"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?
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. “
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
“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,
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.
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.
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.