"The near-term future of climate policy will almost certainly be a struggle between pragmatism and the New Apocalypticism. How that turns out is anybody’s guess."
Yes, the struggle can be seen: Mr. Guterres "Climate Boiling" and the recent whisper from the new IPCC chair Jim Skea "promoting the use of the best and most relevant science".
My prediction is that Mr. Skea will shut up and concentrate on the science, while Mr. Guterres will continue sprouting pseudo-scientific nonsense or the New Apocalypticism to the media.
It would be very useful if you were to write up the evidence you refer to in a clear summary form, accessible to non-experts, with the specific references to IPCC reports and so forth quoted and footnoted and put it all in one place. You have done it in various places on your blog (a technical discussion of IPCC scenario plausibility here, a piece on the evidence of natural disasters there) but never all in one summary document suitable for circulation. "The Climate Fix" is over a decade old now and in any case longer than what I am thinking about here.
If you have questions re what I'm getting at reply here or drop your email in and can explain further.
If it’s illegitimate apocalyptism, it should also be the end of free money for carbon capture and other pet projects for oil and gas industries, the most profitable industries on earth besides printer cartridge manufacturers.. should be end all sorts of things that are handed out for climate action reasons, like 45Q tax credits. Why are we handing taxpayer money to the most profitable industries on the planet if there is no such urgency?
If we were to compile a list of government subsidies for various things (sugar, mortgages, children, etc) we will find that none of them are predicated on an apocalypse. Climate change can at once be real, worthy of action and not end of times.
I recently reread N. S. Lyons Substack piece and I think the Climate Narrative may actually be explained best by what he calls the drive for power by the managerial elite. Here’s the link https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence.
“Why is that? Who controls this unified network of institutions? No one really controls the network; the network controls everyone. What controls the network? A narrative does. All the institutions in the cathedral seem like they’re singing from the same hymn sheet because they are. The essential unifying and coordinating mechanism of the managerial system is that all its constituent parts share a single doctrinal perspective, an adherence to the same motivational memetic narrative. It speaks with one voice as an emergent property of this fact.
From the perspective of any one individual or even institution within the regime network this probably isn’t how things appear. Their concerns seem much more mundane: to get ahead in their little corner of the system, accumulate some prestige, and accrue some material rewards. In fact they feel like they’re in a hardscrabble competition with their peers, not singing a harmony with them. But prestige (social approval and status) is the key unseen mover here, making the whole system turn. Prestige is a reflection of recognition and selection within a given institution or system. It’s the way a system indicates which individuals are considered most valuable to and therefore most valued by that system. Those with more prestige are considered higher status and offered more formal and informal opportunities because others in the system want to associate with and be associated with them. This translates into influence and rewards.
How do people know what is valued and therefore prestigious? Well, every system has an unspoken model or ideal, which people will naturally try to signal their conformity to. This ideal is molded by an overarching narrative. The narrative frames core questions for the system, such as: who are we? What do we do? Why do we do it? Why does this make us superior to other people? Who are our enemies? Etc. This narrative functions as a discourse, and through this discourse the narrative evolves over time. Being evolutionary, it features Darwinian selection: individuals or component parts of the system constantly advance narrative innovations through what they say and do; some of these have (in evolutionary terminology) more fitness than others, and these ideas are selected, propagated, and integrated into the narrative. Those whose ideas are selected gain prestige, while rejection leads to loss of prestige.
But what determines which narrative adaptations are fit to be carried forward? Simple: they are those that make the system stronger. “
N.S. Lyons is describing coalitional behaviors from an evolutionary sociology perspective, which to me is the most fruitful perspective. If you like that approach, I recommend Minds Make Societies by Pascal Boyer.
(As an aside, N.S. Lyons essay, The Temptations of Carl Schmitt is one of the best things I’ve read in years. It discusses the abandonment of political tolerance.)
Speaking of evolution, there is good evidence for innate fears relating to the natural environment. The most common phobia is fear of heights. Also common is fear of spiders, snakes, thunderstorms/lightning, and fear of the dark. It seems to me that fear of nature is a survival instinct that underlies this long-existing cross cultural apocalypse narrative and may explain why worst-case climate change scenarios are embraced with a visceral fervor that cannot be explained by the science.
I had read the Lyons essay on Schmitt, and thanks to you am reading it again. This resonated “But who decided on this exception? The president? The technocratic national or international “public health” bureaucracy? A handful of specialized “experts” and their billionaire backers from around the world? For most people the answer remains rather hazy.”
