an engineering models. They are aware that models use approximate physics and that models that have never been shown to project and which are not bang out during early phases that one should give greater credence to empirical data.
If Anders disagrees with our view of course he may. But saying that lukewarmes say we can ignore model data because they didn’t predict the pause is at best deeply misleading.
Now I realize that Anders couched this all with “As I understand it, lukewarmers are people who believe…”. But all I can say is that he managed to demonstrate that he has practically no idea what lukewarmers believe.
I certainly will have to have a closer look at your blog. I can only say that the public face of lukewarmism, as we ‘members of the public’ can find it in the general news, looks less nuanced, which might lead to some misunderstandings (and also to choices of titles for articles like Tamsin’s, I’d guess). Perhaps we do need that Lukewarmers’ manifesto?
I think the difficulty is that the public is being presented materials by people like Dana. Likely even Tamsin who is pretty fair minded is influenced by his writing. Tamsin is closer to the mark; Dana make claims that are easily shown false by comparing to the beliefs of prominent lukewarmers.
For example: Tamsin quotes Nick Lewis as thinking the 90% probability range is 1C to 3C, but Dana says Lukewarmers believe it is less than 2C. Where does Dana get his numbers? I have no idea– not from the beliefs of actual lukewarmers. And note: he doesn’t quote lukewarmers when telling you the range they believe. Other than to noting the void of links to actual examples, how is a reader with critical thinking skills to obtain information to decide whether they believe Dana’s characterization is correct? His writing presents his interpretation providing nothing to help someone find information to check whether its a fair one based on actual facts.
It’s also worth being aware that Dana at least appears to be on a campaign to make it seem Lukewarmers are really the next stage of “denial” — as if there is some progression from first denying and them admitting but saying there isn’t a problem and so on.
Yet the term “Lukewarmer” has existed for at least 7 years, and at least with respect to scientists, politicians and “actual bloggers” (as opposed to anonymous commenters) it has meant something quite different from what Dana claims it means. If you want to learn what the term has been used for, it’s best to try to discuss the meaning with people who are self identified lukewarmers rather than reading Dana’s characterization. Even Tamsin is not entirely correct– but she’s closer.
Now that my eyes are being opened to a whole world of discussions about what lukewarmers think or believe beyond the small body of news that I looked at, I found this document that, again, members of the public might come across more readily than specialised blogs (if they want to find out what lukewarmers think): http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/02/Ridley-Lukewarmer%20Ten%20Tests.pdf Is the characterisation of lukewarmers’ beliefs in this document more or less accurate?
That’s because the public face of lukewarmers is generally provided courtesy of warmists who seem to have a particular interest in discrediting us.
Hmmmmm. In the small news analysis I did the label was almost exclusively used as self-label and almost an honorific.
Yes, we name ourselves. Then they describe us.
You didn’t include climate sensitivity in your list of of what matters. This is what you included
So I am not being given a choice to “make” the non-existent reference to climate sensitivity mean ECS. Rather, I am forced to see that you climate sensitivity out of your list of “what matters”.
Climate sensitivity matters and you write prose that suggests otherwise. Perhaps that’s an oversight. Perhaps you are unaware you do it. But when you do it in context of criticizing people who discuss climate sensitivity and its magnitude, who state that it matters and you are criticizing them for their views about climate sensitivity, one can’t help but speculate on reasons. Perhaps it’s your limited ability to process what others say. Perhaps you want to write things that suggest it doesn’t matter while avoiding actually saying so and believe omitting the statement will do so. Perhaps you are merely clumsy at expressing yourself. Other possibilities exist. Perhaps you can volunteer one– but please try to avoid volunteering that you included the idea in the list of what matters. Because you did not — as anyone can see by requoting what you wrote.
But the fact is: you omitted climate sensitivity from the list of what matters. That’s a rather amazing omission given the large amount of attention given to climate sensitivity by climate scientists both in and out of the IPCC.
Apart from me already pointing out that I had included climate sensitivity, this is what I said.
Okay, I’ve just worked out your issue and – holy mackeral – it’s freaking unbelievable. What you’re saying is that because I put “what matters” after the bit about climate sensitivity, that I was implying that it doesn’t matter. That’s absolutely ridiculous. Of course it matters. Why would I think that it doesn’t? What a complete and utter waste of time. Is being pedantic and completely missing the point a part of Lukewarmerism? Certainly seems that way.
I’ll even explain the sentence, since you clearly don’t understand it. The “what matters” referred to our emissions (i.e., what matters is how much, not how fast). It wasn’t meant to imply that it was all that mattered overall. If I’d wanted the latter two points to be all that matters, I would have said “all that matters” or something like that. If you’re going to be pedantic, you could try to at least get it right.
Anyway, this has been tedious, and a waste of time. I shall waste no more of mine.
Yes. That’s the way what you write reads. It also reads that way when you omit climate sensitivity in similar discussions at your own blog where you include only the two items you happen to include here in comments.
I didn’t say what you think. I observe that in discussion you omitte mentioning it. I have now pointed out that you not only fail to include it here in comment but also in other more formal discussion at your blog. You might think this habit of omitting “climate sensitivity” from the list of “what matters” doesn’t imply anything at all. If you admit it does, I’m perfectly willing to believe it is just hasty writing.
Well, if you want to discuss theories of how to be clear, here’s another one:
If you meant other things also matter you could also have written “that y and z also matter”, but you didn’t do that.
That you might chose to be clearer and say things that clarify is certainly true. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a reader– like me– to suspect that when you leave ‘x’ out of your list of “what matters” and do so here and elsewhere and you also leave ‘x’ out, that might mean you either think it doesn’t matter, don’t wish to explicitly admit it matters, prefer to downplay it’s importance. Or perhaps you, like many, are often a sloppy writer. Happens.
If you admit climate sensitivity does matter and that it’s value deserves the prominence it has had in IPCC reports– which is quite large– then we are in agreement on the fact that it matters.
To Clear up the air for ATTP from a policy perspective sensitivity is the key metric because any policy decision derives from what the policymakers believe represents an appropriate sensitivity estimate. ATTP writes that:
“what matters from a climate change perspective is how much we emit (not how fast), and that climate change is likely irreversible on human timescales?”
What Lucia has been trying to make clear (and ATTK seems to miss) is what I wrote at my blog:
“If climate sensitivity is determined to be 1.5oC then each doubling in atmospheric CO2 concentrations would result in an increase in 1.5oC. Using the Skeptical Science numbers, an increase in CO2 from 280ppmv to 1120 ppmv would represent two doublings, so with a sensitivity estimate of 1.5oC you would expect an increase of 3oC (two times 1.5oC). If your sensitivity estimate is 4.5oC then the same 3oC would occur below 500 ppmv. So you ask why sensitivity is important? Well the math is pretty easy here. If we only have until 500 ppmv to avoid 3oC (which in this thought experiment we will define as a less than scientific “point of disaster”) then we need to act immediately. If we have until 1120 ppmv then we can wean our society off fossil fuels more gradually and decrease the pain.”
From a policymaker’s perspective irreversible harm at 500 ppmv means a very different thing than irreversible harm at 1120 ppmv and would thus call for a different set of policy options. As I wrote at my blog:
“In one corner we have extreme Lukewarmers who think that climate sensitivity is around 1oC (note I am not from that group). For them getting to the 3oC (which for our thought experiment is really bad) would entail three doublings, or atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2240 ppmv. Even at our current rate of atmospheric CO2 deposition that is not happening anytime soon. So trying to convince them that we should divert trillions of dollars to completely re-tool our planetary energy/power systems would be a pretty hard sell. At the other extreme are people who believe climate sensitivity might be closer to 6oC. For them we are not merely approaching the cliff but have already crossed over it and are starting the dive to collapse. For them immediate action is essential to avoid a hard landing at the bottom of the chasm. In both cases we have good, honest people who have a genuine disagreement about the science but their opinion on the science leads to dramatically differing policy positions. One side says that as long as we get this done in the next 50 years or so we are fine and the other thinks that every day’s delay will result in more pain and hardship. The first group will deeply resent being asked to make serious sacrifices to address climate change and the second group will think that actions are so necessary that maybe governments should be forcing people to make changes involuntarily.”
Of note apparently my attempt at HTML failed so this is going out in text form
To Clear up the air for ATTP from a policy perspective sensitivity is the key metric because any policy decision derives from what the policymakers believe represents an appropriate sensitivity estimate. ATTP writes that:
“what matters from a climate change perspective is how much we emit (not how fast), and that climate change is likely irreversible on human timescales?”
