That’s nonsense. As was pointed out to you in another thread, the NAS has left itself plenty of weasel room. Actually, it’s statement reads a lot like the Exxon statement.
And here’s what the NAS has said:
Note the carefully crafted innuendo here. They never actually state that the increases are solely or even mostly responsible for any rise in temperature. But they imply it.
That may be a true statement about the IPCC’s position, but has the NAS accepted and adopted this position? It’s hard to say:
“Recognise?” What exactly does that mean? The NAS could have easily said “We accept and adopt the projections of the IPCC.” But they didn’t. “Recognize” could simply mean that they are aware the projection has been made.
As noted above, the NAS has left itself mucho wiggle room.
And what of the NAS’ reccomendations? Here’s one:
Who’s against taking cost-effective steps? To paraphrase intention, it’s like going against Mom and Apple Pie.
So why are the NAS and Exxon working from the same playbook?
My guess is that they both want to pay homage to the reigning intellectual fashion, without actually committing themselves to anything that could prove embarrassing when the day of reckoning eventually comes.
intention: Thanks for your response.
That last sentence is a pretty dramatic statement. Do you have evidence that noone has figured out how to do it without impoverishing the world? The IPCC estimate is that aiming for the most stringent constraint they considered on CO2 levels would cost at most 0.12% of GDP growth per year over the next 50 years, and historically estimates of the cost of environmental regulations have apparently been on the high side (even those estimates made by the regulating bodies like the EPA)…and especially when they are implemented in a flexible manner.
As for what has happened so far, I believe this is the first year of the Kyoto compliance years, so it is a bit early for pronouncements. No doubts, however, we still have something to learn about how to implement such treaties…And, this is not the sort of problem that is going to be solved overnight.
I always think a good thought experiment for those free marketers who are so worried that prevent AGW will impoverish us is to imagine that instead of entering a carbon-restricted world because of regulation, we did so just because fossil fuel reserves are not as large as they are (and, of course, this natural restriction will eventually come into play anyway). In that case, would these people be predicting the end of the world like they are now or would they instead be talking about the wonders of the market and technology and innovation? The only real difference that I can see in the two scenarios is that the actual scenario we are talking about is more flexible in the sense that we are still able to burn fossil fuels if we come up with ways to sequester the CO2.
Well, I am not sure if studies have been done yet to look at this. But, do you honestly believe that putting a price on carbon is not going to lead to the development of ways to reduce emissions? What sort of economic theory do you believe in?
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again I’m sure.
If I’m not qualified to judge the information available about AGW, why should we think a microbiologist (for example) is qualified to do so? Either most of the scientific community’s thoughts on the question means nothing, or my thoughts must have equal weight. It might be a bit egotistical of me to consider myself as well versed in climate science as the average microbiologist, but there you are.
So back to that particular point, either the consensus is false in spirit or there’s something that all those scientists know that I’m not aware of. If it’s the latter, I’d be very interested in being enlightened.
Great, so you agree that we should “identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.” I’m glad to have you on-board.
And, I think you have to understand that real scientists often speak very carefully and conservatively (unlike some of the pseudoscience that you read on the web), particularly when it comes to making advisements on policy. This is actually strong language coming from a body like the NAS.
Here by the way is the full joint statement of the scientific academies of the U.S., Britain, Japan, Russia, China, Germany, France, Canada, Italy, India, and Brazil on climate change. What amazes me is not that the statement is weak but that it is so strong, given the generally cautious nature of scientists, and the fact that they had to come up with a statement that all 11 academies would agree on.
This wasn’t to me, but I’ll answer anyway 
Of course putting a price on carbon will lead to either the reduction or at least apparent reduction of carbon. But will the cost be worth it? And will it really create a reduction, or will production simply move to China instead?
On the worth it note, how much more are people willing to pay than they are now in order to have a meaningful reduction of carbon, ignoring for now the question of whether there is such a thing as meaningful reduction.