If I had the wherewithal, I’d look into the how of NIH taking over public health from the appropriate agency CDC; and how foreign nationals became involved. We didn’t vote in One World Government, nor even One World Government For Really Important Things.. and citizens can vote within the Things They’ve Already Decided.. Maybe...If They Let Us.
“Climate change is of course real and important, but it is not (according to the IPCC) the apocalypse.”
Dr. Pielke, I agree with your statement above.
My cognitive dissonance comes with the term “climate change.” The negative connotation associated with the term has become so “apocalyptic” that it can at times elicit a visceral reaction from those of us who are of a “skeptic” or “realist” persuasion.
Without trying to put words in your mouth, I believe you mean, as I do, that our “climate is continuously changing” and there are many factors (i.e., inputs, forcings, etc.) that cause the climate to change. I believe, as many scientists do, that our climate is a “complex, non-linear, chaotic system” that is the product of many variables, some of which we cannot accurately describe or represent mathematically.
I would humbly suggest that in future postings, you might consider using the phrase “our changing climate.” I realize that it doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily as “climate change” but I believe it more accurately describes the climate as we know it. It may also have the effect of moving the public narrative away from the more apocalyptic language that has become so prominent.
“Climate change is of course real and important, but it is not (according to the IPCC) the apocalypse.”
Climate is real and has dramatically affected human well being all through history, and so it is critically important.
All agreed.
But any reading of history shows immediately that its when the climate cools that thing really start to fall apart, again and again thru history.
Warming has always heralded a better more prosperous world. No sane rational person who can read with an open mind can dispute this.
As we are still (hopefully) warming from the coldest period in the history of human civilization, the Little Ice age, there is indeed no apocalypse looming, certainly one isn't happening today as many of Roger's posts have confirmed.
If there is no apocalypse today, why would we listen to those who say its coming, same people who try to manipulate the data to convince the weak minded its here now?
I am reading at the moment an interesting book called The Grip of Culture by Andy West, who tries to explain climate change catastrophism as a cultural ‘entity’, a concept into which he includes religions and ideologies. It could be a modern day answer to Barkun. A free.pdf is available at The Global Warning Policy Forum https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/culture/ , though West might prefer you get it from Amazon. A particularly striking point, at least to me, he argues that the central tenets of these cultural entities must be entirely unbelievable because it prevents any form of discussion or debate with the outsider group.
Roger, I've been with you on things for a while - including your praise of the new IPCC Chief (for good reason), RCP8.45 (which i often used - reluctantly - for the design of Green Climate Fund projects). However, Michael Mann's call for "agency and urgency" on climate is no different than any other moral calling humanity has needed to respond to throughout the ages - think of the abolitionist movement or the women's vote in recent times, or how about ending poverty from which we are a long way off?. We either follow our moral compass or we don't. We either take the science seriously or we don't. I trust you do both.
But can you take the science seriously? You've got some notable climate scientists advocating for the immediate cessation of all new drilling at least, if not the complete immediate cessation of fossil fuels. Is that really what the science says MUST happen?
This is a large part of the problem. Following the science does not present us with a plan of what must be done, by whom, and by when. Likely because some of the scientists are loathe to express what they think it really means and the hardships it will impose.
Taking a more balanced view, we should be able to adapt to climate change challenges as we slowly transition infrastructure (where we can) and invent new technologies over the next 100 years or so without causing cataclysmic doom.
But do we "trust the science" enough to say the balanced view is insufficient and we must IMMEDIATELY make massive and sweeping changes to society, no matter the impact to human comfort, leisure, ability to feed themselves, or make a living? I'm just a layperson, but I'm certainly not convinced the science is sound enough to undertake change on that kind of scale.
If we get to 2050 and nothing has been done (which is likely), what will following the science tell us has to happen? Worldwide outlaw of air travel and personal vehicles? Shutdown of fossil-fuel power facilities by force? What?
If people like Michael Mann, Katherine Hayhoe, Peter Kalmus, and others really want the world to listen, they need to tell us EXACTLY what the result of their "urgent action" handwaving will be. They need to tell us what needs to be done, by whom, and by when.
I think it’s very reasonable to take the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change on face value and focus on the moral imperatives that flow from that. That is exactly why this post on apocalypticism is important. Because there is quite a bit of history to indicate that climate change alarmism is a phenomenon separate from and not explained by the science the alarmists cite to support the alarmism.
