Link love
Peter Singer: Why we must ration health care. H/T Milan.
Bryan offers some lessons from NZ's ETS.
Die-hard contrarian hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham on everything you need to know about global warming in five minutes.
Cartographic conflict: a potted history of WWII.
Ben rants about men's groups.
Paul Krugman asks "who cooked the planet?"
If only gay sex caused global warming, or, why do we pay more attention to some threats than to others?
Posts
14 comments:
OK Byron, its lunchtime and I’ll get the ball rolling.
Ben Myer’s post
An OK post, but I do think it important that men be allowed to spend time discussing whatever they like including theology. Having women present at such times does add a certain frisson that can be distracting.
Jeremy Grantham’s 12 points
This is not compelling to anyone who is in the slightest degree sceptical about the alarmist prognosis – maybe Joe Romm acolytes will love it.
Firstly the guy is not a contrarian at least as far as climate change is concerned.
Second, it is simply untrue to say that temperature has steadily risen over the past century while greenhouse levels have increased (#4)
Third, whether wind and solar lead to more jobs is arguable, whilst the problems arising from intermittency of power generation from wind and solar are certainly not – to say nothing of the disfigurement of the countryside, vastly increased capital cost vis a vis coal/gas fired power stations for starters.
Fourth, the question of the costs of failure to act now on prevention when the results turn out serious 50, 100 years from now fails to take account of the far greater wealth envisaged in 50, 100 years time that will enable much more targeted and therefore lower cost action to be taken. As I understand it the notion of greater future wealth has been built into the various IPCC scenarios. You will recall that ridiculously low discount rate employed by Stern and severely criticised by economists such as Richard Tol and William Nordhaus.
Fifth, Grantham does himself no favours by writing (#9) that climate science involves hard science and then backs this up with an appeal to authority. Appeals to authority cut no ice as far as I’m concerned. If there has been one thing to come out of the sorry saga of climategate it is that climate science whilst pointing in certain directions is nevertheless full of uncertainty.
Sixth, challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy - are we meant to take this seriously, a load of nonsense I’m afraid. Not one of the three UK Climategate enquiries could bring themselves to interview a single climate change contrarian!
I could go on to his smearing in point #11, but I desist.
I’ll have a look at the Singer article and may come back.
Temperatures have risen over the last century. "Steadily" is a judgement call and may go too far, but almost every decade was warmer than the last. There was some cooling in the middle of the century (through global dimming mainly), but it's not inaccurate to give a one sentence summary of both CO2 and temps as "rising" for the last hundred years.
More jobs - proof that solar and wind don't lead to more job?
Disfigurement of the countryside: I know you've seen open cut coal mines. Give me some wind turbines any day. And perhaps you have some idea what desertification, deforestation, invasive species, loss of biodiversity, destruction of coral reefs, wetland loss and coastal storm surges do to disfigure the countryside. All these are already documented effects of warming (or caused by events made more likely by warming).
Intermittency - did you see the new molten salt solar plant built in Italy? It's a prototype, but it stores energy overnight. I've never said that solar and wind are going to save the world, but they are better than the alternative (the destabilisation of the climate for thousands of years), even if that involves a loss of productivity.
The costs of inaction: costs rise by US$500 billion (with a "b") per year due to sunk costs. The serious problems are already happening and will continue to get worse. I think it is reasonably unlikely we will be wealthier in 50 years time than today, or at least there is a very good chance that could be true.
Hard science - you are out on a limb here, David. To say that every scientific institution of national or international standing is risking its reputation (its most valuable asset) on something other than hard science puts the burden of proof onto the deniers (the true sceptics are almost all with the mainstream on this). And then to dismiss this by a hand-waving reference to "climategate" shows that you do rely on authority - the authority of the media and certain blogs who spun a story out of very little.
"Sixth, challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy - are we meant to take this seriously, a load of nonsense I’m afraid."
I really don't understand. You think the poor oil and coal lobbies are the victims? That they don't wield billions of dollars in influence? That they don't represent vested interests? In what way is it a load of nonsense? Have you read any of the accounts documenting the amount of money big energy have put into misinformation campaigns?
What is your take on the cigarette controversy? Was it largely manufactured by think tanks funded by tobacco, or was it a few courageous individuals standing against peer pressure?
Do you have grandchildren, David? How certain are you that they are not going to regret your current online activities in years to come?
HI Byron,
You and I have been around the circuit a few times.
Re disfigurement of countryside. I grew up in a mining town (Captains Flat). The mine was shut down 40 years ago and I have to say the effects of that mining are barely discernable today.
