Conservatives and climate change

[bit_pattern]

From SkS:

Peter Wehner has impeccable conservative credentials, having served under Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and most recently, as deputy assistant to Pres. George W. Bush. He resides at the "Ethics & Public Policy Center," a neo-con think tank.

After a long look at the evidence, Wehner concluded that the scientific consensus on climate is correct. He wrote two interesting posts titled "Conservatives and Climate Change," in the neo-con magazine Commentary, which prides itself in intellectual conservatism.

Wehner makes a nod to scientific uncertainties and the potential dangers of excessive government intervention, and he firmly rejects alarmism. Climate hawks will find plenty to argue with, but these caveats are worth considering because a) most have some merit, and b) they clarify exactly where many conservatives get stuck. If we don't address conservative reservations and fears directly, we're failing to get at the roots from which science denial stems.

More importantly, Wehner explicitly separates the question "Is it happening?" from "What should we do?" -- in itself a major step forward -- and for the most part he accepts the science. His gutsy stance is particularly welcome following the recent recantations by born-again climate agnostics Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman

(Republicans) hold this view despite the fact that the science on global warming is near-unanimous: anthropogenic global warming is real. Groups like the National Academy of Sciences, which in the early 1990s issued a report saying that “there is no evidence yet” of dangerous climate change, have shifted their stance, arguing that human activity is having a substantial impact on increases in global temperatures. But what is less clear are the implications of global warming and what steps need to be taken to address it.

Many climate scientists fear that unless dramatic steps are taken soon, we’ll see rising sea levels, contracting ice sheets, more floods and intense tropical cyclones, the spread of tropical diseases like malaria, the submergence of parts of continents, alterations in our ecosystems, and food and water shortages. Perhaps so; those concerns are certainly worth considering. But as Jim Manzi –who combines a sophisticated understanding of the scientific and economic stakes of the climate-change debate — has pointed out, pumping out more CO2 triggers an incredibly complicated set of feedback effects, and the most important scientific debate is really about these feedback effects. In Manzi’s words, “Climate models generate useful projections for us to consider, but the reality is that nobody knows with meaningful precision how much warming we will experience under any emissions scenario. Global warming is a real risk, but its impact over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.”

Conservatives should be part of that conversation. There’s an intellectually credible case to be made that it’s unwise to embrace massive, harmful changes to our economy in the face of significant uncertainties based on incomplete knowledge of how the climate system will respond in the middle part of the 22nd century. It’s reasonable to argue that a meaningful deal to cut carbon emissions among the worst emitting nations (China, the United States, the EU, India, and Russia among them) is almost surely beyond reach and that our focus should be on adaptation (see here) and relatively low-cost investments in technologies rather than drastic carbon cuts. And it’s fair to ask whether the best data suggests that Earth’s temperature has not risen in more than a decade; and if so, why that’s the case.

To acknowledge global warming does not necessarily lead one to embrace Al Gore’s environmental agenda.

Part 1
Part 2

 

[Puppycow]

Unfortunately a few conservative intellectuals admitting that climate change is real probably won't do much to change the mainstream conservative opinion, which was never susceptible to facts to begin with. Recently one of the last major climate skeptics among scientists released a study that confirmed the scientific consensus, but it hasn't seemed to have a noticeable effect. It's not an intellectual-led movement.

 

[Travis]

What's sad is that some people are letting their ideology choose what they want reality to be.

I mean I would really, really love for AGW to not be real. It would so vindicate my hatred of many environmental groups like Greenpeace. But, as happy as that would make me, I have to accept reality.

Reality:

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
We are dumping loads of fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
The math is easy

 

[TimCallahan]

Robert Prey needs to see this thread.

 

[mhaze]

What's sad is that some people are letting their ideology choose what they want reality to be.

I mean I would really, really love for AGW to not be real. It would so vindicate my hatred of many environmental groups like Greenpeace. But, as happy as that would make me, I have to accept reality.

Reality:

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
We are dumping loads of fossil carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
The math is easy

If you honestly say that, you need to study the matter a bit more. Navier stokes applies? Eh?

How about that radiation balance upper atmosphere issue? Simple math?

Change in atmospheric water balance and albedo with a given change in CO2?

I could continue, but you get the point. If you've bought into the 8th grade D level student rendition of CO2 warms, therefore we making the planet warmer, I suggest learning a bit more about the subject (or not, as math is by most peoples' opinions pretty dull stuff).

By the way, we're in agreement about being pretty disgusted with the "environmental groups".

 

[TimCallahan]

If you honestly say that, you need to study the matter a bit more. Navier stokes applies? Eh?

How about that radiation balance upper atmosphere issue? Simple math?

Change in atmospheric water balance and albedo with a given change in CO2?

I could continue, but you get the point. If you've bought into the 8th grade D level student rendition of CO2 warms, therefore we making the planet warmer, I suggest learning a bit more about the subject (or not, as math is by most peoples' opinions pretty dull stuff).

By the way, we're in agreement about being pretty disgusted with the "environmental groups".

Of course, your information is vastly superior to anyone else's. Excuse us for having the temerity to disagree with you! Also, please excuse the overwhelming majority of climate scientists for disagreeing with you.