What Lucia has been trying to make clear (and ATTK seems to miss) is what I wrote at my blog:
“If climate sensitivity is determined to be 1.5oC then each doubling in atmospheric CO2 concentrations would result in an increase in 1.5oC. Using the Skeptical Science numbers, an increase in CO2 from 280ppmv to 1120 ppmv would represent two doublings, so with a sensitivity estimate of 1.5oC you would expect an increase of 3oC (two times 1.5oC). If your sensitivity estimate is 4.5oC then the same 3oC would occur below 500 ppmv. So you ask why sensitivity is important? Well the math is pretty easy here. If we only have until 500 ppmv to avoid 3oC (which in this thought experiment we will define as a less than scientific “point of disaster”) then we need to act immediately. If we have until 1120 ppmv then we can wean our society off fossil fuels more gradually and decrease the pain.”
From a policymaker’s perspective irreversible harm at 500 ppmv means a very different thing than irreversible harm at 1120 ppmv and would thus call for a different set of policy options. As I wrote at my blog:
“In one corner we have extreme Lukewarmers who think that climate sensitivity is around 1oC (note I am not from that group). For them getting to the 3oC (which for our thought experiment is really bad) would entail three doublings, or atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2240 ppmv. Even at our current rate of atmospheric CO2 deposition that is not happening anytime soon. So trying to convince them that we should divert trillions of dollars to completely re-tool our planetary energy/power systems would be a pretty hard sell. At the other extreme are people who believe climate sensitivity might be closer to 6oC. For them we are not merely approaching the cliff but have already crossed over it and are starting the dive to collapse. For them immediate action is essential to avoid a hard landing at the bottom of the chasm. In both cases we have good, honest people who have a genuine disagreement about the science but their opinion on the science leads to dramatically differing policy positions. One side says that as long as we get this done in the next 50 years or so we are fine and the other thinks that every day’s delay will result in more pain and hardship. The first group will deeply resent being asked to make serious sacrifices to address climate change and the second group will think that actions are so necessary that maybe governments should be forcing people to make changes involuntarily.”
Of note apparently my attempt at HTML failed so this is going out in text form
sorry about the double post…I got a timeout warning and thought it had not posted.
Absolutely correct. This is why climate sensitivity belongs in any list of “what matters” when considering the impact of climate change or what the response should be.
It’s really interesting to hear about ‘extreme lukewarmers’ and various groups or clusters of lukewarmers. My quick news analysis only revealed the thoughts and definitions of lukewarmerism of one very small but vocal cluster.
I’ll explain this comment again, since some seem to have trouble understanding what I was getting at (quelle surprise). Of course climate sensitivity is important. In fact, I thought it was so obviously important, that I didn’t need to actually stress it. The reason I added the latter points in the above comment was to highlight two other factors that are relevant. For a given climate sensitivity, all that matters is how much we emit, not how fast. In other words, we can’t influence how we will ultimately warm by emitting faster or slower. Essentially – which I really thought was obvious – the important factor is (surprise, surprise) climate sensitivity. So, my comment was actually trying to point out that the crucial point is climate sensitivity, not how fast or slow we might emit. The next point I was trying to highlight was irreversibility. We can’t go back once we’ve reach a certain level of cumulative emissions. Once again, what’s important is (surprise, surprise) climate sensitivity. Of course, if climate sensitivity is low, then we can emit more – for a given level of climate change – than if climate sensitivity is high.
So, what was I getting at in my comment? I was trying to get at the following; if climate sensitivity is high and we choose to emit enough to reach high levels of warming, this will be achieved irrespective of how fast we choose to do so and, once we’ve done so, the impacts will be irreversible on human timescales.
Having clarified the above, we can now move onto to a more substantive and interesting discussion about this actual issue, rather than spending a day focusing on one sentence in a single comment that the author has tried to clarify a number of times. Oh, wait, sorry, I’m probably being naive. What will probably happen is that I will be blamed for not being clear enough in the first place, and someone will find something to nit pick in this comment. I have read it a number of times to find what thing I’ve said that might be open to mis-interpretation, but I can’t find anything. However, I think it is impossible to write a comment that some won’t be able to misinterpret. It is a skill that some seem to have in abundance.
ATTP/Anders
I think many of us can agree with that you used an idiom (‘what matters is x’) to convey something you did not think. Now that you have clarified, I suspect many are happy to learn your theory for why you think we should have understood you to mean something at odds with what that idiom conveys. If I understand your theory correctly, it is that we should be able to read your mind and know that you couldn’t possibly think something that is obviously untrue and that we would not think you are implying something untrue even if what you wrote implies something untrue.
I suspect many will be happy to drop further discussions of your writing style if you wish; I certainly will be happy to do so. But if you wish to continue to explain your writing style, I’ll be happy to respond to your own continued discussions of your own writing.
Now, I’ll be happy to move on to substance as you suggested. Perhaps you’ll take your own suggestion and focus on these substantive points– all of which I broached before, but which– as far as I can tell- you have not responded to.
Specifically I address some claims buried in your clarification of what you meant, as it seems to contain a number of obviously incorrect claims.
For what it’s worth, the claim “ For a given climate sensitivity, all that matters is how much we emit, not how fast.” is incorrect. I’m corrected that claim previously, but let me elaborate. How fast we emit is also important. Adaptation can occur on scales of plant and animal lifetimes. So emitting rapidly resulting in rapid warming can be worse than emitting the same amount over a long time. All other things being equal, how fast we emit affects how fast it warms and how fast it warms matters.
In case you do not believe that how fast we emit affects how fast it warms, turn the burner on your oven on “low” and watch how fast tap water comes to a boil. Then repeat the experiment and turn it on “high” and see what happens. You will see that when you turn it on “low” it heats more slowly . This factor does matter to adaptation. Alot. This is, of course a rather elementary application of physics, so presumably you, “And Then There is Physics” don’t need to actually do the experiment, merely thinking about it will bring the principle forward in your mind.
The latter claim is untrue. As I told you earlier in the thread. Climate change may be irreversible, or we may be able to develop technologies that permit us to reverse it. I should add that if climate sensitivity, particularly TCS, is lower we are given more time to develop technologies before rapid warming has impacts given a set amount and rate of emissions. And of course, TCS is affected by both ECS and time scales.
If you wish to engage these erroneous claims of yours, I’ll be happy to discuss them. Or if you wish to clarify that you really meant something else and explain how the quoted text means something other than what it means to say, feel free to continue discussing your writing style.
I’ll respond to this just to illustrate why this has been a waste of time, and why discussions with some people are clearly pointless. Yes, how fast we emit obviously influences how fast we will warm and – if we choose to emit slowly – will allow for more adaptation than if we choose to do so quickly. However – as should have been obvious – I was talking about relevant timescales; the difference between emitting another 500GtC in the next 40 years, versus the next 80 years – for example. I certainly wasn’t referring to the difference between doing so over the next 40 years and the next 1000 years, as that would clearly be ridiculous. Also – as I thought was obvious – I was referring to how much our climate will change for a given climate sensitivity and a given level of cumulative emissions – in other words, the overall change is largely independent of how fast we choose to emit (again, considering only relevant timescales – difference of decades, not centuries). The reason I was pointing this out (as I also thought was obvious) was that whatever changes do take place are largely irreversible. So, yes, maybe if we emit slowly we will be able to adapt more effectively to the resulting changes, but that doesn’t change that these will still depend primarily on climate sensitivity and our cumulative emissions (and not on the rate of emissions) and are probably irreversible on human timescales.
Now, as many have pointed out here, maybe I simply don’t express myself sufficiently clearly. An alternative, though, is that some are simply incapable/unwilling to actually put in even the small amount of effort required to try and actually understand what is being said. Of course, as I’ve said before, I’ve reread the above to try and establish if I could have said it any clearer, or if there is anything that could be mis-interpreted. I can’t see anything obvious, but I’m confident that others here will easily find something to misinterpret/misunderstand. Feel free to not disappoint.
I might be naive, but it seems to me that Anders has expressed himself quite clearly here and that the message is also quite clear. I hope that the rest of you agree. I hope even more that you are not glued to the screen but enjoying a bit of rather cold and windy sunshine (or whatever weather there might be where you are) … That’s where I’ll be heading now…
That someone who clearly does not read what others in the discussion are writing, perhaps you are being somewhat… sensitive…
Your final sentence seems to indicate you are proud of being incomprehensible. Or did I misinterpret you?