Would people be willing to pay double for hamburgers over soy burgers since they have a higher carbon footprint? Triple? And even if they were willing to pay more, would that reduce carbon or would it encourage ranchers to produce more beef since their profits would increase (assuming their margin stayed the same)?
Now might be a good time to mention that in addition to being a philosopher by training, I’ve spent many years as a retail manager and my success in that field is largely due to having an innate sense of what the customer actually wants, regardless of what the customer says they want.
Well, to some extent I agree with you that those actually qualified to understand the detailed scientific arguments for climate change are those directly in that field or, to some degree, those in allied fields (such as physics, for example, in the case of climate science). However, what I think the scientific community as a whole…and most individual scientist…are pretty good at is being able to distinguish science from pseudoscience and being able to distinguish real legitimate scientific debates from subterfuge.
And, the way organizations like the National Academy of Sciences work is that they are set up in order to allow the experts in any particular field in question to weigh in on matters that come before it, i.e., where the federal government is turning to it for scientific advisement. And, this has worked very well over the years, which is why it is so distressing to see people who apparently want to abandon this process simply because they don’t like, because of their own strong biases, the scientific conclusions that are being reached.
I do appreciate your point here. In interest of discussing it further I’ll quote one section from that report:
I think it’s interesting to see what they didn’t say in the report. They didn’t say that human activity is the sole, or even major, cause of the carbon dioxide levels. They didn’t even say that the increase in carbon dioxide is causing the temperatures to rise.
What they did do is start by scaring me into thinking what the world would be like 30 degrees colder and then laid out some facts without connecting them. My natural tendency as a human being to find patterns and correlation lead my brain to think they’ve laid out a trail of humans == greater carbon dioxide == increased temperatures. But they haven’t actually said that.
And that says a lot.
It reminds me a lot of the old 3R position for being environmentally friendly. The advice was to Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. That’s why there’s three green arrows in the logo. Those three things were placed in order of importance, but since recycling was more profitable, guess which one we hear (and use) as a catch-all for being environmentally friendly.
I’m all for finding economically viable ways to reduce carbon, but making it the main focus instead of adaptation seems to be largely a political position.
By all means, jump in…although I have to admit that I am having a hard time responding to everyone who has recently started posting to this thread!
Well, a few points I would make here:
(1) First of all, this isn’t a case where if we take action we end up spending lots of money but if we don’t take action nothing is lost. If the scientific community is right, we are very likely to incur significant costs…some monetary and some that are hard to put a monetized value on…by not acting. So, we have to go on the best available evidence and take the actions that leave us with the maximum flexibility to later adjust our course of action without incurring high costs.
(2) I agree that the climate system is complex. However, there is more understanding of the underlying physical laws than there is of the laws governing human behavior, which alas play the most important role in economics.
(3) And, obviously not independent of the first point, I fail to see why not having sufficient understanding is an argument for inaction. What we do understand is that we are putting a significant perturbation on a system that is indeed very complex and that we lack full understanding of. We have already brought CO2 up to a level in the atmosphere that has not been seen in at least 750,000 years and probably more like 20 million years. And, it is a system that the historical record shows is capable of dramatic changes, as any complex nonlinear system is. If that doesn’t scare the bejesus out of you, I think it ought to! If you are worried about uncertainties, it seems like there are a lot more ways the uncertainties could break to cause problems that we may not even have conceived of than ways they could break so that it turns out that our perturbation miraculously causes little change in either the climate or (through ocean acidification) in the ocean biosystem.
Well, here [PDF] is a paper that discusses a variety of technologically-available ways that we can reduce our emissions. No one approach will get us there alone but several taken together can.
And, as for when the transition away from fossil fuels will happen: We are in control of that. It will happen when we want it to happen. It certain won’t happen as long as there is no market incentives for it to happen.