The main point is that in wealthy nations the focus on CO2 mitigation has frequently been at the expense of poor nations ability to improve resilience to weather events through improved access to electricity. A low-energy development paradigm has dominated international bodies since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 set the focus priority on CO2 emissions reductions.
When African energy ministers call western ideas, such as ‘leap frogging’, climate change imperialism, we should seriously consider the possibility that the moral high ground is not with Just Stop Oil.
As for Michael Mann, in his book The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars he describes Paul Ehrlich as a “personal hero.” In reference to The Population Bomb he states, “Ehrlich’s early warning has ultimately proven prophetic.” No, it hasn’t, and there is no reason to think that climate scientist are the moral leaders in the climate change predicament.
I fully agree that Mann (as a prominent example) has long framed climate as a moral issue. Indeed he is one of the reasons for the Manichean politics of the issue — virtuous good people vs evil, irredeemable forces.
That moral framing is part of the New Apocalypticism.
For my part, climate policy will have far more chance for success if taken out of this quasi-religious framing and instead characterized as an innovation challenge, like feeding the world or advancing public health.
There should be plenty of room in the climate space for exhortation of the kind Mann provides, but he and others take that way to far and use their platforms to harm others they disagree with, and in my moral compass that is wrong. 🙏
A measure of the quality of this stack is the number of thoughtful, non-totalising comments reacting to a piece like this one. This heavily contested area sees too little understanding & pragmatism (defaulting to labelling the various protagonists as stupid/evil) and it’s refreshing to see less of that here.
Catastrophic man-made global warming has become the consensus of the mob because some people need a cause, some are simply inclined to fear, some seek to turn a perceived crisis into profit, some to use it for power, and some innocently get sucked into dependency and cannot see a way out of it. For a claimed scientific consensus there is a very odd lack of consistency in the physics said to cause the warming by infrared-active gases, which is not surprising given the widespread misunderstanding of thermal radiation among scientists. There is no more consensus on the economic consequences of warming either. Many claim it is harmful, yet many flock to warmer climes given the chance and history shows clearly that mankind generally benefited in the warmer periods of the past. Then there are those who claim the post Little Ice Age carbon dioxide level of 180 ppm was ideal, despite a massive die-off of plant life at 150 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the greening that has occurred at 415 ppm. Promoters of the hypothesis have made a multitude of false predictions, which the Scientific Method tells us falsifies the hypothesis. Understanding the science and the economics of the Earth's warming would be much more constructive than promoting this fearful hypothesis.
Great post, Roger. Help me out here, though. You've repeatedly stated that human-caused climate change is real and of concern. Is it fair to say that there are negative consequences of this change? Would these negative consequences include localized catastrophic effects? Where I'm going with this is if the above is true, then the apocalyptic view is actually harmful to the efforts needed to address things which are actually happening and not those lodged in the imagination.
There are indeed many parallels. Here's a parallel between climate catastrophists and the Catholic Church -- the sale of "indulgences". You could pay the Church to reduce time spent in purgatory. Companies can buy carbon offsets. "The Science" (capitalized) basically substitutes for The Prophet or the holy book.
I'm not so sure about the money thing here in the comments. If we look at 20th century history, it seems we have more to fear from ideologues- Hitler, Stalin, Mao and so on, than from greedy people.
As a religious history hobbyist, the idea of "shape up or we'll all die" reminds me of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. But God you could argue with.. "what if there's 10 good people, would you still destroy the town?" and was seen to be merciful and kind, and asking us to be. The idea of group responsibility for bad things (your grandchildren will hate you) seldom occurs in religious traditions the way it is talked about re: climate. So there are many interesting comparisons to be made.
If God causes drought we can pray (as in the 1930s).There is hope and we are in it together.
If CO2 causes drought, we can berate fossil fuel producers and despair of our fellow humans.
But thinking about this, the strange thing is that the idea of "we all need to work together to decarbonize" is never on the table. At least not since the Hartwell paper.
Roger, thanks for posting this essay. It leads me at least to deeper thinking.
Again thanks Roger for this post. I also started to delve deeper. I am a one percenter. no not rich but someone borm in 1946 who is still alive. I hope i become a 0.001 percenter in time.
But growing up I have witnessed the gradual developement of the Apocalypse scenario.
