Blog
01.December 2009 - 22:52
When the facts change
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir, asked the famous economist John Maynard Keynes.
And how about us?
During the past weeks, some strange surprises have popped up in the field of climate science. And now I don’t merely mean the period of the past decade during which temperatures haven’t followed the increase development of emissions. The trouble now is Climategate: The leakage of a very delicate email exchange has exposed the information to the world that, at least, scientists are human beings who can also fall into a temptation just like the rest of us. As politicians and journalists demand plain numbers and a clear message, it must be very annoying to be just a boring scientist who refuses to say anything really sensational. Let’s smarten up the message, as the atmosphere likes it that way too!
Are these just singular examples of erring ways? Not quite so, as it concerns a whole pack of leading authors of the IPCC report and other leading climate science authorities.
Besides exaggerations, even solutions which could be regarded as criminal from a scientific point of view have been disclosed, as, during the weekend, it got out that some raw data on temperature calculations have been destroyed. This does not strengthen confidence in the climate science – and confidence is exactly what we would now need for making big decisions.
It was not good news either that Mike Mann published a new hockey stick curve; material, which still includes the monkey-business with Korttajärvi: the research material of a Finnish group was turned upside down, causing the conclusion to be similarly affected.
As a matter of fact, I’ve found the oddest phenomenon in the climate discussion right here at home in Finland.
I recently read Pasi Toiviainen’s blog on the pages of the Finnish CO2 report. This journalist, a layman in climate science but well-versed in the subject, disapproved the “inaccuracy” of the discussion concerning climate warming. Apparently the sceptics mess up, on purpose, two different conceptions – the past warming that has already taken place and the future warming that actually hasn’t taken place yet:
“Besides, it should be considered that, in the context of climate change, when talking about an extraordinary and unprecedented warming, it usually and above all refers to the future warming which is threatening the globe this century. In the parlance of sceptics the past warming and the future warming are often purposely mixed up with each other, which is one way to confuse the general public. The fourth assessment report of the IPCC (2007) states that if, during this century, the globe really warms by 5 degrees, i.e., the respective amount as from the glacial period until the present times, ‘there is no evidence that we would be able to find a global warming amongst those that have taken place during the last 50 million years, which would be comparable, in respect of its speed, to the future change’.”
Who is now pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public? I bet that it is not the IPCC but Pasi himself.
I have studied the philosophy of science and can’t find any better explanation for the aforementioned argumentation than the term petitio principi, assuming the initial point: the premise will be proven to be right by itself.
The uniqueness of the current climate change is verified by things that haven’t taken place yet. If the climate sceptics have any reservation about this future picture, it will be difficult to convince them by proving the premise by itself.
It is clear that there is no logical fault in the IPCC’s sentence as such, as it includes a trivial truth: if we will face an exceptionally high temperature increase, the result will be exceptionally high temperatures.
However, this is a begging-the-question definition and is approximately as valid as “if the moon were made of cheddar cheese in the future, it would also taste like cheddar”.
This does not convince anybody.
Am I being wicked? Perhaps I am, a little at least, but, because of my metier, I consider it to be my regrettable duty. The Copenhagen Conference is in the offing and the politicians will be there giving their blessings to some outrageously expensive decisions. The inputs are high, in every respect. So, keep cool, do not panic and use your best discretion. History is not on our side, as climate policy deals with a rather recent phenomenon. Climate science, in its turn, is a field where the share of uncertainty is exceptionally high. The situation is not helped at all by the fact that the climate policy has so far been a series of failures and mishaps: it has been based on the Kyoto recipe, increasing not only emissions but also pollution. Or else we could say that let’s have a decrease just to be sure – but even in this respect, the evidence is miserable, the price is too high and the decrease has turned out to be its own contrast.
All these incidents have whittled away at the confidence capital. These decisions are made for the citizens, for the current as well as the future ones. At least, we should create confidence in what we are doing. But, since both the climate research has shown its weak points and the achievements have so far shown their inefficiency, we should not look down on those who now ask whether the Kyoto emperor has any clothes on.
If he indeed has clothes on, please, give us a better answer.
P.S. The inefficiency of the climate policy is quite a different matter than the uncertainty in the science of climate change. These two matters should not be confused with each other.
However, at the same time both of these matters are confusing the citizens and both of these issues should not be belittled. Therefore, the decision makers must be more careful than ever before about that what is done in Copenhagen, would be really effective and useful, in all circumstances. I have suggested a comprehensive climate policy and decarbonisation for decreasing pollution instead of setting emissions ceilings through the carbon policy. This could be worthwhile trying even though the conclusions of the greenhouse theory were verified as being precipitate for some parts.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir, asked the famous economist John Maynard Keynes.
