There is a sixth group, with which I identify, the BROODERS. We see great risks in climate change, of unknown but signficant probability. We also deeply worry that political leadership too often creates havoc when it becomes convinced that a single objective overrides all others. Keynes wrote: "Madmen in authority are distilling the frenzy of some academic scribbler of a few years back." He was thinking of Lenin and Marks, Hitler and Nietzsche. Mitigation is not risk-free. Tell the world that nothing matters other than climate change and the world will do terrible things. We will cut down alpine forests in Canada and Russia to increase albedo and rush toward stratospheric aerosol injection long before we understand its risks. The world will penalize China for reducing its air pollution. We will pursue nuclear power in ways that increase the risks of nuclear war. Recessions will be welcomed and precipitated. It is not hard to add to this list.
When someone establishes a goal for someone else and identifies what he considers a good way to meet that goal, all too often the other person finds a different path to that goal and the first person is aghast at what ensues. In short, there is more here than how one evaluates the threat. It also matters how one evaluates the likelihood that responses will go awry. Rob _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Nissen Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 8:35 PM To: Andrew Revkin Cc: [email protected]; geoengineering; [email protected]; Oliver Tickell; Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Subject: Re: [geo] Stewart Brand/NYT Op-Ed: Four Sides to Every Story Dear Andrew, Some further thoughts on our five groups: DENIALISTS, SKEPTICS, WARNERS, CALAMATISTS and now RATIONAL ACTIVISTS. I am going to modify Stewart's definitions slightly, in the light of well-established science. (Given the amount of CO2 we have put in the atmosphere, one should expect the global warming that we have experienced. It would be quite extraordinary if this were not the case.) 1. The DENIALISTS don't want to believe the science, and want to continue to live in a comfortable life-style, supported by economic growth. They think that CALAMATISTS are hair-shirt wearers and nutters. They prefer not to think about the inconvenient truth as per Al Gore. They prefer not to think of the rest of the world. They take succour from the SKEPTICS. They clutch at any straws that might prop up their own mistaken beliefs. 2. The SKEPTICS secretly believe the science, but are encouraged (if not actually paid) by the oil and coal industries to deny the science and throw doubt on the integrity of the WARNERS, in order that consumption of fossil fuels can grow. They are cynics, more concerned for their own self-aggrandisement than what might happen to the world - even their own children. They show particular indignation and self-righteousness when attacked by the WARNERS or CALAMATISTS. 3. The WARNERS are senior academics who understand the science, but don't want to believe how serious the situation is. They secretly fear that we are all doomed, but don't want to tell their students. So they have focused on emissions reduction "as the top priority", although they know it won't be enough to save us. Nevertheless, they show more concern for their own reputations than what happens to the world, because they are very fearful of the SKEPTICS. They refuse to admit global warming is nearly as serious as they secretly believe. For them the worst possible thing is to be branded a doom-monger by their own colleagues. 4. The CALAMATISTS stress how dangerous global warming is, in order to try and force a change in lifestyle of the DENIALISTS and SKEPTICS who they despise for their attitude to the environment. They take the evidence from different WARNERS to show that we are heading for disaster, though secretly they may not believe it. They pretend we are doomed without a change in lifestyle and contraction of economy (in rich countries). They want a whole new world order and equitable society. 5. The RATIONAL ACTIVISTS are a growing band of scientists and engineers who accept that there are a number of possible catastrophes, some of which could lead to the collapse of civilisation as we know it. To prevent certain fatal catastrophes requires short-term action - emissions reduction alone cannot prevent them. In particular, some limited geoengineering action is required almost immediately to reduce the risk of catastrophes arising from Arctic warming and melting ice. The RATIONAL ACTIVISTS fear that we could be doomed, if the other groups continue fighting one another over emissions reduction, and geoengineering is ignored as a means to prevent certain catastrophes. Their greatest concern is that geoengineering will be left too late. Kind regards, John -- John Nissen wrote: Hi Andrew, Please pass these comments on to your colleague, Stewart Brand. I agree with the four categories but would add a fifth band - call them RATIONAL ACTIVISTS. This is a growing band of mainly scientists and engineers who argue with the WARNERS that emissions reductions will not alone reduce the global temperature in time to avoid tipping points. They have produced simple, rational arguments to show that geoengineering must be part of any solution having a reasonably high chance of success to avoid some of the worst calamities that has been warned about - e.g. ocean acidification upsetting marine ecosystems, glacier retreat ruining water supplies, Greenland ice sheet disintegration raising the sea level by 7 metres, and permafrost melt releasing vast quantities of methane and causing global temperatures to spiral out of control. They argue that, if we wait for the kind of catastrophe that would convince everybody that climate change was getting worse, it could be too late to apply geoengineering with a reasonable chance of success. Thus geoengineering has to be started as soon as practicable to reduce the risk of some of the worst calamities. A few extremists