I do read what others say. Mostly they’re telling me that I don’t read what they say, or are complaining about what I’ve said, rather than actually explaining their position.
If you’re referring to my most recent comment, I can’t see what was so complicated about my final sentence. It certainly seems to me that as hard as I try to write something that can’t be easily misinterpreted, someone always manages to find a way to do so. Also – after many attempts to explain that they’ve misinterpreted me – continue to insist that their interpretation of what I said somehow trumps what I was actually trying to say.
However, here is my basic understanding of the Lukewarmers position wrt to climate science. They feel that the lower climate sensitivity values are more likely than the IPCC suggests and that the higher values are less likely than the IPCC suggests. Is that about right?
ATTP,
I have noticed that you often complain about how people interpret (or to your mind misinterpret) what you write. I have found that writing what I mean, in the clearest terms possible, helps alleviate the problem. Your tendency toward semantic circles, apparently intended to elicit “gotcha” answers, lends itself to serial misinterpretations.
My goodness, that’s brilliant. Why didn’t someone mention that to me years ago. Thank you so much. Everything will go so my better now that you pointed out this self-evident truth. I wish I was as clever as you are. My hero.
I’m not trying to elecit “gotcha” answers. That would interpret it in that way, however, is no great surprise.
One thing which is becoming a bit clearer to me is that ‘lukewarmer’ is definitely a self-label, a label that people use to identify themselves with. But it’s a large umbrella label covering a lot of different self-labels across a spectrum. People on this spectrum then use particular labels to establish boundaries between various groups on the spectrum, from extreme to low-end lukewarmers (depending mostly on how they see climate sensitivity, if I am not completely wrong). This is quite different to the label ‘warmist’ it seems, which is an other-label. It is used by, say, lukewarmers to label others beyond the specturm and to demarcate the boundary of their self-labels. It is not used by anybody, as far as I know, to label themselves. All this needs further thought.
I think that’s broadly correct. I think some people will ironically label themselves as “warmists/alarmists” but I don’t think there are many who regard it as a label that they would want to self-identify with, and I certainly don’t think it is a label that they created themselves.
Yes. My impression is people who run posts like the one pictured in the image below don’t self label as alarmist and may take umbrage at being described as “hell fire and brimstone warmers”.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ThermogeddonII-500×419.png
But some visitors to that blog would certainly suggest that electing to run this sort of video and a writing
Suggests a ‘alarm’. It’s difficult to see invocations of “catastrophic shift” or “threatens everything” as not conveying alarm. Or should I say “I struggle to see how it does not convey alarm.”?
Now I realize that those who are alarmed and believe that video is merely a balanced middle of the road representation of what might be happening might not consider themselves “alarmists”. Or possibly, some might think window dressing saying that this is not certain sprinkled in post after post highlight this sort of thing means they can’t be called “alarmist”.
But similarly, people like “Liza” and “Kim” who used to visit my blog did not consider themselves “coolers” even though they predicted that cooling was more likely than not over the upcoming century and they had many rationalizations for why one should not consider them coolers despite quite considerable number of posts predicting cooling.
But many others would classify Liza and Kim as coolers; I would suggest that classfication is correct. I would also suggest the person who posted the image above is at least a “hell-fire and brimstone warmer” even if he might not self-identify that way.
I realized the post above was RachelM ATTP’s co-blogger so I should have used “she”. But I would also note that ATTP wrote what follows
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/michael-mann-on-tipping-points/
My impression is that ATTP was grumpified when I called him a “hell fire and brimstone warmer”. Or at least, after I wrote that he posted what appeared to be a counter that claimed I mis-characterized his views. I asked him to specify which I mischaracterized. Perhaps he missed my question because he didn’t answer it.
That said: if ATTP does not self-identify as an alarmist, I think we can take his word that those who are alarmed and who focus alarming possibilities (whoever improbable these might be) don’t like to self label using the term “alarmist”.
You should maybe look up the difference between being
Oh no, I loved that. I always enjoy it when people who complain about labels, throw them around themselves. Really makes me feel that I’m dealing with someone who values consistency.
I suspect that may be one of the few times you can find me saying something like that. You should probably also familiarise yourself with the difference between an alarmist, and being alarmed. It’s quite possible to be alarmed by what might happen if we make poor choices about what we should do, without also being an alarmist. It seems to me that a great deal of what motivates the Lukewarmer position is being alarmed about the economic consequences of making poor policy decisions. In fact, when I read self-professed Lukewarmer blogs, the rhetoric often seems even more alarmist that much of what I see elsewhere. Of course, it’s economic alarmism, but it appears to be alarmism nonetheless.
Are you suggesting I complained about labels? Could you clarify what you mean? I did say mischaractersized what the label “lukewarmer” means and explained in what way you mischaracterized what it means. But I think I’ve never complained that someone uses the label and I don’t complain when people use other lables.
If you can find someplace where I complained that people use lables, please point to it.
I didn’t merely observe you were alarmed. I pointed to you and cour co-b blogger encouraging alarm in others and highlighting alarming scenarios including outcomes that are deemed highly unlikely by bodies like the IPCC.
One could be similarly alarmed about the highly unlikely possibility the supervolcano at yellowstone would erupt– it’s possible. The outcome would be horrific. But it’s highly unlikely and focusing on such a thing would be considered “alarmist”. In my view your behavior is encouraging unwarranted alarm and panic over by highlighting the possible harms that might arise in the event something that is highly improbable occurs.
I think if you consult the dictikonary you will discover your behavior meets the formal definition of “alarmist” even if you think you aren’t any such thing and prefer to tell people you are “alarmed” but not “alarmist”.
I haven’t seem anyone running videos of showing the entire world plunged into economic poverty or starvation due to economic choices that might be made due to climate change. Perhaps you can give a specific example of something more alarmist than the blogger running a 53 minute “Disruption: A call to act on Climate Change” video surrounded by rhetoric stating “… it’s about a catastrophic sift in our fragile biosphere that threatens everything”. It’s difficult to get more alarmed that “catastrophic” and “threatens everything”.
But perhaps you can show examples that are more alarming or focusing on even less probable events. Also, we can discuss whether these blogs are ‘lukewarm’. We can also see if the material you are fishing out is deep in comments posted by a nearly anonymous non-entitiy or up in the post itself– as it is at your blog.
Once you provide even a single example, we can discuss whether the material you consider more alarmist than the stuff you post is alarmist or whether its just stuff you disagree with. In the meantime, as you give no specific examples one really can’t evaluate your claim about what you think you’ve seen at blogs you believe to be lukewarm.
You need to look up encourage too. Anyway, this is ending up as another discussion about me, rather than about the topic of the post. I’ve got much better things to do with my time than engage in another one of these endless circular discussions. I’ve learned quite a lot about some Lukewarmers, though.
sorry cooking again etc. this might be of interest http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378007000465
I don’t see kim around much anymore. I hope she’s doing well. As you may have noticed I like poetesses…
Correct: lukewarmer is very much a self-label or a peer-label. Many lukewarmers consider themselves to be in the sensible middle of a spectrum dominated by extremes. It’s almost never used as an other-label because it’s not insulting enough for that purpose. The recent coinage of “luckwarmer” is a sneaky attempt to create a usable other-label from it.
You are correct in this. I write about the use of labels in a blog post: http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.ca/2015/01/does-climate-change-debate-need-reset.html
The point of the post is that labels can be used by individuals to self-identify. Those types of labels are typically positive. But labels can also be used by outsiders to ostracize. It is a common ploy in debating to label your opponent with a name intended to lower their appeal and thus degrade the reception of their technical arguments.
Alternatively, once someone has self-identified with a group, a common ploy is to re-frame the original label in a negative manner. This is what selected individuals are trying to do with the “Lukewarmer” label. If they can convince the world the Lukewarmers are actually “deniers” they can use this do dismiss the Lukewarmer case out of hand. This avoids them having to address the validity of the points made by the Lukewarmers.
Yes, labels are insidious, divisive and slippery like eels! As societies we cannot live without them, but it makes working together so much more difficult. I am puzzled as to why labels have proliferated so much in the climate change debate, unlike in other debates at the science/politics interface (but I have no empirical research supporting that impression). Does the complexity of the label landscape mirror to some extent the complexity of the climate change issue? I really don’t know!