In the 1950s it was the nuclear winter.
In the 1960s it was the club of Rome saying if the world's population keeps growing we will run out of food. One of my Professors in the 60s was a member of that club.
In the 1970s It was the coming new ice age which then morphed into global warning.
The one issue that I follow is wildfires as throughout the 60s and 70s the one issue I fought most for was trying to convince our National Parks service to start fuel reduction burns in National Parks eventually with some success but now forgotten.
The thing that I will always remember from my limited research days was one mentor's advice.
" Ron just remember that those who are very very certain are eithe too young to know or those who don't let there experiences influence them."
Thanks Ron, My dad is ‘46 and mom ‘47, I hope all y’all are 0.00001 %ers😎
For me it was nuclear Armageddon in the 1980s. Red Dawn was set in Colorado. I have a quote somewhere via Steve Rayner of Prince Charles (I think?) after the fall of the Soviet Union to the effect that we needed a new existential threat …
Follow the real science. Two Ignored facts. 1. No one has published a scientific proof of the underling assumption that "Doubling CO2 will Increase absorption of Earth's Infra-red radiation.
2. The recent access to NASA data shows that the present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb 100% of the Earth's radiation in the wavelengths that CO2 can absorb.
Thus- More CO2 can have no effect on earth's energy balance. And all of the models thus are failures.
Yes, Happer lays that out quite clearly. It does not matter how much more CO2 you add to the atmosphere, the effect is neglible.
If you cannot believe someone who wrote the book on radiative physics who can you believe?
But of course, the standard reply is "he isn't a climate scientist, i will get my info from Gavin Schmidt instead", except Gavin is a mathematician.
Whether you are a climate scientist isn't decided by your training but by your adherence to the narrative. If that isn't a sign of a religion i don't know what is.
Roger's conclusion:
"The near-term future of climate policy will almost certainly be a struggle between pragmatism and the New Apocalypticism. How that turns out is anybody’s guess."
Yes, the struggle can be seen: Mr. Guterres "Climate Boiling" and the recent whisper from the new IPCC chair Jim Skea "promoting the use of the best and most relevant science".
My prediction is that Mr. Skea will shut up and concentrate on the science, while Mr. Guterres will continue sprouting pseudo-scientific nonsense or the New Apocalypticism to the media.
It would be very useful if you were to write up the evidence you refer to in a clear summary form, accessible to non-experts, with the specific references to IPCC reports and so forth quoted and footnoted and put it all in one place. You have done it in various places on your blog (a technical discussion of IPCC scenario plausibility here, a piece on the evidence of natural disasters there) but never all in one summary document suitable for circulation. "The Climate Fix" is over a decade old now and in any case longer than what I am thinking about here.
If you have questions re what I'm getting at reply here or drop your email in and can explain further.
Alex Epstein is good at summarizing points relating to energy and climate. Here are a couple of excellent summaries:
https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-an-overheated-planet
https://alexepstein.substack.com/p/do-not-declare-a-climate-emergency
This New Apocalypticism is properly called Climatism and has all the attributes of religion.
Roger can attest to what happens to heretics, the climate scientologists do not take kindly to those that leave and question the church.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
As usual a fascinating and well constructed read. Thank you
If it’s illegitimate apocalyptism, it should also be the end of free money for carbon capture and other pet projects for oil and gas industries, the most profitable industries on earth besides printer cartridge manufacturers.. should be end all sorts of things that are handed out for climate action reasons, like 45Q tax credits. Why are we handing taxpayer money to the most profitable industries on the planet if there is no such urgency?
If we were to compile a list of government subsidies for various things (sugar, mortgages, children, etc) we will find that none of them are predicated on an apocalypse. Climate change can at once be real, worthy of action and not end of times.
BTW, glad you are here, welcome!
Those are really good points. Thank you! I appreciate your careful analysis and thoughtful work Professor!
I recently reread N. S. Lyons Substack piece and I think the Climate Narrative may actually be explained best by what he calls the drive for power by the managerial elite. Here’s the link https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence.
“Why is that? Who controls this unified network of institutions? No one really controls the network; the network controls everyone. What controls the network? A narrative does. All the institutions in the cathedral seem like they’re singing from the same hymn sheet because they are. The essential unifying and coordinating mechanism of the managerial system is that all its constituent parts share a single doctrinal perspective, an adherence to the same motivational memetic narrative. It speaks with one voice as an emergent property of this fact.
