"AVOIDING DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE": THE MOST DEPRESSING CONFERENCE EVER
David Naugler
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Peiser.htm
"AVOIDING DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE": THE MOST DEPRESSING CONFERENCE
EVER
Benny Peiser <b.j.p...@livjm.ac.uk>
I have just returned from the most depressing conference I have ever
attended.
After two days of relentless barrage of doom and gloom predictions at
the Met Office conference on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change"
(http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html), I decided that
enough is enough. The unmitigated exposure to prophecies of imminent
ice ages, looming hell fire, mass starvation, mega-droughts, global
epidemics and mass extinction is an experience I would not recommend
to anyone with a thin-skinned disposition (although the news media
couldn't get enough of it). But such was the spectacle of pending
disaster that anyone who dared - or was allowed - to question whether
the sky is really about to fall on us (and there were at least half a
dozen of moderate anti-alarmists present), was branded a "usual
suspect", a slur hurled against Andrei Illarionov (Putin's economic
adviser) by the IPCC's Martin Parry.
As you would have thought of a Government-choreographed summit, some
of the results of the meeting were announced a day before its start by
Margaret Beckett, the UK's Environment Secretary. When I arrived at my
hotel on the eve of the conference, a front page story of the local
newspaper ("GLOBAL WARNING") had already given away much of the
outcome of the meeting:
"Speaking at a regional climate change conference in Exeter this
evening (31 Jan), Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stressed the South West would not
be immune from experiencing the impacts of climate change. Rising sea
levels coupled with a likely increase in storms will threaten the
South West's long coastline if climate change is left unchecked..."
Thus, the stage was set for a carefully stage-managed conference that
provided a forum for one worst-case disaster scenario after another.
Any hesitation or incredulity about claims that the effects of a
warming world will unavoidably be catastrophic were discarded or
ridiculed. Professor Paul Reiter (Pasteur Institute in Paris and
Harvard University), was even lucky to be allowed into the conference
after four separate applications had been either lost or not processed
by the conference organisers.
One of the key questions the conference attempted to address is
whether or not the meeting could come to an agreement about the
threshold for "dangerous" climate change. The proposals ranged from a
rise in temperatures by 2 degrees C which was promoted by the WWF (oh
yes, green campaigners were allowed to present their political views)
to more moderate suggestions.
Even more difficulties emerged when the issue of a CO2 threshold was
discussed. Here the proposals ranged from the IPPR's 400 ppmv limit
("point-of-no-return-in-10-years"), a proposal co-authored by ther
IPCC chairman, to a generous 700 ppmv limit. It soon turned out that
*any* such threshold would be completely random and rather
meaningless.
One of the most interesting and least alarmist presentations was that
by Professor Yuri Israel, the chief climatologist at the Russian
Academy of Science. In his talk
(http://www.stabilisation2005.com/16_Yu_A_Izrael.pdf), he pointed out
the potentially gigantic economic cost of any attempts to "stabilise"
the world's climate: "Stabilization is not free for the world
community. Economic analysis of stabilization scenarios using, in
particular, 1000, 750, 650, 550 and 450 ppmv of CO2 as stabilization
levels show that this may cost up to 18 trillions $US of 1992."
Applying a cost-benefit analysis to the potential damage as a result
of increasing temperatures evaluated against the cost of CO2
stabilisation, Professor Israel proposed moderate limits for CO2
concentration and surface temperature for the 21th century:
a) CO2 concentration should not exceed 550 - 700 ppmv;
b) A rise in surface temperature should be less than 2.5°C for the
globe and less than 4°C for the Arctic;
c) Global mitigation costs should not exceed 10 - 20% of the increase
in global GDP;
d) Sea level rise should be less than 1 m.
The Russian scientist was immediately and disrespectfully admonished
by the chair and former IPCC chief Sir John Houghton for being far too
optimistic. Such a moderate proposal was ridiculous since it was
"incompatible with IPCC policy". Clearly, the Met Office meeting was
setting the tone for the next IPCC report.
It was deeply upsetting to witness the ill-mannered and discourteous
way in which both Professor Israel and Dr Illarionov were mocked
during the debates by many delegates and IPCC officials. There was a
time when British scientists were known for their polite and
gentlemanly conduct. None of these good old traditions were visible at
the Met Office.
Instead, the apocalyptic frenzy and fear-mongering brought the worst
out of a large number of the knighted and commoners alike. How
Britain's image and self-respect is tumbling as a result of mounting
apprehension.