Labels are a way to help people of like minds form communities. On the web, they also allow otherwise unrelated people to locate each other for discussions. As the joke about time zones yesterday showed, communicating online is hard enough when you have someone on Greenwich mean time (you and ATTP), someone in Central US time (Lucia G-6) and someone on Pacific Time (me G-8). By using labels (and thus keywords for search engines) we simplify the act of tracking each other down and communicating. This has the benefit of connecting far away souls but runs the risk of creating echo chambers.
As for the complexity of the labels, as Dr. Curry points out, climate is a “wicked problem” with all sorts of underlying complexities. It is also a multi-disciplinary one that requires the inputs from any number of fields from the hard sciences to the social sciences and the humanities. Labels help us translate our disciplinary-specific jargon to our interdisciplinary colleagues.
That’s a slightly more positive view of labels than the one I presented. It sometimes helps to think positively 🙂
As I run a lukewarmer blog (mostly used to be) visited by both stone-cold coolers, like coolers, lukewarmers, very-warm warmers and hell-fire and brimstone warmers, I read many labels. One stone-cold cooler visitor calls ‘warmers’ warmistas, which I assume is meant to evoke something like “sandanistas”. (I say used to be because I have not been blogging much in the past year.)
It is also worth nothing that some stone cold coolers do like to self-lable “lukewarm”. Equally, some “hell-fire and brimstone warmers” who constantly write things to evoke what might be called “thermagedon” like to claim their views are smack dab in the middle of the IPCC consensus– or even that most scientists expect more warming (but possibly don’t reveal their true beliefs dues to “seepage”). This behavior certainly makes the task of a linguist, social scientist or communicator complicated.
BTW: going on a tangent…. I like a better non-loaded label for “hell-fire and brimstone warmer” or “stone cold cooler” but no one has come up with a none-loaded adjective that goes with the terminology that includes the “cold-cool-warm-hot” scale. Those on the extremes tend to want to pick labels like “climate hawk” ,”realist”, “warrior” , “slayer” and so on etc. These labels don’t contain information about how much warming they expect nor what it’s impact is likely to be. Rather they are trying to convey some sort of attitude or feeling.
That’s an interesting observation!
I think you’re correct. Warmists don’t accuse people in the debate of being lukewarmers. They accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being ‘deniers’. Skeptics tend to accuse us of being slaves to communist doctrine (sort of kidding, but just barely.)
History essay part 3:
By 2010, the term “Lukewarmer was well established in the blogosphere.
In my recently published paper, I pointed out that in Jeff Id’s Reader Background blog, dating from April 2010, 17 individuals describe themselves as lukewarmers. As Brigitte says above, it’s generally used as a self-label, though there are also three people on that thread who use the term in order to distinguish themselves from it.
I also gave a definition, broadly in line with what people have said here, and highlighted Lucia’s Blackboard as a key lukewarmer blog. This 2010 date coincides roughly with the first usage of the term in the newspapers, as found by Brigitte’s investigation.
When I was preparing my paper I looked through the academic literature on public opinion on climate change, and I was surprised that I could find no mention of the term ‘lukewarmer’. Even the recent paper by Howarth and Sharman on labelling (mentioned by Barry above) does not mention lukewarmers, although their blog post does. So I believe that my paper is the first in the literature to use the word ‘lukewarmer’, though I’d be happy to be proved wrong!
When I was preparing the paper on ‘greenhouse sceptics’ and looked at other labels like ‘climate change sceptics’, ‘climate change deniers’, … contrarians.. etc. I remember looking at lukewarmers but then decided to not put them on the graph as the numbers were too small. So yes, I think you are the first.
Brigitte,
You asked for a comment on Matt Ridley’s discussion, but it must have gone into one of the “hide” parts of the threaded comments. I’ll put my comments about his 10 point below (hopefully without to many lost ‘close’ blockquotes.)
It’s long…
Matt is A lukewarmer, self describes as one and and tells you his 10 points. Certainly his discussion is a better description than say Dana’s. (By Dana’s definition, Matt Ridley is not a lukewarmer. 🙂 )
I’ll try to point out which I think define lukewamers and which don’t. That said, I’ll be using the “traditional” definition, and admit it can shift. One could call people “climate lukewarmers”– which is traditional– and others “policy lukewarmers” which is related but newer. There will always be some overlap because it’s natural to be a policy lukewarmer when one is a climate lukewarmer. But one may be one without being the other. Before continuuing: Point 2 is “the” important point for “climate lukewarming”. Some of the later ones are pure policy.
So here are matt’s points quoted sufficiently that you can find the rest followed by my comments. Other lukewarmers may disagree with me.
I don’t think all lukewarm believe there is any significant UHI effect. One can be a lukewarmer without believing there is one; some think there is contamination. I doubt don’t think UHI is important, but I think everyone considers me a lukewarmer.
This would mean he would need to see evidence that climate sensitivity is greater than 3C. This agrees with the bounds for being a “climate lukewamer”. Mind you: it doesn’t mean one thinks it’s impossible to be higher—and he doesn’t say he thinks it’s impossible. (Nick Lewis, a statistician, discusses uncertainty ranges more expansively). My take is Matt merely says he thinks it’s unlikely and would need persuading— presumably by being presented empirically based data that that makes a convincing case for a higher sensitivity.
I think this is a very typical lukewarmer stance. Note Dana’s description of “lukewarmer” would exclude Matt because matt accepts the possibility of 3C and also he would be willing to believe it was even higher if presented convincing empirical evidence. (Dana’s description also excludes Nick Lewis. Leaving…. who?)
One’s believes about these do not define “lukewarmer”. But I would suggest the vast majority of climate lukewarmers agree with this because both the claims about aerosols and ocean heat uptake are suggested reasons why we should believe that sensitivity is high despite the lag in the thermometer record relative to climate models.
Certainly, artic ice loss has been faster than predicted by the current group of climate models. I’m not sure what all lukewarmers think about the loss of artic ice. Some — like matt— may think it’s just soot. Others think it might just be that models over-predict warming at mid-latitudes where we live more than they over predict at the poles. Or that ice is more sensitive. Others think ice may just have greater variability than predicted in models and that as such, we might see fluctuations anyway. I don’t really think one’s explanation of this fact deems one a lukewarmer or not.
That said: insisting the arctic ice has not reduced rapidly or that it is clearly “recovered” tends to suggest “cooler”. Matt has done neither of those two things.
I admit to finding it difficult to say whether this “fits” climate lukewarmer or not; it’s ambiguous.
This sort of language might to put Matt on the “cooler” edge of lukewarm but that depends on what he means. If he means “there will often be periods during which natural factors will cause surface warming to appear to stand still” that is consistent with lukewarming. After all: if climate sensitivity is— say— 1.5C to 2C, and natural factors are about what they seem we will often see this. That would go hand in hand with “lukewarm”. We’ll sometimes see periods of more rapid warming, sometimes slower and during the slower periods warming will seem to “stand still” or “pause” for a bit. This is how the surface temperature looks since 2001.
If he means “I think we’ll see a stand still that could last until 2100 ”, then he’s not what I call a climate lukewarmer. (Mind you— I’ve noted on my blog I can’t decree myself the dictionary. But the term becomes meaningless if “adjective-warmer” doesn’t believe there is a general ongoing tendency for warming to occur and that the reason is related to GHGs.)
Many lukewarmers think this, but one need not believe it to be a “climate lukewamer”. So I’d say this view is typical, but not universal. One isn’t “not a lukewarmer” by thinking that 2C might cause net harm nor by believing it could change more than 2C. (If we emitted enough I’m sure GMST could change more than 2C. So I’m in favor of encouraging nuclear power. I’m also in favor of developing methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere if it turns out we need to do that. Nuclear could help there.)
Many lukewarmers think we can vastly reduce damage by doing things to adapt. As such, they don’t wish to see steps to adapt neglected. I think if warming is slowish –which is possible if sensitivity is on the low end and we we do things like switching to nuclear and etc.-, we can avoid much pain and suffering by including adaptive measures. We can move away from sea shores and so on. (That said: I favor encouraging nuclear power; I think that’s prudent.)
This is moving into policy preferences. As such it has nothing to do with the traditional definition of climate lukewarmer— as introduced around 2008. But policy lukewarmers agree with this and many “lukewarmers” are both. It’s rather natural to think this when one thinks the evidence for climate sensitivity is that it falls on the lower side and that the upper bound range– which is mostly based in AOGCM’s not empirical data– and which is also obtained using biased Bayesian priors– are highly unlikely.
This goes on a bit.