Well, the reason why these other fuels cost more is because the market is currently not seeing the costs of fossil fuels. Besides being heavily subsidized, the price of fossil fuels is not directly bearing the full environmental and other costs associated with its production and use. After all, in the last several years alone, the U.S. taxpayers have shelled out several hundred billion dollars to fund an ill-conceived war which frankly I think can mainly be counted as part of the price that we pay for oil…but the costs are being borne in such a way that those of us who use more oil don’t pay more of it as we should.
There are also other issues like large barriers to entry in the energy market.
Also note that the market is ruthless in its drive for low cost…so even if other options only cost a little bit more (because they don’t have as many externalized costs), they will not be adopted as long as the fossil fuels are cheaper because of their costs being externalized.
In fact, it is the poor who are most at risk from climate change given their limited abilities to adapt. Do you see the poor nations of the world begging us not to address climate change because it will hurt them if we do? Or, do you think you know better than them what is in their best interests?
I think that those concerned with poverty when the subject of environmental regulations comes up would have more credibility on the issue if they addressed these same concerns when issues of distribution of wealth are brought up or when tax cuts are given to the very wealthy. We have both a huge amount of poverty and a huge amount of wealth in the world. I think the primary issue is not that we have not exploited our environment enough. I think it rather is that we haven’t figured out the best way to allocate resources in a way that provides benefits for all.
I must admit that I personally have only met a few representatives of the scientific community. But from my personal experience I know that a scientist in one field is no better trained to evaluate another field than I am. Perhaps even less well trained, as my specialty is logical systems and argumentation.
On the subject of being able to distinguish science from pseudoscience I refer the interested reader to James Randi’s website and the letter from a reader there. Scroll down a bit for the relevant part. The reader states something that many stage magicians have said, intelligent people are even easier to trick than unintelligent ones, mostly because they think they are unable to be fooled.
I am not saying the NAS is a bunch of deluded fools. To make my position a little clearer, let me quote a bit of that letter:
I am just pointing out that the report **jshore **linked to was set up with all the elements expected by logical inference without actually making the inference. Clearly this is the same way that tricksters work. It’s a way of making sure that if direct evidence leads to a contrary conclusion, the author of the work has covered their vulnerable bits.
This doesn’t mean that AGW is all a lie or a conspiracy or anything. It does mean that the evidence for it is so thin and indirect that national science advisories for several countries feel the need to distance themselves from the statements implied in the report.
If the reigning scientific authorities on AGW will not put their collective necks out regarding AGW, why should I be willing to go along with their recommendations, whatever they may be?
What do you make of the sentence “But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone,and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels.” Do you think there is a serious scientific case to be made for the claim that we are not the major cause of the rise in CO2 levels?!?!
What do you make of the sentences “Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.”?
I think it is a position informed by the scientific evidence of what the effects on the climate of our emissions are expected to be…and what effects these are expected to have on society and ecosystems. Everybody agrees that we are going to need adaptation too…but this alone is not likely to be sufficient.
I think this attitude explains why pseudoscience tends to beat science in the public sphere. People who are not constrained by scientific accuracy are much more able to make broad forceful pronouncements that sound convincing to the general public. Scientists are by their nature generally measured and careful in what they say.
I said it before and I will say it again: That statement is surprisingly strong coming from a scientific body like the NAS. The fact that it is a consensus statement arrived at by 11 scientific bodies and that it still maintains such strength is actually, I think, a testament to how strongly they are urging the nations of the world to act.
Now I know for certain that you have not been following climate science. While this may be true for other scientists, climate scientists go around claiming outrageous things like that they can forecast the climate 100 years from now, and that the science is settled, that we understand the climate well enough to model it … hardly “measured and careful” claims.
In fact, these are extraordinary claims, which require extraordinary proof … but even average, normal proof of these claims is not forthcoming. All the scientists do is say things like “It’s in the IPCC report, go read it if you don’t believe me”. They don’t subject the models to even the most cursory V&V. Their vaunted climate models badly miss the most crucial forecast, that of the tropical tropospheric temperature, and they want to claim that the models are correct and the data is wrong … now that’s a claim that is neither measured nor careful.