from this band would even go as far as saying the future of civilisation is at stake, taking their reasoning from the history of past civilisations, e.g. as described by Jared Diamond [1]. Diamond argues that "societies which excel in problem solving having mental fixations that prevent their later problems from being recognized". RATIONAL ACTIVISTS argue that, at Copenhagen, there is a fixation on emissions reduction, which is preventing the recognition that geoengineering is needed to solve problems of ocean acidification, glacier retreat, sea level rise, and permafrost melt during the coming years. The nations at Copenhagen, such as Bolivia [2][3], who are most concerned about sea level rise and glacier-fed water supplies, should take heed of the RATIONAL ACTIVISTS, because the WARNERS do not have an effective solution for the most urgent short-term problems. Kind regards, John Nissen Chiswick, London W4 [1] Jared Diamond "Collapse. How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book) [2] BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, 8.42 am, 16th December. Interview with Bolivian minister. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p7qhm#synopsis [3] Vanishing glaciers threaten Bolivia. David Shukman: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8387348.stm --- Dan Whaley wrote: ... geoengineering mention by Brand... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/opinion/15brand.html?_r=2 <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/opinion/15brand.html?_r=2&ref=opinion> &ref=opinion NYT Op-Ed Contributor Four Sides to Every Story By STEWART BRAND Published: December 14, 2009 San Francisco Times Topics: Copenhagen Climate Talks (UNFCCC) CLIMATE talks have been going on in Copenhagen for a week now, and it appears to be a two-sided debate between alarmists and skeptics. But there are actually four different views of global warming. A taxonomy of the four: DENIALISTS They are loud, sure and political. Their view is that climatologists and their fellow travelers are engaged in a vast conspiracy to panic the public into following an agenda that is political and pernicious. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma and the columnist George Will wave the banner for the hoax-callers. "The claim that global warming is caused by manmade emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science," Mr. Inhofe declared in a 2003 speech to the Senate about the Kyoto accord that remains emblematic of his position. "CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters - actually it would be beneficial to our environment and our economy .... The motives for Kyoto are economic, not environmental - that is, proponents favor handicapping the American economy through carbon taxes and more regulations." SKEPTICS This group is most interested in the limitations of climate science so far: they like to examine in detail the contradictions and shortcomings in climate data and models, and they are wary about any "consensus" in science. To the skeptics' discomfort, their arguments are frequently quoted by the denialists. In this mode, Roger Pielke, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado, argues that the scenarios presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are overstated and underpredictive. Another prominent skeptic is the physicist Freeman Dyson, who wrote in 2007: "I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models .... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests." WARNERS These are the climatologists who see the trends in climate headed toward planetary disaster, and they blame human production of greenhouse gases as the primary culprit. Leaders in this category are the scientists James Hansen, Stephen Schneider and James Lovelock. (This is the group that most persuades me and whose views I promote.) "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted," Mr. Hansen wrote as the lead author of an influential 2008 paper, then the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have to be reduced from 395 parts per million to "at most 350 p.p.m." CALAMATISTS There are many environmentalists who believe that industrial civilization has committed crimes against nature, and retribution is coming. They quote the warners in apocalyptic terms, and they view denialists as deeply evil. The technology critic Jeremy Rifkin speaks in this manner, and the writer-turned-activist Bill McKibben is a (fairly gentle) leader in this category. In his 2006 introduction for "The End of Nature," his famed 1989 book, Mr. McKibben wrote of climate change in religious terms: "We are no longer able to think of ourselves as a species tossed about by larger forces - now we are those larger forces. Hurricanes and thunderstorms and tornadoes become not acts of God but acts of man. That was what I meant by the 'end of nature.'" The calamatists and denialists are primarily political figures, with firm ideological loyalties, whereas the warners and skeptics are primarily scientists, guided by ever-changing evidence. That distinction between ideology and science not only helps clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the four stances, it can also be used to predict how they might respond to future climate developments. If climate change were to suddenly reverse itself (because of some yet undiscovered mechanism of balance in our climate system), my guess is that the denialists would be triumphant, the skeptics would be skeptical this time of the apparent good news, the warners would be relieved, and the calamatists would seek out some other doom to proclaim. If climate change keeps getting worse then I would expect denialists to grasp at stranger straws, many skeptics to become warners, the warners to start pushing geoengineering schemes like sulfur dust in the stratosphere, and the calamatists to push liberal political agendas - just as the denialists said they would. Stewart Brand is the author of "Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