Many lukewarmers agree with this— though once again it’s not related to the traditional definition of climate-lukewamer. I should think even some hell-fire and brimstone warmers ought to see that corn ethanol has negative externalities on food prices and some do. So one could agree with this and be anything– cooler, luke warmer, hell fire and brimstone warmer. Then again: one might not.
What he’s saying is he doesn’t accept what has been called the “precautionary principle” which claims that we need to act immediately and drastically if there is even a remote possibility something alarming might occur.
I think nearly all lukewarmers would agree with this. Lukewarmers believe we should weight cost of outcomes by their probabilities and that both estimate of the costs of the outcome and the probability should be estimated using methods that are unbiased. This means: use fair Bayesian priors, rely on evidence that is strongest and not easily game, don’t discount empirical evidence where we have it, don’t deem outcome of AOCGM type models “proven” based on “hindcasting” (with the ability to tweak both parameters and aerosols etc and which, in anywise, over-predicts warming over multi-decacal scales.) We should take steps that are economically prudent, and that means being fair both to current generations and future generations. Moreover, if one is going to claim we need to apply the “precautionary principle” to one type of possible but unlikely negative outcome (i.e. thermageddon) then we should apply it to the other type of possible but unlikey negative outcome (financial catastrophe.) Both are unlikely— but that just leaves you a draw if you feel the need to apply the precautionary principle.
Note however: generally lukewarmers don’t accept the precautionary principle at all. When creating policy one should not ignore any possible negative outcomes— neither climatic nor economic. The point is one should consider both on the same basis: if the precautionary principle applies to one, it applies to the other.
I agree with much of what Lucia says above with a couple provisos/qualifiers.
With reference to black carbon I am a believer that it is a somewhat more serious problem than Lucia and describe the basis for this belief in a blog posting:
http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.com/2015/01/black-carbon-climate-change-topic-we.html
I see the reduction of black carbon pollution as a win-win scenario as it has the potential to address a serious forcing agent as well as providing for an increased quality of life for many thousands/millions of humans worldwide.
The other area where I disagree with Lucia has to do with the Precautionary Principal. The reason for my disagreement in this case is that unlike many of the people involved in the climate change debate I like to stick to the Precautionary Principal as it was actually expressed as Principal 15 from Rio. Surprise, surprise, I have also written about this topic on my blog:
http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.com/2014/12/about-that-climate-consensus-we-keep.html
As someone trained both in the science and the policy I have the benefit of knowing that (as I write at my blog)
“the actual Precautionary Principal includes a qualifier for cost-effectiveness. The activists pretend that line is not there as they look to mandate massively intrusive and completely unworkable ideas on an unwilling populace without demonstrating their effectiveness or addressing major concerns.”
The problem we face is that activists have hijacked the Principal and re-purposed it to suit their desires. Much like the re-framing and re-labelling exercise we discussed earlier. The Principal has been re-purposed by individuals not familiar with its contents or its origins as a “get out of jail free” card that they can use whenever they start to falter in a debate or discussion. To mis-quote Inigo Montoya “Precautionary Principal? You keep using that term, I do not think it means what you think it means”.
Thanks for all these clarifications which need some digesting, after some sleep!! This is getting really interesting.
At the time Ridley published his 10 points I blogged on each one at The Lukewarmer’s Way. The post on the 9th point is here: https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/matt-ridleys-ninth-test-warning-rant-follows/
“Usually I have this fight with the most alarmed of activists who point at the paltry production of their favorite renewables and use it as an excuse to advocate either draconian caps on emissions or some well-hidden scheme to retard energy consumption in the developing world. I never thought I would see this argument coming from you–and you put it under the Lukewarming label?
You are arguing that we should throw out the baby because of lack of economic productivity.”
Ridley was prominent in the comment threads of that series until he got news that he had made it to the House of Lords, at which time I assume he had better things to do and disappeared.
My blog is a low-traffic one. However, ATTP has been a frequent visitor to threads where lukewarmers are defined and discussed. That he professes ignorance here of something that is put under his nose in places where he comments and even on his own blog indicates to me that he is engaged in an effort to deligitimize rather than improve his understanding. He’s just a more polite version of Eli Rabett.
I applaud his better manners.
One thing is becoming clear to me – there are lukewarmers who are in the limelight – the ones that cropped up in my media analysis – and they are linked to what one might call sceptics (see the names that also crop up in my post). There are others, less in the limelight, who have appeared in this comment stream and who want to distinguish themselves from both and carve out what one may call a more sensible position – one that could even be ‘wrong’. That is laudable.
Well, there’s a lot of shifting sand under our feet as well as shifting attitudes. Five years ago Lukewarming was a bit more of a stretch, before observation-based sensitivity studies and other discoveries put some wind at our backs. The originals–like Lucia here, Steve McIntyre and a few others, were actually putting something on the line. McIntyre went into a room full of skeptics who were ready to carry him on their backs and nominate him for President for Life. He told them that he would in fact listen to the IPCC on climate issues and the room went quiet–the skeptics seemed to feel he had betrayed them.
Hardly.. because that room was mostly full of USA sceptics at the extreme end of scepticism. Hardly representative of sceptic in the USA,let alone anywhere else
For example. Piers Corby might be described as a hardcore uk sceptic. Vs Andrew Montfort, Matt Ridley, Benn Psieser, etc. But when Piers went to heartland he said to me they were way over the top. Someone said to him. “We’re showing them Republican Science!” , which threw Piers a bit. Who replied science is just science
Its worth noting that there isn’t hostility between skeptics and lukewarmers. Meanwhile, to a large extent, both are often banned from “warmer-warmer” and “even warmer-warmer” blogs and so on. There’s some reason to believe some with “even warmer-warmer” are more hostile to luke-warmers than they are to coolers, though that’s the sort of thing that could be debated. All “evidence” would amount to “my impression” vs “your impression”.
With respect to any formal organization that might end up with resources to support staff, web pages, and so on there is so little funding for these views that those who are lukewarmers on down can only become a loud enough force to be heard by pooling resources.
I wouldn’t say those less in the limelight want to distinguish themselves from those in the limelight. I certainly see myself as in more or less the same “group” as Nic Lewis who came later but has done good formal work and published it.
But yes, we know our estimate of the probabilities for various levels of warming could be wrong or– since this is probability– that the true value could end up higher than we think probable. But everyone from “cooler” to warmest-of-warmer” ought to know the true value could end up higher or lower than they expect. We’d all change our mind based on firm empirical evidence that our position is wrong.
It would be wonderful if there was less uncertainty. Nic Lewis analysis operates in the direction of reducing uncertainty– but he has his critics.
The sun is up! I really appreciate you going through all the points Matt Ridley makes and also that some lukewarmers may agree with some points and not others, that some may agree with all or none. Again this points to a nice spectrum. However, I wonder what happens if, say hypothetically, somebody who is not a self-confessed lukewarmer doesn’t agree with the majority of the points made. What do they become. Anyway… this all reminds me very much of prototype theory, but a rather difficult case of prototype theory. I quote from wikipedia: “Prototype theory is a mode of graded categorization in cognitive science, where some members of a category are more central than others. For example, when asked to give an example of the concept furniture, chair is more frequently cited than, say, stool. Prototype theory has also been applied in linguistics, as part of the mapping from phonological structure to semantics. As formulated in the 1970s by Eleanor Rosch and others, prototype theory was a radical departure from traditional necessary and sufficient conditions as in Aristotelian logic, which led to set-theoretic approaches of extensional or intensional semantics. Thus instead of a definition based model – e.g. a bird may be defined as elements with the features [+feathers], [+beak] and [+ability to fly], prototype theory would consider a category like bird as consisting of different elements which have unequal status – e.g. a robin is more prototypical of a bird than, say a penguin.” Now the question I ask is: if you asked a large sample of self-confessed lukewarmers (a) to tell you who a prototypical lukewarmer is (who is the ‘robin’ or the ‘chair’, so to speak) whom would they choose. I bet there are cultural and geographical differences. A definition-based model certainly doesn’t seem to work that well. Hmmm, I am just wondering what would happen if one asked that same prototype question about other labels….
Well, first off, I don’t think you’d need a very large room. There doesn’t seem to be that many of us.
I think Lucia would serve as Mark 1 Mod 1. All of us on this thread are lucky she showed up here, although I doubt ATTP would agree.
If you ask me what I thought the defining characteristic of Lukewarmers is, I would say something like flexibility, which allows us to incorporate new information without blowing up our view of the universe.
I can’t imagine Lucia, Mosher, McIntyre or even myself being destroyed if new information came out that made either a more skeptical or more alarmist view a rational decision. The point is that a lukewarm view of climate change, its future extent and impacts, really seems to be the most rational interpretation of the evidence we have.