In this vein, we just discussed Stephen Schneider, who thinks that scientists have to strike a balance between honesty and effectiveness … is a scientist who is balancing honesty and effectiveness being “measured and careful”? Or is he just carefully picking which well-measured lie to tell?
w.
(PS - yes, I know that Schneider said that he hoped scientists could be both honest and effective … but that’s not the point. The point is that if you are a scientist, being “measured and careful” should mean that you don’t balance your scientific honesty against anything.)
jshore, you say:
I make of it just what it says:
-
CO2 is causing temperatures to rise, with no amount specified.
-
The earth has warmed over the 20th century, with no cause specified.
-
The IPCC says the process will continue, with no citation specified.
The sentence does not say that CO2 caused the 20th century rise, or that it will cause future rises.
It is, of course, quite possible that that is what they meant.
But it is not what that sentence said.
Once again I say, if you want to venture into the minefield of climate science, it is imperative that you learn how to read, parse, and avoid assumptions about what people have written.
w.
PS - I don’t have a dog in this particular fight, and jshore, you may be right overall. But that sentence doesn’t support your case.
Sure. Getting back to the hospital analogy, it’s like showing up at the doctor’s office with the symptoms of a common cold and being advised to have chicken soup for dinner.
It’s one thing to speak carefully and conservatively. It’s another to try to make people think you are saying X when you are actually saying Y.
For example, the NAS could have said “We are reasonably confident that increases in CO2 levels are responsible for the increases in temperature in the last 20th century.”
Or, the NAS could have “We make no claim as to what extent, if any, increases in CO2 levels were responsible for temperature increases in the late 20th century.”
Instead, the NAS implied the first statement, when in actuality they (in essence) made the second statement.
If there were economically easy solutions we’d most likely already be doing them. It’s possible that overall solutions that no one business would agree to would help the economy by raising general health and environmental safety (and most likely is at least a wash if you include these things in the “wealth” of a nation), but the burden of proof is on those who aim to show that it would not impact the economies of Kyoto-bound nations by forcing businesses to take decisions that are suboptimal from a classic economic perspective.
I see no reason why they cannot continue to grow their economy, although I do think that at least a modicum of rule of law is required to gain the economic stability required for US/Europe size per capita GDP. However, when measured from a classic standpoint that does not take into account the health and environmental costs of pollution, I also see no reason why this growth must also go hand in hand with increased environmental regulations. After all, the U.S. had the same type of rampant pollution by connected big businesses for a century or more.
This is just a prediction, which could be wrong, although I see no reason not to (roll drums here for scary word) extrapolate, after all the Chinese only have to double their pollution a few times in the next couple decades to catch up with us, and I don’t see a natural barrier in place to stop this, after all, they’d just be matching us, it’s not as if they would be doubling insects that would magically take over the galaxy in 10 years.
What’s more, if their economy matches ours, which it might in a couple decades on a per capitia basis, and they have no environmental regulations enforced, it stands to reason they’d outpollute us on a per capita basis.
First of all, I would say that you are somewhat simplifying what the scientists are claiming. Second, all because you personally don’t believe the evidence is there for scientists to make a claim doesn’t mean it actually isn’t there. You don’t get to be judge and jury on whether a claim is outrageous or reasonable.
We’ve discussed the Santer et al. paper before and this description of it is, ironically, “neither measured nor careful”.
Well, since you bring up Schneider again, let us talk about those without sin casting the first stone. In a post here yesterday, you said,
To me, that sounds a lot like a “scary scenario” and “a simplified, dramatic statement”, but I guess you must have very firm evidence that I wasn’t aware of to support this idea that significantly cutting emissions would impoverish the world…otherwise, your antipathy toward offering up scary scenarios would have prevented you from doing it.