The point of difference between open cut mines and wind turbines is that the open cut mine occupies a comparatively small area to wind turbines producing the same amount of power.
You may be happy to live next to a windfarm, though I doubt this is the case. Windfarms split local communities, cause health problems. In Australia local communities are fighting proposals for windfarms, which in the case of the 212 wind turbine Stockyard Hill proposal south of Beaufort extends over an area of 800 sq kms.
As for molten salt solar plants, the technology is far from proven, is small scale and decades away from large scale implementation. As they say a swallow does not make a summer. Get real!
To suggest that climate change is solely responsible for desertification, deforestation, invasive species, loss of biodiversity, destruction of coral reefs, wetland loss and coastal storm surges is simply grossly reductionist and totally misleading.
The serious problems are not already happening as you assert if you mean Maldives disappearing, Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035, etc, etc. Hyperbole and exaggeration without qualification does your cause no good
I think it is reasonably unlikely we will be wealthier in 50 years time than today, or at least there is a very good chance that could be true.
So you part company with the IPCC?
Regarding the science, Byron, time will tell. I suggest you read Mike Hulme, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke or Claire Parkinson, none of whom deny human induced global warming, yet all highly cautionary on the science, a wicked problem, not a tame problem says Mike Hulme. You need to give Joe Romm a break for a while, expand your reading.
I suggest by any measure the amount of money going into support of alarmist science (mainly Government sourced) dwarfs by orders of magnitude funding of sceptics by big oil. You spell out the funding for alarmist climate change and I’ll do the same for big oil.
Don’t know the relevance of cigarette controversy. Apples and pears, tame problem vs wicked problem. Surely, you don’t expect me to take you seriously comparing cigarettes to the greatest moral challenge of our time.
Don’t try moral blackmail by intruding grandchildren into the argument, it doesn’t wash. Neither of us are God, able to predict the future with such certainty. Personally, I’m in favour of the developing world getting out of poverty now and that means fossil fuel and CO2, for the time being, certainly until solar and nuclear can start replacing fossil fuel. Would you deny the developing world the opportunity to escape poverty? I hope not.
Re disfigurement of countryside. I grew up in a mining town (Captains Flat). The mine was shut down 40 years ago and I have to say the effects of that mining are barely discernable today.
From Wikipedia's article on Captains Flat: "The impact of sulphur and acid rain produced by the smelting has resulted in the area around the mines having a stark and somewhat alien landscape reminiscent of Queenstown in Tasmania.
"In 1939 and 1942 mine tailings and slime dams collapsed into the Molonglo River. The resulting pollution severely damaged the ecological communities of the Molonglo River downstream from the mine site, and eradicated all native fish populations. Despite Federal and NSW government funded remediation programs of $2.5m in 1976, toxic leachates still enter the river from the Captains Flat mine site. The remediation works covered the waste dumps with impermeable clay and vegetation designed to reduce the risk of catatastrophic failure of the dumps. The owners of the mine were not held accountable for the pollution nor contributed to the remediation of the environmental impact. A large stretch of the Molonglo is still devoid of native fish and waiting for native fish species to be re-established."
And I note that the mine wasn't even an open cut coal mine. I could go on about the problems with those at much greater length.
Can you show me a reliable studying linking wind power to health problems? As I understand it, the jury is still out on that question. I'm sure I can find at least ten times as many about the problems associated with coal mining. And you didn't substantiate your claim about jobs.
But this largely misses the point. I have never said renewables are perfect, nor that they will save the world. I am fully aware that the CSP installation in Italy is heavily subsidised and I noted that it was a prototype.
Nor did I ever say that global warming is the only cause of many of the effects associated with it. It is a threat multiplier, as I have said many, many times before.
The serious problems are not already happening as you assert if you mean Maldives disappearing, Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035
Did I mention either of these? David, you are misrepresenting me, and hardly for the first time.
Currently documented effects (not all exclusively caused by climate change, but with climate change as at least a contributing factor): increased coral bleaching, increased incidence of droughts, increased incidence of heavy precipitation, increased incidence of heatwaves, destruction of millions of acres of boreal pine forests by pine beetle, acceleration of biodiversity loss, spread of diseases, shifts in annual patterns of river flows (and fresh water availability), a wide variety of phenological changes negatively affecting the resilience of ecosystems, increase in ocean acidity affecting the ability of marine species to thrive and reproduce... I could go on and on. Not all of these are currently disastrous. But it is simply not true to say that serious results won't be present for 50 or 100 years. Serious results are already present and getting more serious each decade. And the cost of action (both mitigation and adaptation increases by an estimated US$500B each year.