From the perspective of any one individual or even institution within the regime network this probably isn’t how things appear. Their concerns seem much more mundane: to get ahead in their little corner of the system, accumulate some prestige, and accrue some material rewards. In fact they feel like they’re in a hardscrabble competition with their peers, not singing a harmony with them. But prestige (social approval and status) is the key unseen mover here, making the whole system turn. Prestige is a reflection of recognition and selection within a given institution or system. It’s the way a system indicates which individuals are considered most valuable to and therefore most valued by that system. Those with more prestige are considered higher status and offered more formal and informal opportunities because others in the system want to associate with and be associated with them. This translates into influence and rewards.
How do people know what is valued and therefore prestigious? Well, every system has an unspoken model or ideal, which people will naturally try to signal their conformity to. This ideal is molded by an overarching narrative. The narrative frames core questions for the system, such as: who are we? What do we do? Why do we do it? Why does this make us superior to other people? Who are our enemies? Etc. This narrative functions as a discourse, and through this discourse the narrative evolves over time. Being evolutionary, it features Darwinian selection: individuals or component parts of the system constantly advance narrative innovations through what they say and do; some of these have (in evolutionary terminology) more fitness than others, and these ideas are selected, propagated, and integrated into the narrative. Those whose ideas are selected gain prestige, while rejection leads to loss of prestige.
But what determines which narrative adaptations are fit to be carried forward? Simple: they are those that make the system stronger. “
Worth a read in its entirety.”
N.S. Lyons is describing coalitional behaviors from an evolutionary sociology perspective, which to me is the most fruitful perspective. If you like that approach, I recommend Minds Make Societies by Pascal Boyer.
(As an aside, N.S. Lyons essay, The Temptations of Carl Schmitt is one of the best things I’ve read in years. It discusses the abandonment of political tolerance.)
Speaking of evolution, there is good evidence for innate fears relating to the natural environment. The most common phobia is fear of heights. Also common is fear of spiders, snakes, thunderstorms/lightning, and fear of the dark. It seems to me that fear of nature is a survival instinct that underlies this long-existing cross cultural apocalypse narrative and may explain why worst-case climate change scenarios are embraced with a visceral fervor that cannot be explained by the science.
I had read the Lyons essay on Schmitt, and thanks to you am reading it again. This resonated “But who decided on this exception? The president? The technocratic national or international “public health” bureaucracy? A handful of specialized “experts” and their billionaire backers from around the world? For most people the answer remains rather hazy.”
If I had the wherewithal, I’d look into the how of NIH taking over public health from the appropriate agency CDC; and how foreign nationals became involved. We didn’t vote in One World Government, nor even One World Government For Really Important Things.. and citizens can vote within the Things They’ve Already Decided.. Maybe...If They Let Us.
“Climate change is of course real and important, but it is not (according to the IPCC) the apocalypse.”
Dr. Pielke, I agree with your statement above.
My cognitive dissonance comes with the term “climate change.” The negative connotation associated with the term has become so “apocalyptic” that it can at times elicit a visceral reaction from those of us who are of a “skeptic” or “realist” persuasion.
Without trying to put words in your mouth, I believe you mean, as I do, that our “climate is continuously changing” and there are many factors (i.e., inputs, forcings, etc.) that cause the climate to change. I believe, as many scientists do, that our climate is a “complex, non-linear, chaotic system” that is the product of many variables, some of which we cannot accurately describe or represent mathematically.
I would humbly suggest that in future postings, you might consider using the phrase “our changing climate.” I realize that it doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily as “climate change” but I believe it more accurately describes the climate as we know it. It may also have the effect of moving the public narrative away from the more apocalyptic language that has become so prominent.
Respectfully,
“Climate change is of course real and important, but it is not (according to the IPCC) the apocalypse.”
Climate is real and has dramatically affected human well being all through history, and so it is critically important.
All agreed.
But any reading of history shows immediately that its when the climate cools that thing really start to fall apart, again and again thru history.
Warming has always heralded a better more prosperous world. No sane rational person who can read with an open mind can dispute this.
As we are still (hopefully) warming from the coldest period in the history of human civilization, the Little Ice age, there is indeed no apocalypse looming, certainly one isn't happening today as many of Roger's posts have confirmed.
If there is no apocalypse today, why would we listen to those who say its coming, same people who try to manipulate the data to convince the weak minded its here now?
