Roger Peilke Jr. has an interesting guest post on his blog, pointed out to me (thanks to) rephelan on my previous post. I’ve often made the point that climate scientists are being used and manipulated by the politicians. Often the obvious monetary rewards for supporting the political solutions to AGW have not just affected the science but have elevated the scientists to status of fame creating a public image for people like Hansen. This public image in turn blends their job description into politicians themselves. These polyscienticians are the most dangerous to humanity because peoples lives are at stake, not so much from global warming but rather from the huge tax burdens governments want to place on the very items which power our economies. These policies are the real tipping points beyond which there is no return. After all, I’ve never been asked to vote for world policy, how can we get rid of one that turns out to be bad?
What was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference really about?
A Guest Post by
Professor Mike Hulme
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
The title of Mike Hulme’s post says a lot his opinions are probably different than my own as I’ve never spoken with or even heard of him that I recall. I read a lot so I may have missed it. The point of his article seems to be that the 2500 climate scientists were thoughtful and honest at the conference, yet were ambushed by the conclusions presented as a synopsis of their work. First, my impression is that these ‘scientists’ likely support much of the conclusions but many do not support all, however just like the rest of us they were never asked their opinions.
Below is a copy of the 6 items released by the universities as a result of the Copenhagen conference. The 6 items are copied from the article titled —- Six ways to save the world: scientists compile list of climate change clinchers. You can see from the title that the organizers of the conference got the perceived consensus they wanted. Here’s the quote from the apparently surprised Mike Hulme describing the conference chair’s description of the six statements.
And the conference chair herself, Professor Katherine Richardson, has described the messages as politically-motivated. All well and good.
This whole thing raises my blood pressure, how is it the conference conclusions are presented with no input. A small group of university heads who organized the event used it’s notoriety to create the strong implication of consensus from the 2500 attendees. Mike Hulme spends several paragraphs describing debates between the scientists on the very issues claimed to be settled by the 6 final conclusions.
Before I present the 6 items summarized by the copennhagen committee, I do have to take issue with Professor Hulme’s article. First, it doesn’t go far enough to state the obvious. The end of the article describes being ambushed by politicially motivated university organizers. Well next time you go to one of these things, write here and WE’LL TELL YOU WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN. Damn near everyone who posts here knew this was going to be the result. I don’t know if he’s pretending ignorance for the sake of the article’s point or is simply that naieve. The scientists are certainly being used but many in turn use the politicians for funding. Either way, the concept that the outcome of Copenhagen was unpredictable is a stretch.
There is a second item which I also need to take issue with in the post.
All that can be told – and certainly should be told – is that climate change brings new and changed risks, that these risks can have a range of significant implications under different conditions, that there is an array of political considerations to be taken into account when judging what needs to be done, and there are a portfolio of powerful, but somewhat untested, policy measures that could be tried.
This statement hurts my brain. I’ve been reading papers and looking at scribbles for almost a year now and still can’t see anything which allows the conclusion that AGW is proven. AGW may be true but it certainly isn’t warming as severely as advertised, the dangers of the exaggerated warming are in turn exaggerated and IMO the possibility of stopping CO2 emission doesn’t exist.
Well the first sentence of this paragraph ignores all these ‘little’ details. Climate change does NOT bring NEW risks professor. Consider the fact that in multiple cases whole communities of humans were discovered living where glaciers existed 50 years ago. Climate change has and always will occur with or without our input. The powerful policy measures he describes attempting all have the same effect, reduction of freedoms, reduction of economies and increased costs. In fact I’ve heard of no energy solutions which don’t guarantee increased strife and poverty.
Anyway, it is the Air Vent after all. While much of what Mike Hulme says ring’s true, but today I’m in no mood to let these little indiscretions go unaddressed.
Here’s the six recommendations presented with the unstated impression of unanimous consensus conclusion to the world politicians. Flat lies are highlighted in red because it helps the casual reader figure out the BS. Be warned, this will likely put you in a bad mood.
1) Climatic trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario projections (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.
2) Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on “dangerous climate change”. Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2C will be very difficult for countries to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century.
3) Long-term strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid “dangerous climate change” regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.
4) Equity dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.
5) Inaction is inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches — economic, technological, behavioural, management — to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.
6) Meeting the challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.
Whether the comment about a wide range of benefits will be realized may be debatable as a lie. You’ll have to put up with that one because, IMO it is presented deliberately by the socialists who don’t really believe it, as propaganda to support their political goals, it is therefore a lie.