The prototypical lukewarmer would clearly be Lucia. Other “candidates” tend to specialise a bit, but she’s pretty much dead centre on most issues.
Brigitte,
While I appreciate the concept of prototype theory as described in your post, I would suggest that you have it a bit too complicated. As a Biologist I appreciate your example because it actually helps quite a bit. To explain: both robins and penguins are birds not because of the set of definitions presented in your theoretical formulation (wings, flying etc…) but rather by the definitions presented by membership in the Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Aves. As noted in Wikipedia: Class Aves are feathered, winged, two-legged, warm-blooded, egg-laying vertebrates. You can’t be more of a bird than another. You are either a bird or you are not and all birds have to meet the requirements of Class Aves irrespective of any other feature or further characteristics.
To return to a definition as a Lukewarmer, there will be some characteristics that are necessary to be a Lukewarmer (i.e wings in birds) and some characteristics that are merely optional (i.e. flying). I would present that Jonathan Jones has it well defined above:
“lukewarmers agree that the climate sensitivity is positive (so adding more CO2 will, in the long run, warm the planet) [hence the Warmer] but believe that the climate sensitivity is significantly lower than the mainstream position of the IPCC. [hence Luke]”
The reason someone comes to the two conclusions and the policy options thereafter are immaterial to the central premise of the group. As long as you meet the two critical criteria you are a Lukewarmer. If you don’t, then irrespective of what you want to call yourself, you are not. I have explained my scientific basis for why I believe that warming will be at the lower end of the IPCC consensus at my blog while Lucia has also done so at her blog. Our reasons are different but we still meet the two basic conditions. When someone says they would like to self-identify as a Lukewarmer the only questions to ask are the two identified above. A yes to both and you are in. A no to either and you are not.
To return to your example, like birds there can be any number of additional types of Lukewarmer, however, as long as they meet the critical criteria for inclusion in the grouping (for birds that would be the requirements of Kingdom Anamalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Aves) they are Lukewarmers. So it is not nearly as difficult/complicated as your formulation makes it. Two quick yes/no questions answer whether you are a Lukewarmer. Every question thereafter simply determines what type of Lukewarmer you are.
Very nice… I like it. But just to point out that prototype theory deals with how people conceptualise things, rather than what things ‘are’. Jean Aitchison explains it well here (downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/transcripts/1996_reith4.pdf): “humans do not rank all members of a category equally, she [Eleanor Rosch] pointed out. They judge some to be very good examples, and others less so. So robins and blackbirds are very good birds, which she labelled prototypes. Canaries and doves are less good birds; toucans and ducks are bad birds; and a penguin is a very bad bird indeed. People analyse the characteristics of the best bird, the prototype, and allow anything which sufficiently resembles it to belong to the category ‘bird’. This explains how humans deal with oddities, why ostriches, emus and one-legged, albino blackbirds can be accepted as birds.” And because I ALWAYS wanted to use this postcard – here it is – if only I could find out how to insert pictures! Hope that works: http://tinyurl.com/opuo3kg
Hhmm.. Yes. I see your point and Blairs.
There are some features I have that might explain why some people are nominating me as #1. (I’m not sure I am #1, but I don’t see it as an insane designation. And clearly I care about the term. I’m here commenting, right?)
So here are some features:
1) I was there at the “start” of the term.
2) I have often written ‘technicalish” posts. That is, they quantify and explain some issues that one needs to understand to evaluate the quality of certain claims. (Not all and mind you: blog posts.) These post can be “comparison” posts (comparing observations to projections) or they can be “simple explanation of the technical problem” posts (these were often related to some of the technically simpler issues involved in “the hockey stick”. Those who make WUWT’s “lukewarmer” blogroll tended to have this feature.
‘3) I will tell actual named individuals they are not lukewarmers. Because as far as I can tell, no “warmer-warmers” claim to “luke”, this generally means telling coolers they are not warmers. I might actually be unique in this.
4) I will criticize people whose behavior I find outrageous even if they might claim lukewarmer-ness. Example: I have criticized Monckton many times.
5) I criticize both those who present things that I find “too cool or ‘skeptic'” and people who are over-egging “warmest-or-warm” ideas.
While Blair did say that the range in which one thought ECS defines lukewarmer is ‘the’ definition– and I think my previous posts also said so, there is a degree to which a certain level of being able to explain why one might think one range makes more sense than another that falls in the “spirit” of being a lukewarmer. Also: criticizing both those who make “too cool” and “too warm” claims with poor foundations also makes me both “warm” and “luke”. So, knowing some radiative physics, some statistics, having looked at some numbers and so on does make one more of an exemplar — “robin or cardinal” than an oddity– ostrich or penguin.
There is now enough here to write some sort of history and semantics of lukewarmism I think. However, I am not sure I could write that even if I tried. I think I’d still miss quite a few nuances and a lot of background/insider knowledge. In my original post – which now seems so far away – I quoted Steven Mosher as saying “I suppose I’ll have to write a history of the term and ‘team” lukewarmer”. At least he has quite a bit of material now! And even a bit of semantic theory….
Depends on what they do claim. At my blog, I’ve told one or two people they are not lukewarmers, but rather coolers. The two were predicting cooling would predominate over the next century. Their reason was they thought climate sensitivity was sooooo low, temperature had to spring back. I told them that’s not lukewarmer.
Some other people agreed. Some at my blog admit to being coolers. One formerly frequent visitor self identified as a denier.
The prototype sounds about right. I’m not in your area– but would I be incorrect to suggest the same sort of thing applies to descriptions like “small l libertarian”, “socialist” and so on. (In the US, large L libertarian is a member of a particular party, but small l is more a leaning or philosophy. Lots of people will say “leans libertarian”, which means tends to favor smaller government and strong individual liberties. I’m in that group. But that’s different from “full blown libertarian, who sometimes can’t imagine anything a government is required for.)
That seems more or less fair. The only difficulty is whether some people might be more well known than others. I’ve been blogging lightly in the past two years so some newer people won’t have heard of me– the same goes for Jeff Id. Beyond that, to some extent, lukewarming is not an avenue for building loads of traffic. 🙂
But obviously, the method can’t be “whatever Lucia says”. (Though I can dream!)
FWIW: Anthony Watt’s used to list “lukewarmer” blog separate from “skeptic” blogs on his blog roll. So skeptics hand lukewarmers have always been seen as distinct on the “less than warmest or warmer” end of the blogosphere. Finding old screen shots at archive.org might help you if you are interested in history.
Blair,
I don’t know that we disagree entirely. My point in evaluating what Matt wrote was not to say whether I agree or disagree with his points but to report whether they represent “the or a lukewarmer position”.
Elsewhere on the thread I saw a question Brigitte posed, but the nature of this particulare comments threading system is I sometimes have difficulty finding that exact comment later. So, I just posted at the end. That had the negative effect of making it less clear that my purpose is to answer a question something like “Is What matt wrote a faithful guide to what a lukewarmer is”?
It’s as faithful as any— but one can be a lukewarmer differ on some of the views Matt writes. One of them is whether black soot is the reason the arctic sea ice has declined rapidly. Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. One could think either and still be a lukewarmer. If Brigitte is trying to learn more about what “Lukewarmer” is or is not, the debate isn’t over whose position is scientifically more sound but whether it’s one held by ‘lukewarmers’.
Fair enough. I am referring to the hijacked version that was widely promulgated.
Brigitte,
Night night! Sleep tight!
Point taken.
As for Matt, he is is an interesting version of a Lukewarmer but certainly a man I respect. His book “The Rational Optimist” is a very good read.
Talking time zones, while Brigitte is planning to snooze, I am off to test my mettle on the golf course as part of a “team building exercise” 🙂
I hope you had fun!
The dictionary lists “help or stimulate (an activity, state, or view) to develop.” Her behavior and post do “help or stimulate (alarm) to develop”. That’s precisely what I meant and it is what she did. Perhaps if you actually looked up definitions you would gain sufficient mastery of language to not be constantly ‘misunderstood’ and you might not “struggle” so much understanding others.
Beyond that, if you don’t want to talk about yourself, don’t. We were discussing whether alarmists self identify as alarmists. I gave an example. It happened that your blog provides plenty of alarmist posts and here in comments you objected when I referred to you as a “hell fire and brimstone warmer”.
In any case, your behavior here in comments justaposed with the content of your blog provided a convenient example to confirm that alarmists don’t use use the term to describe themselves. That was the point of the discussion.