I am reading at the moment an interesting book called The Grip of Culture by Andy West, who tries to explain climate change catastrophism as a cultural ‘entity’, a concept into which he includes religions and ideologies. It could be a modern day answer to Barkun. A free.pdf is available at The Global Warning Policy Forum https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/culture/ , though West might prefer you get it from Amazon. A particularly striking point, at least to me, he argues that the central tenets of these cultural entities must be entirely unbelievable because it prevents any form of discussion or debate with the outsider group.
Great pull. Such an astute analyst of moral panic, Prof Barkun has missed out on decades of opportunity to have become a wealthy cult leader.
Roger, I've been with you on things for a while - including your praise of the new IPCC Chief (for good reason), RCP8.45 (which i often used - reluctantly - for the design of Green Climate Fund projects). However, Michael Mann's call for "agency and urgency" on climate is no different than any other moral calling humanity has needed to respond to throughout the ages - think of the abolitionist movement or the women's vote in recent times, or how about ending poverty from which we are a long way off?. We either follow our moral compass or we don't. We either take the science seriously or we don't. I trust you do both.
But can you take the science seriously? You've got some notable climate scientists advocating for the immediate cessation of all new drilling at least, if not the complete immediate cessation of fossil fuels. Is that really what the science says MUST happen?
This is a large part of the problem. Following the science does not present us with a plan of what must be done, by whom, and by when. Likely because some of the scientists are loathe to express what they think it really means and the hardships it will impose.
Taking a more balanced view, we should be able to adapt to climate change challenges as we slowly transition infrastructure (where we can) and invent new technologies over the next 100 years or so without causing cataclysmic doom.
But do we "trust the science" enough to say the balanced view is insufficient and we must IMMEDIATELY make massive and sweeping changes to society, no matter the impact to human comfort, leisure, ability to feed themselves, or make a living? I'm just a layperson, but I'm certainly not convinced the science is sound enough to undertake change on that kind of scale.
If we get to 2050 and nothing has been done (which is likely), what will following the science tell us has to happen? Worldwide outlaw of air travel and personal vehicles? Shutdown of fossil-fuel power facilities by force? What?
If people like Michael Mann, Katherine Hayhoe, Peter Kalmus, and others really want the world to listen, they need to tell us EXACTLY what the result of their "urgent action" handwaving will be. They need to tell us what needs to be done, by whom, and by when.
I think it’s very reasonable to take the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change on face value and focus on the moral imperatives that flow from that. That is exactly why this post on apocalypticism is important. Because there is quite a bit of history to indicate that climate change alarmism is a phenomenon separate from and not explained by the science the alarmists cite to support the alarmism.
The main point is that in wealthy nations the focus on CO2 mitigation has frequently been at the expense of poor nations ability to improve resilience to weather events through improved access to electricity. A low-energy development paradigm has dominated international bodies since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 set the focus priority on CO2 emissions reductions.
When African energy ministers call western ideas, such as ‘leap frogging’, climate change imperialism, we should seriously consider the possibility that the moral high ground is not with Just Stop Oil.
As for Michael Mann, in his book The Hockey Stick and Climate Wars he describes Paul Ehrlich as a “personal hero.” In reference to The Population Bomb he states, “Ehrlich’s early warning has ultimately proven prophetic.” No, it hasn’t, and there is no reason to think that climate scientist are the moral leaders in the climate change predicament.
Thanks
I fully agree that Mann (as a prominent example) has long framed climate as a moral issue. Indeed he is one of the reasons for the Manichean politics of the issue — virtuous good people vs evil, irredeemable forces.
That moral framing is part of the New Apocalypticism.
For my part, climate policy will have far more chance for success if taken out of this quasi-religious framing and instead characterized as an innovation challenge, like feeding the world or advancing public health.
There should be plenty of room in the climate space for exhortation of the kind Mann provides, but he and others take that way to far and use their platforms to harm others they disagree with, and in my moral compass that is wrong. 🙏
A measure of the quality of this stack is the number of thoughtful, non-totalising comments reacting to a piece like this one. This heavily contested area sees too little understanding & pragmatism (defaulting to labelling the various protagonists as stupid/evil) and it’s refreshing to see less of that here.
