Articles on this Page
- 12/06/18--07:19: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--07:19: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--07:21: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--08:32: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--08:48: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--08:55: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--09:07: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--09:14: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--09:20: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--09:41: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--09:44: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--09:58: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--10:04: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--10:59: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--11:40: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--11:40: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--11:58: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--12:11: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--12:15: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--12:25: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/06/18--07:19: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by JCH
- 12/06/18--07:19: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by JCH
- 12/06/18--07:21: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by JCH
- 12/06/18--08:32: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by Hans Erren
- 12/06/18--09:07: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/06/18--09:14: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/06/18--09:20: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/06/18--09:41: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by John Ridgway
- 12/06/18--09:44: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/06/18--09:58: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by matthewrmarler
- 12/06/18--10:04: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by matthewrmarler
- 12/06/18--10:59: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/06/18--11:40: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by Hans Erren
- 12/06/18--11:40: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/06/18--11:58: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/06/18--12:11: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by Hans Erren
- 12/06/18--12:15: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/06/18--12:25: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by Hans Erren
And, we have lift off:
With one ONI period in the bank, it appears the El Niño is now a virtual lock, and that its official passage into Red state will be November 19.
Very high SAT numbers in the 10-day forecast.
Kiss imminent global cooling goodbye. Somebody has cranked up the, haha, control knob.
Prayer works. Keep praying for the cold phase of something. Could throw in animal sacrifice. Anything. Maybe a confluence of wives and girlfriends giving their guys the cold shoulder will fire up the stadium wave.
But what if it's hot?
Whoops, Nov 18.
Okay, the lesson is the frogs never jump out of the pot.
And the "killing of coral catastrophe" is exactly the argument Dutch Greenpeace is now using in the Katowize conference to claim that 2 degrees is not sufficient.
Why did IPCC adopt the 2 degree coral catastrophe? How did coral survive the PETM?
Re: <b>"I do. And the literature backing the testing for, and understanding of, ‘denialism’ is deeply flawed. See:"</b>
No, it isn't, as shown by it being successfully used to identify denialism on a wide range of topics, including AIDS denialism. And no, your non-peer-reviewed blogpost does not show otherwise. If you can't differentiate AIDS denialists from the evidence-based scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS, then that's your problem, not a flaw of the term "denialism".
Re: <b>"Andy West provided lots of examples of CAGW"</b>
And it's been repeatedly explained to you why "CAGW" is a straw man.
Re: <b>"Without lots of examples, that is no more useful than a dictionary definition of N-rays or chaos."</b>
First, there's an example given at the very dictionary link you were given. Second, it's absurd for you to claim that a dictionary definition is not useful without lots of examples. The term's meaning is clear from the definition. If you don't understand that definition, then that's more your issue, then a problem with the dictionary. Third, the rest of my comment gave examples (ex: AIDS denialism). You just conveniently side-stepped those to act as if they weren't there, as per your usual practice of quote-mining.
If your only hope at this point is to constantly move the goal-posts to the point of claiming that grade-school dictionary definitions are not clear enough for you, then that says a lot about your position.
Re: <b>"I have not read any accounts denying warming or climate change"</b>
Oh, give me a break.
You are acting as if you can just read the meaning of the term "climate change denier" from word structure. That's as ridiculous as thinking that "Republicans" and "Democrats" must be arguing over a republic vs. a democracy as a form of government. You cannot always read meaning from word structure.
No. There is frequently, even mostly, culture and rhetoric upon both sides, yet their method has no theoretical underpinning and essentially relies on a trivial rhetoric analysis. As noted towards the end, even the authors later complained that the concept was being used by the 'wrong' side. Not surprising; it is so weak it allows anyone to call out any group as denialists. If you think that the critique is wrong, show your logic chain and specific points, with properly contexted quotes, as to exactly where and why.
"And it’s been repeatedly explained to you why “CAGW” is a straw man"
So now we have this post, which explains that, used *appropriately*, the acronym is not a straw man, but a valid label. Assuming you've fully read the post, and in the context of that appropriate usage (so *not* used to label mainstream / IPCC science), if you think that the post is wrong, please show your logic chain and specific arguments as to why, with appropriate in context quotes. Thanks.
I don't know the answers to your questions. But even a 'coral catastrophe' is not a high certainty of an imminent global catastrophe, or anything close to same.