 

[mortimer]

Of course, your information is vastly superior to anyone else's. Excuse us for having the temerity to disagree with you! Also, please excuse the overwhelming majority of climate scientists for disagreeing with you.

While I hate to agree with MHaze, are you suggesting that "us" (who?) and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe the math behind climate change is easy?

 

[lomiller]

While I hate to agree with MHaze, are you suggesting that "us" (who?) and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe the math behind climate change is easy?

No, but they do agree that the more rigorous analysis gives the same basic results as the simple version.

We don't use a more rigorous analysis to teach when the simplified model works. For example we don't factor relativity into planetary motion unless doing so improves the outcome.

 

[bit_pattern]

What's sad is that some people are letting their ideology choose what they want reality to be.

Apparently it's quite a pronounced effect in the community too. But people also respond when someone who supports their cultural worldview is doing the communicating.

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2011/10/why-culture-matters-in-the-climate-debate/

That's why it is so important for people like Wehner to step up to the plate and tell it how it is and while I don't agree with his critique of the issue I do applaud him for making it.

 

[Francesca R]

I continue to be sceptical that many people's climate change views are anything to do with science: Left-Right politics as a predictor of AGW stance

 

[Travis]

If you honestly say that, you need to study the matter a bit more. Navier stokes applies? Eh?

How about that radiation balance upper atmosphere issue? Simple math?

Change in atmospheric water balance and albedo with a given change in CO2?

I could continue, but you get the point. If you've bought into the 8th grade D level student rendition of CO2 warms, therefore we making the planet warmer, I suggest learning a bit more about the subject (or not, as math is by most peoples' opinions pretty dull stuff).

So you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
You agree that spikes in CO2 led to warming episodes that caused mass extinctions in the past?

 

[mhaze]

So you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
You agree that spikes in CO2 led to warming episodes that caused mass extinctions in the past?

HAHAHA! No, Travis, don't go down that road...that'll just get this thread tossed into some cesspool of Moderated garbage.

Look, you made a statement that's just plain false. And I corrected you on it. One way to validate that is to note math that is used in climate science, and go back and enumerate similar courses in undergraduate and graduate math.

Go ahead, do it.

Pretty soon you'll realize that the math which is required is "NOT easy".

I think it was Einstein that said "Make things as simple as you can, but no simpler than they are".

 

[bit_pattern]

HAHAHA! No, Travis, don't go down that road...that'll just get this thread tossed into some cesspool of Moderated garbage.

Yes. That thread where you actually have to have your inane ideas challenged in an authoritative manner. That's obviously a terrible, terrible thread

 

[mhaze]

Yes. That thread where you actually have to have your inane ideas challenged in an authoritative manner. That's obviously a terrible, terrible thread

Oh, wait, I get it. Math used for climate is easy.

That world. Right-o.

Authoritatively.

Positively.

Yes, Sir!

 

[leftysergeant]

How about that radiation balance upper atmosphere issue?

What about it?

 

[daredelvis]

I continue to be sceptical that many people's climate change views are anything to do with science: Left-Right politics as a predictor of AGW stance

Mine have entirely to do with the views of the vast majority of climate scientists and the National Academy of Sciences. If they revise their position, I will revise mine. My areas of expertise are genetics, cell biology, and genomic analysis. My views in that area are based on the views of recognized experts, and my 20 years experience. In the areas of climate science, economics, geology, etc., I rely on experts in the field, not talk show hosts and industry scientists. Those are the two sides of this coin.

Daredelvis

 

[BenBurch]

I continue to be sceptical that many people's climate change views are anything to do with science: Left-Right politics as a predictor of AGW stance

I knew it was coming in '72 when I was leafletting for Nixon, and haven't changed that opinion since. At the time I thought nuclear war a more likely outcome than roasting slowly.

 

[BenBurch]

What about it?

The radiation balance is what AGW predicts; The Stratosphere gets COOLER as the Troposphere warms.

I have explained this mechanism repeatedly, and given the physical reasons for it, but MHaze appears to be intellectually unable to comprehend the science.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert Prey needs to see this thread.

Still waiting for some smart person to cite any significant period of time in the known history of the earth, when the climate was not changing.

 

[Robert Prey]

From SkS:

Peter Wehner has impeccable conservative credentials, having served under Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and most recently, as deputy assistant to Pres. George W. Bush. He resides at the "Ethics & Public Policy Center," a neo-con think tank.

After a long look at the evidence, Wehner concluded that the scientific consensus on climate is correct. He wrote two interesting posts titled "Conservatives and Climate Change," in the neo-con magazine Commentary, which prides itself in intellectual conservatism.

Wehner makes a nod to scientific uncertainties and the potential dangers of excessive government intervention, and he firmly rejects alarmism. Climate hawks will find plenty to argue with, but these caveats are worth considering because a) most have some merit, and b) they clarify exactly where many conservatives get stuck. If we don't address conservative reservations and fears directly, we're failing to get at the roots from which science denial stems.

More importantly, Wehner explicitly separates the question "Is it happening?" from "What should we do?" -- in itself a major step forward -- and for the most part he accepts the science. His gutsy stance is particularly welcome following the recent recantations by born-again climate agnostics Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman



Part 1
Part 2

Chicken Little Hysteria.