That you want to distance yourself form the term alarmist — which describes your behavior– is interesting. That you do not wish to be called one is interesting. But the fact is: your blog presents focuses on the dangers of the associated with outcomes that are deemed improbable which you say alarm you and which you highlight in ways that “help or stimulate (alarm) to develop” (i.e. encourage) others to share in your alarm.
That meets the definition of “alarmist”. If you have as different definition of “alarmist” or “encourage”, let us all know rather than resorting to suggesting I look up the terms– as looking them up merely confirms my use is correct. Failed snark is not a convincing argument. Not even if you think you are being clever or cutting.
Let’s assume that I think that you’re essentially what many would describe as a “climate science denier”, but that I’ve had the decency – until now, not to point that out. Since you seem to have no issues with labels, you should be more than comfortable with me possibility of me having done so. Of course, I might be wrong, but the possibility of being wrong doesn’t appear to have crossed your mind at all. You want to discuss this and spend a good deal of your time trying to convince me that you’re not? Should I trawl through your site and find some examples of things that I think qualify as indicating that you’re what would be described as a “climate science denier”. I’m sure I could find something that I could defend. Again, I might be wrong, but that doesn’t matter. I just need to find something plausible that I could regard as defensible evidence. Of course, I might have to be particularly uncharitable in my interpretation, but that seems to be the norm in these discussions.
We could spend endless hours each defending ourselves against the other person’s label. You could, of course, bring up the Holocaust – which is what happens whenever someone uses the word “denier”. We could, on the other hand, simply recognise that this has been, and will continue to be, a complete and utter waste of time. There’s a reason I don’t spend much time reading Lukewarmer blogs. It may well be that I misunderstand the Lukewarmer position but I have a sneaky suspicion that if I did spend any time trying to clarify my understanding, my description would end up being a good deal less charitable than it’s been here.
Correct. I would be entirely comfortable telling you your characterization was inaccurate and I could defend my position. We could discuss our various views, and if you wished you could explain your definition of “denier” and provide evidence to explain how I fit it. We could then discuss whether your definition makes any sense, and so on. This would cause me absolutely no discomfort. <
The possibility of explaining your position and definition of alarmist and providing evidence you are not one does not seem to have occurred to you. And no, suggesting I look “alarmist” up in the dictionary is not explaining your position nor providing evidence that you don’t meet it. In contrast, I easily found evidence that you encourage alarm at your blog. (Note: I didn’t say every post does so, but I have easily found many a few of which I presented here.)
I’m not going to tell you what you “should” do. That choice is entirely up to you. But I’d be not only comfortable but happy to discuss any evidence you brought forward.
Yes. I’d be willing to discuss this with you here, in public, no matter how uncharitable you were in your interpretation. Those reading could decide whether your interpretation or mine are more persuasive.
We could spend hours. Or not. As I can see you prefer to repel the characterization of alarmist supported by evidence that you are one with suggestions that one read the dictionary. The dictionary and the evidence preseneted togerther support my interpertation– a fact you don’t actually deny. Rather, you want to bring up the hypothetical that you might be able to accuse me of being a denialist and you might be able to find evidence– and you speculate I might be made uncomfortable by this.
I would not be made uncomfortable. I’ve had discussions of this sort with others before and I’m sure I will again.
As for bringing up the Holocaust: I never have used that as a defense for being called a denier. Trawl away– you’ll find none. (So this is yet another attempt to support your claim by accusing me of behaviors I do not indulge in. I did not complain you called me “mean” for example– yet you told me to stop doing that. And so on.)
I would attribute that to your makining obviously inaccurate claims, responding people’s noting the inaccuracy by complaing they are talking ‘about’ you, changing the subject, and trying — as here- to go off on red-herring tangents rather than address the subject of the previous comment. For example: in this case, after defending your position that you are not an alarmist by suggestion the dictionary, you are now defending it by suggesting I would be uncomfortable addressing any lable you might apply to me. That is incorrect– and equally importantly– the sort of subject change you seem to indulge in.
(FWIW: You did so when I pointed out your claims about the definition of lukewarmer was inaccurate. You changed failed to responde to comments that your claims about “irreversibility” are inaccurate. I could go on– but yes. Conversations tend to be a waste of time if one of the parties behavies like you and respond to most discussion with subject changes.)
No one complained your description was uncharitable. Many pointed out it was factually incorrect. One hopes you learn to distinguish the difference. But if you can’t, that is your deficiency and not mine. It also may explain why you find conversation with others a waste of time. Your inability to comprehend obvious concepts makes it difficult for you to have a fruitful discussion anywhere other than an echo chamber.
You’ve spent quite a bit of time at my blog, where the Lukewarm position is described. Your takeaway from that experience was not edifying. You are a frequent commenter at Judith Curry’s blog and engage with skeptics. If you don’t see the difference then I doubt if this thread will enlighten you.
The lukewarm viewpoint is not set out in any manifesto (nor are other points of view on climate science or policy). The simplest definition was given by Steve Mosher, who frequently comments on your blog. ‘Given and over/under on sensitivity of 3C, lukewarmers will take the under.’
Here on this thread you have undertaken to further the most recent line of attack by warmists–that sensitivity is no longer a central issue in the debate and that we should turn our focus to ‘leaving fossil fuels in the ground’ without seeking to understand the consequences. This is a political, not a scientific position, as easily shown by others above.
With more studies being published showing the likelihood of a low value for sensitivity I can understand your desire to shift the argument to evile fossil fuels. But call it what it is–a political argument divorced from science. You may be correct that we will need to leave some quantity of fossil fuels untouched to protect our climate. However, you are not using science to make the case.
You do not evince much interest in understanding Lukewarmers except to the extent that you can sharpen your attacks on us. But then, you never showed much interest in understanding skeptics either.
We are ‘the other’. You have predetermined that we are your enemy. Although you profess to want to know what lukewarmers think and why, you do not engage on the specifics of what is set before you. Several people have laid out specifics–you glide right on by, both here and at other blogs where climate is discussed.
I have written elsewhere that the major danger for Lukewarmers is complacency–that because we are attacked by both extremes we will take that as evidence that we are basically correct. However, we can be just as wrong as we believe both skeptics and alarmists to be.
But because the level of your engagement and argumentation is so poor, you are not providing us with the criticism we probably need to continuously evaluate how we are doing, where we need to improve and how to sharpen our game.
That’s the real pity.
Not to pile on or anything, but ATTP also commented at my blog on my earliest Lukewarmer-related posts. We also chatted on Twitter but his inability to write a sentence that he didn’t have to explain/retract thereafter resulted in him blocking me on that platform. I’m not entirely sure why he enforces the maintenance of his anonymity at his blog now that his real name has been presented. That being said, I will respect his decision in this venue.
Well it hardly matters. Anyone who wants to know it find it by googling ” Who is …and Then There’s Physics? ” Assuming Poptech was correct, that’s that.
But maybe he doesn’t want his students coworkers to know that he can’t parse the difference between “more likely” and “certain”. And so on.
I think it’s time to bring the Anders/Lucia dialogue to a close.
(I mistakenly posted this as a reply–sorry for the repetition.) ATTP, you’ve spent quite a bit of time at my blog, where the Lukewarm position is described. Your takeaway from that experience was not edifying. You are a frequent commenter at Judith Curry’s blog and engage with skeptics. If you don’t see the difference then I doubt if this thread will enlighten you.
The lukewarm viewpoint is not set out in any manifesto (nor are other points of view on climate science or policy). The simplest definition was given by Steve Mosher, who frequently comments on your blog. ‘Given and over/under on sensitivity of 3C, lukewarmers will take the under.’
Here on this thread you have undertaken to further the most recent line of attack by warmists–that sensitivity is no longer a central issue in the debate and that we should turn our focus to ‘leaving fossil fuels in the ground’ without seeking to understand the consequences. This is a political, not a scientific position, as easily shown by others above.
With more studies being published showing the likelihood of a low value for sensitivity I can understand your desire to shift the argument to evile fossil fuels. But call it what it is–a political argument divorced from science. You may be correct that we will need to leave some quantity of fossil fuels untouched to protect our climate. However, you are not using science to make the case.
You do not evince much interest in understanding Lukewarmers except to the extent that you can sharpen your attacks on us. But then, you never showed much interest in understanding skeptics either.