Although I think it is a poor method of argument, that is hindering rather than helping our discussion, I will succumb to using your own tactic of analysing responses piecemeal:
“Yet thereby clearly also demonstrating by the very same logic, that these are all perfectly legitimate uses of the word ‘catastrophe’ (or equivalent wordage) within a science and its related concepts that all the way through I’m pointing to as the accepted mainstream.”
So what? I am not arguing about the legitimate use of the word ‘catastrophe’ within the mainstream. I’m arguing that discussion of high impact, low probability scenarios can be legitimately referred to as a ‘catastrophe narrative’, whilst a main theme of your post is that the expression is (and should be?) restricted to discussions that assume certitude of high impact.
“Once again, nothing at all within my post rules out this principle, its history, or any other points within the debate. Once again, if you think something in my post does rule out such points, quote it.”
And yet there is nothing in your post that references or even alludes to the principle. If you think that you can write a properly balanced dissertation on the subject of catastrophe ideation within climate science without giving high prominence to the precautionary principle, then you are seriously mistaken. If you think something in your post does take sufficient cognizance of the precautionary principle, quote it.
“There would never have been a basis for such objections had the domain interpreted ‘CAGW’ in the manner which you are doing.”
On the contrary, it only requires some of the ‘domain’ not to interpret CAGW in the way that I do in order to provide a basis for objection. The only reason why some people think that there is a need for an alternative acronym, is because some people (too many) have now abandoned the original argument for climate action for a more simplistic argument that does not have to face up to the fact that the science is still full of uncertainties and speculations regarding remote possibilities. Since this simplistic argument is becoming increasingly prevalent, arguments against catastrophe narratives in general are necessarily becoming increasingly focused upon the simplistic version. But we should not lose sight of the fact that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming means exactly what it says. Just because the term is now falsely assumed by many to imply certitude is not reason enough to abandon its correct meaning. I don’t deny the memetic potency of the existing misinterpretation, I just think it is worth resisting because it misses at least one important point.
“Yet again, nothing at all within my post rules out this principle, its history, or any other points within the debate. Yet again, if you think something in my post does rule out such points, quote it.”
Yet again, If you think something in your post goes anywhere near demonstrating appropriate cognizance of the precautionary principle, quote it. Don’t keep going on as if the principle is just one of many peripheral topics that could be safely de-emphasized. In fact, it should have been fully explored in your article so that its corruption by the certitude meme could then be evaluated in its correct context.
“However, the catastrophe narrative as propagated by all those many authorities including the highest authorities that we have (hence collectively massive influence), falsely claims backing by mainstream science, and is frequently cited as the critical reason to act. The post points out this important issue as part of its remit, which the skeptic side typically miss through not realising that AR5 does not support the catastrophe narrative, while the orthodox side give a free pass to all these authorities at the same time…”
Just to be clear, I agree with all of that, if by ‘catastrophe narrative’ you mean the ‘we are all going to fry’ version.
“Such is not grounds for complaining that these thousand and one things are not addressed.”
No, Andy. Not the thousand and one – just the one.
“If you’d got to the term first, maybe, but you didn’t and I didn’t either. The domain uses CAGW inclusive of built-in certainty and this is what it is.”
By the ‘domain’ do you mean ‘all’, ‘the majority’ or ‘an influential minority’ or something else? Your dissertation does a good job of cataloguing examples of a catastrophe narrative that is ‘inclusive of built-in certainty’ but I see nothing in the post detailing the genesis and promulgation of the usage of the CAGW acronym within the sceptical community (I say this without having gone back through all of the footnotes, so I apologize in advance if I have missed it). Instead, there just seems to be a plausible assertion that the latter arose in reaction to the former. However, given that the certitude meme and precautionary memes were both around at the time, I think you need to provide a much stronger argument to support your assertion. As for the current situation, the relative prevalence of narrative based upon certitude rather than precaution is not demonstrated by your post and may even be immaterial. It could be argued that the influence of the certitude meme is of limited importance when the precautionary meme has already been embodied in climate change legislation (see, for example, EU legislation).
As an aside, may I point out that many of your footnote examples illustrate alarmism motivated by the supposedly certain existence of risk rather than the certainty of an outcome. The narrative that you have held up to be indicative of certitude, and hence justifying the ‘built-in certainty’ version of the CAGW acronym, embodies far more precautionary sentiment than some might think.
“Okay. But the only line of argument you’ve put forward to support your claim that this post excludes other interesting points in the debate…”
I actually found the whole tone of your closing paragraph to be arrogantly dismissive. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by my attempt to respond to rhetoric that is along the lines of ‘is that the best you can offer?” Our debate has been robust and driven by conviction on both sides, but I’d rather leave it here if continuing were to mean that we descend into unnecessary rancour.