Catastrophic man-made global warming has become the consensus of the mob because some people need a cause, some are simply inclined to fear, some seek to turn a perceived crisis into profit, some to use it for power, and some innocently get sucked into dependency and cannot see a way out of it. For a claimed scientific consensus there is a very odd lack of consistency in the physics said to cause the warming by infrared-active gases, which is not surprising given the widespread misunderstanding of thermal radiation among scientists. There is no more consensus on the economic consequences of warming either. Many claim it is harmful, yet many flock to warmer climes given the chance and history shows clearly that mankind generally benefited in the warmer periods of the past. Then there are those who claim the post Little Ice Age carbon dioxide level of 180 ppm was ideal, despite a massive die-off of plant life at 150 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the greening that has occurred at 415 ppm. Promoters of the hypothesis have made a multitude of false predictions, which the Scientific Method tells us falsifies the hypothesis. Understanding the science and the economics of the Earth's warming would be much more constructive than promoting this fearful hypothesis.
Great post, Roger. Help me out here, though. You've repeatedly stated that human-caused climate change is real and of concern. Is it fair to say that there are negative consequences of this change? Would these negative consequences include localized catastrophic effects? Where I'm going with this is if the above is true, then the apocalyptic view is actually harmful to the efforts needed to address things which are actually happening and not those lodged in the imagination.
There are indeed many parallels. Here's a parallel between climate catastrophists and the Catholic Church -- the sale of "indulgences". You could pay the Church to reduce time spent in purgatory. Companies can buy carbon offsets. "The Science" (capitalized) basically substitutes for The Prophet or the holy book.
I'm not so sure about the money thing here in the comments. If we look at 20th century history, it seems we have more to fear from ideologues- Hitler, Stalin, Mao and so on, than from greedy people.
As a religious history hobbyist, the idea of "shape up or we'll all die" reminds me of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. But God you could argue with.. "what if there's 10 good people, would you still destroy the town?" and was seen to be merciful and kind, and asking us to be. The idea of group responsibility for bad things (your grandchildren will hate you) seldom occurs in religious traditions the way it is talked about re: climate. So there are many interesting comparisons to be made.
If God causes drought we can pray (as in the 1930s).There is hope and we are in it together.
If CO2 causes drought, we can berate fossil fuel producers and despair of our fellow humans.
But thinking about this, the strange thing is that the idea of "we all need to work together to decarbonize" is never on the table. At least not since the Hartwell paper.
Roger, thanks for posting this essay. It leads me at least to deeper thinking.
Again thanks Roger for this post. I also started to delve deeper. I am a one percenter. no not rich but someone borm in 1946 who is still alive. I hope i become a 0.001 percenter in time.
But growing up I have witnessed the gradual developement of the Apocalypse scenario.
In the 1950s it was the nuclear winter.
In the 1960s it was the club of Rome saying if the world's population keeps growing we will run out of food. One of my Professors in the 60s was a member of that club.
In the 1970s It was the coming new ice age which then morphed into global warning.
The one issue that I follow is wildfires as throughout the 60s and 70s the one issue I fought most for was trying to convince our National Parks service to start fuel reduction burns in National Parks eventually with some success but now forgotten.
The thing that I will always remember from my limited research days was one mentor's advice.
" Ron just remember that those who are very very certain are eithe too young to know or those who don't let there experiences influence them."
How true.
Thanks Ron, My dad is ‘46 and mom ‘47, I hope all y’all are 0.00001 %ers😎
For me it was nuclear Armageddon in the 1980s. Red Dawn was set in Colorado. I have a quote somewhere via Steve Rayner of Prince Charles (I think?) after the fall of the Soviet Union to the effect that we needed a new existential threat …
If it was the current King Charles, it was a surprisingly deep thought.
Follow the real science. Two Ignored facts. 1. No one has published a scientific proof of the underling assumption that "Doubling CO2 will Increase absorption of Earth's Infra-red radiation.
2. The recent access to NASA data shows that the present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb 100% of the Earth's radiation in the wavelengths that CO2 can absorb.
Thus- More CO2 can have no effect on earth's energy balance. And all of the models thus are failures.
Yes, Happer lays that out quite clearly. It does not matter how much more CO2 you add to the atmosphere, the effect is neglible.
If you cannot believe someone who wrote the book on radiative physics who can you believe?
But of course, the standard reply is "he isn't a climate scientist, i will get my info from Gavin Schmidt instead", except Gavin is a mathematician.
Whether you are a climate scientist isn't decided by your training but by your adherence to the narrative. If that isn't a sign of a religion i don't know what is.