Finally, I think you are trying to “have your cake and eat it too” here. If scientists make a claim somewhat carelessly without appropriate caveats, you blast them for not being measured and careful. When they do try to be more measured and careful, you try to parse it to the point where you claim, incorrectly, that their statement is essentially vacuous. In fact, it may be because of people like you who exaggerate the uncertainty that they do express that some scientists feel compelled to be less measured and careful, which is unfortunate. At any rate, either way, you will dismiss their conclusions.
Any rational carbon tax or cap & trade system would NOT provide ranchers with more profits. The extra cost paid by the consumer would either end up in the pocket of the government (in the case of a tax) or end up in the pocket of a lower carbon producer (in the case of cap & trade). The rancher would not only not end up with more profit, but would likely see lower sales and lower profits (because some people would NOT be willing to pay double for hamburgers over soy burgers).
Seems to me that honest scientists should be measured and careful, and NOT suggest or imply anything more than what they are actually saying.
For the NAS, “measured and careful” would have been to state the following: “We make no statement as to the extent, if at all, increases in CO2 levels were responsible for the late 20th century increase in temperature.”
There’s a difference between “measured and careful” and Clintonesque.
I’ll be honest - I don’t know how you do it. My hat is off to you. I’m not much of a debater so I’ll keep this short.
It does seem like a case for guaranteed loss if we take action verses potential loss if we don’t. Risks on both sides need to be weighed properly. I have never seen the proper risk/benefit analysis for both sides that I consider an absolutely necessary step in the process. Anti-CAGW folk usually minimize the potential damage that might result from climate change, though there is plenty of that info available in the MSM. Pro-CAGW folk almost never consider the significant risk and damage resulting from reduced growth and prosperity. This is perhaps more difficult to predict, but it never appears in the MSM.
Of course there is, but the complexity of interactions in the climate system is mind-boggling. My degree is in Physics, but I don’t purport to understand climate science - the people who do don’t give me a warm feeling (I’m not talking about members of this board).
Not having a sufficient understanding is a GREAT argument for inaction. Our history is riddled with examples of screwed up ecosystems resulting from science meddling with things we didn’t understand but thought we did. The Cane toad is popularly known for its introduction in Australia to control beetles. They failed to do that and made a worse problem. I’ve personally seen the damage caused by the introduction of Kudzu in the southeastern US where it was introduced in an attempt to control soil erosion. These are just two that come immediately to mind, but these are such simple little systems compared to global climate, and there are so many more examples that we should be very wary when we are told that science understands this stuff.
Now, why don’t I get as alarmed by the inadvertent tampering with the ecosystem that occurs with man’s CO2 production? Because there is an undeniable tremendous benefit resulting from that CO2 output. Here is my analogy: there are a small handfull (<10) of deaths each year in the US from shark attacks and yet we have beach closures and panic resulting. However, there are 40,000 deaths each year from traffic accidents. Why don’t we have a level of panic 3 orders of magnitude greater? It’s because the benefit of automobiles is much greater overall than the death toll. I have not seen evidence that the potential damage from CAGW is greater than the overall benefit mankind gets from the CO2 production.
And the final comment on your comment (3). There are always an unlimited number of ways uncertainties can break to cause problems. Unlimited. Your statement is merely tautology.
Point well made.
Well, I certainly see exemptions in Kyoto for developing nations. Of course they don’t mind seeing our prosperity damaged as long as they are unaffected. This is clearly short-sided though as we have an interconnected global economy.
Ugh, please don’t get into this. This is the kind of argument that you bring up occasionally that hurts your credibility because it makes it sound like your position is a result of your political leaning rather than your scientific understanding.
Okay, it looks like I failed to keep this short as I promised. Sorry. Your response to my post helped me to think through some stuff and I got on a bit of a roll. Thanks for what you do jshore.