I respect you and your article but I am not in full agreement. I would prefer to leave it at that.
"Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626
And all JCH can do is frog imitations?
Atomsk's Sanakan: <i>And it’s been repeatedly explained to you why “CAGW” is a straw man. </i>
No. You have <i>repeatedly</i> asserted without reasoning (though quoting other unreasoned assertions) that CAGW is a straw man. Andy West's two essays document richly that CAGW is not a straw man.
Atomsk's Sanakan: <i> You are acting as if you can just read the meaning of the term “climate change denier” from word structure.</i>
That is absurd.
You assert without examples (especially noteworthy in contrast to Andy West's large collection of published examples), there there are prominent people who deny climate change, and climate change denier is well-defined? Possibly as something other than "denying climate change".
Strip out the tribal contumely and there is nothing left. Save the pious hope that a natural oscillatory event is going to redeem their AGW bacon. But it does perfectly illustrate that it is not science in dispute. At the core is a cultural battle that has waxed and waned over hundreds of years.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels.
The urban doofus hipster vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals.
Opposed is a far more laissez faire concept of capitalism continuing the economic miracle of bringing billions out of abject poverty, hunger, disease, childhood mortality and environmental destruction through innovation and free markets. And new ways to manage global commons - beyond governments and business - beyond the tragedy of the commons - through autonomous bottom up stakeholder organisation.
Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product - with balanced budgets and a 2-3% inflation target.
Economically the world is locked into an economic growth cycle – despite any and all reservations and interventions. A high growth planet brings resources to solve people and environment problems. The clearest way to economic growth is markets – and the biggest risk is market mismanagement.
Come on Andy if <b>Limiting global warming to 2°C is unlikely to save most coral reefs</b> is not a forecast for certain catastophe, what is?
“I’m arguing that discussion of high impact, low probability scenarios can be legitimately referred to as a ‘catastrophe narrative…”
As far as I can see from above, you claimed that I was excluding other interesting concepts relating to or including the term catastrophe, and specifically named the low probability stuff per above. Yet per my above I showed that I not only didn’t exclude such concepts, I actually noted the whole pile of these within mainstream science and related areas as perfectly legitimate. Plus as already noted, to claim that these concepts and similar *must* share the same name ‘catastrophe narrative’, when this doesn’t align to the domain linkage with ‘CAGW’, and indeed when this name would appear to overweight the concept of catastrophe for them anyhow (so precautionary principle narrative, worst case probability narrative, cascade narrative, etc seem generally much more suitable), seems like merely a semantic knot that is easily avoided. As long as the false meme / narrative elephant is clearly and separately defined from that which is not this false meme, I guess I wouldn’t really care too much if we were starting from scratch. Yet OTOH it seems a less than an ideal label for such concepts anyhow, plus the domain has long development too. I still have no idea why you think this semantic point is important; it has no effect on discussion of this principle anyhow.
“If you think something in your post does take sufficient cognizance of the precautionary principle, quote it.”
The post makes no attempt to address the precautionary principle, nor many other concepts within the domain too. To demand proof from the post for something it never attempted to address would not be a legitimate request if you know it didn't attempt such; for future clarification, it didn't. And inclusion of this concept, plus many others, is not any requirement to demonstrate the narrative of high certainty of imminent global catastrophe as propagated by the many authority sources, plus the use (and mal-use) of the ‘CAGW’ label particularly in relation to that false narrative. You appear to be arbitrarily redefining what the post is about; it wouldn't be a surprise if it then failed to achieve. Given you are not using the ‘CAGW’ label in the same manner as the overwhelming majority of the domain, perhaps this leads to your PoV about what ought to be addressed (which doesn’t necessarily mean it's valid). However, the domain usage is a given anyhow, no matter that you disagree with same, or indeed that it isn’t what either you I would likely have chosen regarding a better term. Once again, nothing at all within my post rules out the principle you reference, its history, or any other points within the debate. Once again, if you think something in my post does rule out such points, quote it.
“Just because the term is now falsely assumed by many to imply certitude is not reason enough to abandon its correct meaning. I don’t deny the memetic potency of the existing misinterpretation, I just think it is worth resisting because it misses at least one important point.”
No. The term has always included high certainty / probability. And your cause to want it changed is likely doomed. However, even if it should succeed in the future, to require that my post aligns to your desires for such a future is not reasonable.