So you part company with the IPCC?
Yes. Is that such a surprise? They are experts at the climate, not the future per se. Black swans, or fat tailed distribution curves for high-impact events are not taken sufficiently into account for their economic assumptions.
Regarding the science, Byron, time will tell. I suggest you read Mike Hulme, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke or Claire Parkinson, none of whom deny human induced global warming, yet all highly cautionary on the science, a wicked problem, not a tame problem says Mike Hulme. You need to give Joe Romm a break for a while, expand your reading.
I have read all of these authors. I strongly suspect that my reading is considerably wider than your own. Time will indeed tell on the science, and the fact that the science has been remarkably settled on the big picture stuff for thirty-five years and that every scientific body of national or international standing is willing to risk its reputation on this matter is telling me a story.
I suggest by any measure the amount of money going into support of alarmist science (mainly Government sourced) dwarfs by orders of magnitude funding of sceptics by big oil. You spell out the funding for alarmist climate change and I’ll do the same for big oil.
Just as the government money going into cigarette warnings is greater than the money spent by big tobacco muddying the waters. It may be true, but it is an irrelevant point as the goal is not winning the debate, but delaying action by manufacturing the illusion of ongoing dispute.
But at least we have moved forward as you now admit funding of sceptics by big oil. That is quite an admission. So let's push it a little further. Do you really equate government-funded research occurring through regulated bodies giving grants at reputable universities with corporately funded in-house research? Really? Are they even on the same scale?
Don’t know the relevance of cigarette controversy. Apples and pears, tame problem vs wicked problem. Surely, you don’t expect me to take you seriously comparing cigarettes to the greatest moral challenge of our time.
The problems may be different in some morally interesting ways, but the strategy of misinformation is startlingly similar. Look into it. Read Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes or listen to this lecture to get a taste.
And once again you repeat (for I think the fourth or fifth time!) the implication that I think climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time.
Don’t try moral blackmail by intruding grandchildren into the argument, it doesn’t wash. Neither of us are God, able to predict the future with such certainty.
Grandchildren are not moral blackmail, they are an important moral consideration of the future. I don't need to be God to be prudent. I buy insurance because I don't know the future. I respond to doctors' warnings about likely future effects of actions without full knowledge of the future. Indeed, it is precisely because we don't have full knowledge of the future that I think great caution is required (read the post I just linked to). It is common practice in many moral systems to take the effects of our actions on future generations into account and this seems to accord well with Christian assumptions about the dignity of all human life and the goodness of all of God's creation.
Would you deny the developing world the opportunity to escape poverty? I hope not.
You are once again ignoring what I have said many times over. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
David, the quality of your engagement on this topic seems to be dropping. You continue to raise points I have answered, accuse me of things I have not said, make uncharitable assumptions about me and ignore my questions. I am not angry, just a bit sad as I had really hoped for more.
“The whole of the climate system is acting in a way consistent with the effects of greenhouse gases. The fingerprints are clear. The glaringly obvious explanation for this is warming from greenhouse gases." - Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring UK Met office, commenting on a new report from NOAA reviewing more data since the IPCC's AR4 in 2007 and which points to ten key indicators all pointing to a warming world consistent with greenhouse warming.
(Since you're reading widely, I assume you'll want to read it as it is a significant contribution and distillation of current evidence.)
Hi Byron,
As I say, we've been around the loop a few times.
Next time you are in Australia, I invite you to visit Captains Flat. I couldn't recognise it from your Wikipedia article which is probably why we should take Wikipedia with a grain of salt.
It was a particularly dirty mine as I remember from my childhood in the 50's. My point is simply that, and I repeat myself, it is hard to recognise it today for what it was.
Nor did I ever say that global warming is the only cause of many of the effects associated with it. It is a threat multiplier, as I have said many, many times before.
I know it is a pain, but you can't rely on what you have said before - people come on and read what you write, and say, "Oh Byron says it's all down to climate change". Personally, I can't remember what you've said before and I have probably given as much attention to your words as anyone else judging from the (lack of) others commenting. In a way you are your own worse enemy, feeding the sceptical mind through overstatement.
Re health problems with windpower - I suggest you go and check it out for yourself. Try John Etherington's book that I have previously referred you to for starters.
David - You have assumed to know how and why others react (remember that on a typical blog, about 1% of readers actually comment), again show that you have not listened and then finish by acknowledging that you're not really paying attention anyway.