We are ‘the other’. You have predetermined that we are your enemy. Although you profess to want to know what lukewarmers think and why, you do not engage on the specifics of what is set before you. Several people have laid out specifics–you glide right on by, both here and at other blogs where climate is discussed.
I have written elsewhere that the major danger for Lukewarmers is complacency–that because we are attacked by both extremes we will take that as evidence that we are basically correct. However, we can be just as wrong as we believe both skeptics and alarmists to be.
But because the level of your engagement and argumentation is so poor, you are not providing us with the criticism we probably need to continuously evaluate how we are doing, where we need to improve and how to sharpen our game.
That’s the real pity.
This is a tangent. But I was wondering if ATTP’s avatar is a pair of Hydrangea blooms. I love hyndrangeas and have two particularly lovely ones that are covered with pink blooms in the summer. The fluffy panicles are lovely and I appreciate his choice of a pretty bloom for his avatar.
Lukewarmers love to go blah-blah-blah. Take their knitting needles and go blah-blah-blah. “No, I don’t deny AGW, never have, I swear. Shall we talk about it? No, don’t do something. Come here and talk. Blah-blah-blah.”
But in the end they’re climate risk deniers just like the rest of the lot, whether they be professional lobbyists or greenhouse dragonslayers. And Dana Nuccitelli explains it perfectly in his Guardian blog post. They deny the possibility of climate change due to AGW every becoming a serious risk to human lives and economies, and this lukewarmism is just a tactic to shift the Overton Window to keep delaying any meaningful action or cultural change.
You see, if they were to admit that there is a climate risk, they’d be entering the realm of risk management and that’s where their worldview gets in trouble. They grew up in a wonderful time of progress and limitless possibilities, fighting and beating the commies (RIP, Ronald Reagan). Can’t have a commie comeback, can’t we, cause that’s what this whole lukewarmism thing is about (Groundskeeper Willie is the perfect example, and I’m sure he’ll be here soon ripping his shirt off).
Robert from the IdiotTracker blog explained just why their position is so fake and untenable many moons ago.
So, you must never admit and keep denying there are climate risks, and go blah-blah-blah-blah, and infest the blog of any blogger writing about the term. QED.
I dislike them for the same reasons Jesus disliked the Bible version of them. Because they’re hypocrites playing a sleazy game.
calm down Neven, your ‘climate hysteria’ is showing.. that said, maybe we can use our sceptic jedi mind tricks to seep that into the debate.. LOL
Oh heavens. Now Jesus doesn’t like the Bible version of us.
It might be best to regard this comment stream as closed, as its trickling into some hot water. We have learned a lot and know where everybody stands, I think.
Thank you for hosting this discussion, Prof. Nerlich. Your earlier remark that “‘lukewarmer’ is a label for a rather fuzzy set of beliefs and of people” is apt, in light of all the commenters proclaiming ownership of the word, and insisting that their definition is the only correct one.
In my own idiosyncratic definition, lukewarmers are a class of AGW denier. They are people who publicly acknowledge that warming is occurring and is anthropogenic, but deny that it’s a serious risk, for example asserting without scientific justification that sensitivity is lower than the consensus range. We don’t necessarily need to take a lukewarmer’s stated rationale at face value, however. Privately, such people don’t support decarbonization at even modest cost, because they don’t expect themselves or anyone they care about to be affected much by AGW, and the threat to the homes, livelihoods and lives of other people doesn’t concern them. Lukewarmers won’t publicly admit their indifference to the effects of AGW on others, but around their dinner tables the Deacon’s grace is heard:
Lord bless me and my wife,
Son John and his wife,
We four and no more.
There is, to be sure, ample historical precedent for the lukewarmer position. That doesn’t make it respectable, however, nor do we need to give it any credence.
I don’t want to open up the comment stream again, but just to say, from an outsider perspective (I am neither a climate scientist nor a risk expert), adopting a lukewarmer stance on climate change carries risks. It is not a ‘harmless’ position and people who adopt it have to weigh up the risks and benefits of adopting it. They also have to expect criticism from those who weigh up up the risks differently and adopt a different position and may see the lukewarm position as harmful in a variety of ways.
It can be equally argued that taking an alarmist position also takes risks. Energy poverty in Africa causes real, documented deaths every year. Actions by western governments to not support access to inexpensive energy alternatives for these people are also risks. From an emissions perspective, these policies may exacerbate climate change as centralized power units have emission controls, home heating using wood and dung does not. Moreover, deforestation to supply the wood also has negative consequences.
There are risks in any position. When debate is shut down the risks do not get discussed and decisions are made without considering all the possible ramifications of a policy.
I agree. I almost said that in my previous comment. However, how do you weigh up which risks are greater than others and whom do you trust to tell you about it? It’s really difficult.
Brigitte Nerlich,
I have never complained that people might and do criticize me or my views. However, I will correct their misrepresentations of views. It’s fair enough to criticize actual views, but creating a strawman by putting false arguments in someone’s mouth and then rebutting the arguments that person does not hold is not something people are going to remain silent about.
It is quite difficult though, I think you must admit, to really know what a strawman is and what not, given the wide spectrum of arguments and views etc. that come under the label lukewarmer. But I do appreciate your concerns. And I hope I have given people space to rebut arguments and clarify misunderstandings.
Oh.. sorry. I read the closed after commenting.
Brigitte,
I agree it is very difficult for third parties to recognize the strawman. It’s not difficult for those whose views have been mischaracterized to notice the mischaracterization. I thank you for giving space for discussion as allowing many people to comment is the only means whereby strawmen can possibly be rebutted. Whether I’ve convinced third party that a strawman actually was created I can’t say. But it’s certainly the case that foreclosing conversation would make the attempt impossible and ensure strawmen that are constructed look real.
[…] enabled me to check on the appropriateness of the word for my position. You can read her account here. She found something from Stephen Mosher (who thinks of himself as one) to the effect that to be […]
If you acknowledge anthropogenic global warming, you can not, by definition, be AGW denier.
You might be CAGW denier, but OTOH we have little proof for catastrophe, unless we take James Hansen for his face value.
CAGW people of course all the time say how catastrophically Arctic ice is going to melt any time now, and Antarctis is of course losing ice mass, and sea levels are about to jump several centimetres per year, and there will be droughts and forest-fires and extreme rain and floods and hurricanes and global climate disruption – only that we pretty much see no catastrophe happening as of now.
It might be easier to call lukewarmers AGW deniers, if New York was under water already, as projected earlier by some cagwists.
There are good reasons to believe runaway warming is extremely improbable, though in a chaotic system you can not easily exclude scenarios like quick warming or surprise cooling. So unless you leave door open for catastrophes, you can be called a catastrophe denier. I’m afraid, though, that limiting fossils use might be much worse cure than the disease is. If we look at the Hansen A scenario, it is clearly not happening. So lets not cause devastation with premature wind/solar. We have good time to build nuclear power, thorium or other.
Yeah, this is way late, but better late than never.
One of the things that I see on both sides of the climate debate (and in all other kinds of policy arguments) is a total misunderstanding of risk.
Everything has risk attached. Sitting in your house has risk. Driving a car has risk. Running a nuclear power plant has risk. Wind farms have risks.
And very few people actually understand risk well. For example, it is well proven that nuclear energy is exceedingly safe compared to other forms of energy production. Hell, nuclear kills less people per kilowatt produced than *solar*. Per trillion KWH, solar kills 110, nuclear 90 (and that is including Chernobyl and Fukushima). So, the obvious answer is that we ought to build more nuclear, especially if we are concerned about our carbon output.
Yet we don’t. And we don’t because people are scared of nuclear. The risks are perceived as too high yet in reality the risks are actually quite low.
And now we have the risk of CAGW. The risk is quite low when compared to things like the risk of starvation/abject poverty for populations that do not have access to carbon based energy at this time. The risk is low comparatively because *people are actually dying now* due to lack of affordable energy. The lack of energy causes all kinds of problems. Burning wood or dung for heat which brings along all kinds of health issues. Without cheap energy, high capacity farming is very hard which leads to the hunger problems we have in many parts of the world. The list goes on and on.
And so, in focusing on certain ‘risks’ that are unproven like CAGW, we are missing the risks that we can address now that actually can make the world a better place.
I am not a risk expert but what do you make of this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/world-bank-coal-cure-poverty-rejects ? And what does ‘unproven’ mean in the context of climate change? This is not just a flippant question. This might also be interesting regarding risk: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4fb95100-9882-11e3-8503-00144feab7de.html#axzz3hRm9ofrj
Just some food for thought….
[…] Climate change lukewarmism […]