“Don’t keep going on as if the principle is just one of many peripheral topics that could be safely de-emphasized. In fact, it should have been fully explored in your article…”
I have most certainly not de-emphasized it, safely or otherwise. It is simply not addressed by this post, and what the post does address, doesn’t predjudice your topic in any way. I haven’t addressed a thousand and one other things in the domain either, of which no doubt many folks have their favourites that they might have liked me to work into it in some way. Such desires are understandable, but no reason for inclusion.
“No, Andy. Not the thousand and one – just the one.”
Indeed, your one. As indeed others folks will have other ones. So… if you believe a critical trick is missed here by something that you think ought to have been 'fully explored', such that the main points that this post does address are badly let down in some way by this aspect that 'should have been' included, then lay out a full explanation / logic-chain, with examples / quotes from my post regarding the specific flaws and how these would be fixed by your inclusions, plus domain support / usage that aligns to your PoV for support. Maybe Judith would publish it. For sure I’d look forward to commenting on it.
“Just to be clear, I agree with all of that, if by ‘catastrophe narrative’ you mean the ‘we are all going to fry’ version.”
“By the ‘domain’ do you mean ‘all’, ‘the majority’ or ‘an influential minority’ or something else?”
As mentioned a few times above, ‘the overwhelming majority’. No domain so large will be wholly uniform. Skeptical usage of the acronym is not in the mainstream public media, as analysis by others confirms (noted in the post or footnotes, I forget where). Hence you have to find usage spread across blogs, and as over the years I didn’t know as I was going to write this post, I have never saved links. However you can trawl here or WUWT or wherever, all usage I have seen is no way in a precautionary sense. More traffic occurs around deployment that straddles the divide when orthodox folks object to the association of catastrophe (i.e. with it’s high confidence inclusion) being associated with the science that they’re defending.
“(see, for example, EU legislation).”
All sorts of things are embodied in climate change legislation from the EU and in various national laws too. I am making no claim about any such within this post; it simply isn’t addressing that topic (and others). It points out that the catastrophe narrative is false, comes in spades from all the listed authority sources (including the highest we have) and many others, plus is correctly described by ‘CAGW’ in the context of what both sides of the domain understands regarding the meaning of this term. And that mainstream science doesn’t (as claimed) support it, which also means ‘CAGW’ is inapplicable within the same domain understanding.
“As an aside…”
Search emotively overwhelmed conditionals and morphed conditionals within the footnotes. Risk is generally mal-framed, occasionally starting as though it refers to scientific conditionals, but ending with being conditional only on our (usually very major) action, i.e. the certitude reappears and the meaning of the risks / caveats / conditionals has either been changed, or was emotively overwhelmed from the beginning by opposing certitude in the same text.
“I actually found the whole tone of your closing paragraph to be arrogantly dismissive.”
Then you’ve completely misunderstood it. I mean no rancour whatsoever. From my PoV I see nothing but the semantic line of argument as stated, which also in large part appears to rest upon an interpretation of ‘CAGW’ that is not the domain default. I fully accept that you don’t agree with the naming convention, but I don’t see a demonstration that this in any way excludes concepts such as the one you note, or damages the points that the post does make as you claim above (unless I have misunderstood this claim). Regarding the latter particularly, there is plenty to go at regarding setting out a case using my text as part of your logic chain.
Hans, I'm not defending the claims in any way. Merely pointing out that for AR5 (and indeed per the early indicators in the footnote, AR15 too), there is simply not support for an imminent global catastrophe as the listed authority sources have claimed for many years. In fact nothing like it. This is why the full-on catastrophist scientists have to break with the IPCC. The new SR15 indeed seems to specifically make a single more definitive exception, i.e. of high certainty of demise for coral; but even a certain catastrophe for coral is not a certain catastrophe for the entire world and everything living on it, which is what the narrative says. It could be an opening gambit to start with something small / specific, with the intent of then trying to go much further for the upcoming AR6. But as things stand right now, a certainty of imminent global catastrophe is not supported by the mainstream science.
Ok, point taken, agreed not a teotwawki.
But then I really want to know where the scientific rebuttal to Frieler et al. is published because corals survived far hotter periods in the geological history of the earth.
At the extremes there are no 'bi-partisan values'. What matters is to capture the middle ground - and that can't happen with a purely reactive 'skeptic' stance.
Here is one for starters:
Coles SL, Bahr KD, Rodgers KS, May SL, McGowan AE, Tsang A, Bumgarner J, Han JH. 2018. Evidence of acclimatization or adaptation in Hawaiian corals to higher ocean temperatures. PeerJ 6:e5347 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5347