In a rather ironic twist to the UK debates (which brings to mind the
words "the pot calling a kettle black"), the contemptible smear
campaign against scientists who participated in the recent "Apocalypse
No" meeting at the Royal Institution suddenly appears in a radically
different light. While Sir David King, the UK Government's chief
scientist, accused climate sceptics of being "professional lobbyists"
for the oil industry, he announced today that the Government intends
to increase subsidies for nuclear power plants and introduce even more
tax breaks for the fossil fuel industries that are prepared to
sequester their carbon emissions.
"Sir David disclosed that the Government was considering giving oil
companies tax breaks to encourage them to pump carbon dioxide into
North Sea oil and gas wells where it would cause no damage to the
atmosphere." Although nobody knows "whether carbon sequestration is
feasible", it may be "a way of using coal reserves all over the
world."
Far from punishing the fossil fuel industries, as environmentalists
are demanding from Tony Blair in the run-up to the General Elections
in May this year, the British Government is using the much slated
"fear-factor" to win back lost voters and to justify additional state
subsidies for the big energy companies. It's a mockery not lost on
Greenpeace and other environmental campaigners who no longer trust
that the apocalyptically hot air released at the Met Office conference
will translate into any significant reduction of CO2 emissions. Yet in
spite of these political shenanigans, the key message emerging from
the Met Office conference seems absolutely clear to me: the debate has
now been pressed forward from a discussion about the science of
climate change to the prediction of global catastrophe.
Evidently, the next IPCC report will be far more alarmist than any of
its antecedents. IPCC chairman, Dr Pachauri, who opened the Met Office
conference together with Margaret Beckett, stressed only two weeks
ago: "The world has already reached the level of dangerous
concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and immediate and
very deep cuts in the pollution are needed if humanity is to survive."
The apprehension of looming disaster was the general mood of
fretfulness and despair at the Exeter conference. Most of this anxiety
is not lost on the media that is completely unrestrained in the use of
doomsday imagery and biblical language: "potential triggers for
runaway climate change", "climate Armageddon" "notional doomsdays" and
"the apocalyptic side to global warming" are phrases that are now
widely used by news outlets when covering global warming (Discovery
Channel, 2 February 2005;
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20050131/climatetrigger.html).
I return from this meeting with a determination not to give in to this
doom-laden mood but to maintain my confident view of humankind that
has been capable of coping with whatever nature has thrown at us for
millions of year.
Benny Peiser
Liverpool
03/02/05
For the full programme, including abstracts and presentation slides
see:
w...@bas.ac.uk
>"AVOIDING DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE": THE MOST DEPRESSING CONFERENCE
>EVER
>I have just returned from the most depressing conference I have ever
>attended.
Well if it depresses the septics that has to be good news!
For a more reasonable view, I suggest the most excellent:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=95
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Lloyd Parker
>David Naugler <dnau...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>>"AVOIDING DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE": THE MOST DEPRESSING CONFERENCE
>>EVER
>
>>I have just returned from the most depressing conference I have ever
>>attended.
>
>Well if it depresses the septics that has to be good news!
>
>For a more reasonable view, I suggest the most excellent:
>
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=95
>
>-W.
>
take a geology class.
DESMODUS
destruction rubbish that Blair perpetrated on us 2 years ago! .The reality
is that climate change is normal on geological and human time scales and
there is nothing anybody can do about it -.The only way that co2 output can
be reduced to pre-industrial levels is to have pre industrial population
levels i.e. under 600 M on the planet .I want to see any politician propose
a method of achieving this -will they be the first volunteers I suspect
not -DESMODUS
Lloyd Parker
wrote:
>This doom mongering also sounds very much like the weapons of mass
>destruction rubbish that Blair perpetrated on us 2 years ago! .The reality
>is that climate change is normal on geological
Yes.
> and human time scales and
No.
>there is nothing anybody can do about it
We can when we're causing it.
>-.The only way that co2 output can
>be reduced to pre-industrial levels is to have pre industrial population
Nobody has called for this.
Joshua Halpern
> David Naugler <dnau...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>>"AVOIDING DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE": THE MOST DEPRESSING CONFERENCE
>>EVER
>
>>I have just returned from the most depressing conference I have ever
>>attended.
>
> Well if it depresses the septics that has to be good news!
>
> For a more reasonable view, I suggest the most excellent:
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=95
It is a bit late for this thread, but I remember a coal science
conference I went to in the early 90s as it was becoming clear that
rising CO2 concentrations would become a problem. That was a depressed
bunch of folk. They were honest enough to understand and accept the
science that was confronting fossil fuel usage (esp coal) but they had
spent a considerable portion of their lives working to improve coal use.
josh halpern
> -W.
>