Here is what I said in this thread:
And perhaps you have some idea what desertification, deforestation, invasive species, loss of biodiversity, destruction of coral reefs, wetland loss and coastal storm surges do to disfigure the countryside. All these are already documented effects of warming (or caused by events made more likely by warming).
You then accused me of saying that all these things are caused only by climate change, which simply misreads what I said in this thread. No one needs to go back and read earlier threads (though you've had this same point made to you before to give you some extra help in noticing it).
The reason this is going round in circles is because you keep raising points I have answered and misreading my comments (even when I've corrected you before).
David, I think it would be worthwhile to reflect upon your approach to online interactions. Do you have a pastor or trusted mentor or friend who could look over what you have written in different places and suggest improvements? I try to ask people to regularly give me feedback on how I am coming across and I find it very helpful. You might too.
Grace & peace,
Byron
BTW, you don't seem to have ever mentioned the Etherington book on this blog, though I assume you mean this one. Also, here is the bill passed in 1975 relating to funding of ongoing federal and state clean up of pollution from Captains Flat mines and here is a paper published in 2001 by researchers from the Dept of Geology at ANU and at NTU and titled "Identifying Acid Mine-Drainage Pollution at Captains Flat, NSW, using Airborne HYMAP Data". The opening paragraph: "Despite the cessation of mining operations and the rehabilitation of tailings dumps 25 years ago, the Captains Flat mine is still polluting the river system, destroying the ecology including vegetation, macro-invertebrates and fish. Metals in water and sediments, particularly zinc remains a source of pollution to Lake Burley Griffin in Canberra about 50km away. Although remediation appears to have reduced the pollution, significant seepages are produced by the high pressure head of groundwater in the mine and possibly the dumps." Here is another article published in 1986 by CSIRO under the title "Mine waste pollution of the Molonglo River, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory: Effectiveness of remedial works at Captains flat mining area". The abstract reads: "Seeps and previously deposited particulate material from mine workings at Captains Flat are still major sources of metal contamination in the Molonglo River. The impact of metal contamination as it entered the river is shown by the lower variety and numbers of animal taxa collected at downstream sites compared with upstream areas. Comparison with studies conducted before the remedial works shows that there has been little or no discernible change to the chemical or biological condition of the river during periods of low flow." The Wiki article on Molonglo River also contains a reference for the claims about fish. So thanks for the invite, but given the fact that I probably won't be back in Oz for a few years, I think I'll go with Wiki over your memory and casual observations.
Hi David and Byron,
I hope you don't mind if I add one perspective on Captains Flat. I have done a fair bit of camping and cycling in that area over the past 2 years. Any local I have spoken to warns against drinking water from the Molonglo and its tributaries due to heavy metal contamination. These warnings are repeated in recently erected signage 40kms downstream at Molonglo Gorge, which is a popular walking area.
David, comparing photos of CF from the 50s, it is true that the hills aren't nearly so bare today as back then. But to say that "the effects of that mining are barely discernable today" is (I assume) to speak in hyperbole, since there are still very prominant visible scars on the hills adjacent to the western bank of the Molonglo.
Of course, the papers that Byron cites speak volumes compared to anything I could say.
Thanks Rob, that's very helpful.
In general, Wiki is not a high quality source, particularly on controversial things. But overall, it is actually an excellent first orientation to the vast majority of topics that it covers (one study published in Nature said that it was comparable in accurate to Encyclopædia Britannica). I often use it for the links in particular. If some claim seems dubious, it is oftem relatively easy to check where they came from and try to make a judgement on the reliability of the source.
And of course, if you really want to know how reliable Wikipedia is, then check here. ;-)
Byron,
You are probably correct that I don't read what you write closely enough but you do write an awful lot of stuff.
I guess my problem is that you are very predictable and I would say inflexible, a bit of a closed mind. I had hopes that I might help you to broaden your outlook, though I can see that might have been a vain hope. I think you read the literature that pleases you. We all do of course, but I have made some attempt to read IPCC, and those who take a more alarmist view of climate change - well, it's pretty hard to avoid it. I would like to see you explore some of the more sceptical material. I remember you as very dismissive, unjustifiably so in my opinion of Lomborg - I think that is a great shame. I think Joe Romm is terrible and I wince when you refer to his website.
RE Captains Flat, I have visited it several times in the past 10 years. All my boyhood years were spent in the town and I have strong memories of those years including playing in the vast slag heaps not far from our home. The town gives evey appearence of recovery from those days (photos don't tell the full story) and no doubt in 50, 100 years time will have improved further.
Post a Comment