And how about us?
During the past weeks, some strange surprises have popped up in the field of climate science. And now I don’t merely mean the period of the past decade during which temperatures haven’t followed the increase development of emissions. The trouble now is Climategate: The leakage of a very delicate email exchange has exposed the information to the world that, at least, scientists are human beings who can also fall into a temptation just like the rest of us. As politicians and journalists demand plain numbers and a clear message, it must be very annoying to be just a boring scientist who refuses to say anything really sensational. Let’s smarten up the message, as the atmosphere likes it that way too!
Are these just singular examples of erring ways? Not quite so, as it concerns a whole pack of leading authors of the IPCC report and other leading climate science authorities.
Besides exaggerations, even solutions which could be regarded as criminal from a scientific point of view have been disclosed, as, during the weekend, it got out that some raw data on temperature calculations have been destroyed. This does not strengthen confidence in the climate science – and confidence is exactly what we would now need for making big decisions.
It was not good news either that Mike Mann published a new hockey stick curve; material, which still includes the monkey-business with Korttajärvi: the research material of a Finnish group was turned upside down, causing the conclusion to be similarly affected.
As a matter of fact, I’ve found the oddest phenomenon in the climate discussion right here at home in Finland.
I recently read Pasi Toiviainen’s blog on the pages of the Finnish CO2 report. This journalist, a layman in climate science but well-versed in the subject, disapproved the “inaccuracy” of the discussion concerning climate warming. Apparently the sceptics mess up, on purpose, two different conceptions – the past warming that has already taken place and the future warming that actually hasn’t taken place yet:
“Besides, it should be considered that, in the context of climate change, when talking about an extraordinary and unprecedented warming, it usually and above all refers to the future warming which is threatening the globe this century. In the parlance of sceptics the past warming and the future warming are often purposely mixed up with each other, which is one way to confuse the general public. The fourth assessment report of the IPCC (2007) states that if, during this century, the globe really warms by 5 degrees, i.e., the respective amount as from the glacial period until the present times, ‘there is no evidence that we would be able to find a global warming amongst those that have taken place during the last 50 million years, which would be comparable, in respect of its speed, to the future change’.”
Who is now pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public? I bet that it is not the IPCC but Pasi himself.
I have studied the philosophy of science and can’t find any better explanation for the aforementioned argumentation than the term petitio principi, assuming the initial point: the premise will be proven to be right by itself.
The uniqueness of the current climate change is verified by things that haven’t taken place yet. If the climate sceptics have any reservation about this future picture, it will be difficult to convince them by proving the premise by itself.
It is clear that there is no logical fault in the IPCC’s sentence as such, as it includes a trivial truth: if we will face an exceptionally high temperature increase, the result will be exceptionally high temperatures.
However, this is a begging-the-question definition and is approximately as valid as “if the moon were made of cheddar cheese in the future, it would also taste like cheddar”.
This does not convince anybody.
Am I being wicked? Perhaps I am, a little at least, but, because of my metier, I consider it to be my regrettable duty. The Copenhagen Conference is in the offing and the politicians will be there giving their blessings to some outrageously expensive decisions. The inputs are high, in every respect. So, keep cool, do not panic and use your best discretion. History is not on our side, as climate policy deals with a rather recent phenomenon. Climate science, in its turn, is a field where the share of uncertainty is exceptionally high. The situation is not helped at all by the fact that the climate policy has so far been a series of failures and mishaps: it has been based on the Kyoto recipe, increasing not only emissions but also pollution. Or else we could say that let’s have a decrease just to be sure – but even in this respect, the evidence is miserable, the price is too high and the decrease has turned out to be its own contrast.
All these incidents have whittled away at the confidence capital. These decisions are made for the citizens, for the current as well as the future ones. At least, we should create confidence in what we are doing. But, since both the climate research has shown its weak points and the achievements have so far shown their inefficiency, we should not look down on those who now ask whether the Kyoto emperor has any clothes on.
If he indeed has clothes on, please, give us a better answer.
P.S. The inefficiency of the climate policy is quite a different matter than the uncertainty in the science of climate change. These two matters should not be confused with each other.
However, at the same time both of these matters are confusing the citizens and both of these issues should not be belittled. Therefore, the decision makers must be more careful than ever before about that what is done in Copenhagen, would be really effective and useful, in all circumstances. I have suggested a comprehensive climate policy and decarbonisation for decreasing pollution instead of setting emissions ceilings through the carbon policy. This could be worthwhile trying even though the conclusions of the greenhouse theory were verified as being precipitate for some parts.