• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

My life as a climate lukewarmer - Matt Ridley

This "lukewarmism" is just the latest round of attempting to salvage global warming denial.

First, it was "There is no global warming, so we don't need to do anything."
Then, it was "Okay, there is global warming, but humans have nothing to do with it, so we don't need to do anything."
Then, it became "Okay, there is global warming, and humans contribute, but they're not a significant contributor, so we don't need to do anything."
Now, it seems to be "Okay, there is global warming, humans are the main actor in it, but it's not actually going to change our lives, so we don't need to do anything."

"We don't need to do anything" is the important part of the argument, the rest is tacked on top to rationalize it.

Edit: yeah yeah I know, the thread was old. Cut me a break, I've been away for a long time and forgot to check the dates.

You mean those who claim global warming is dangerous actually have to defend every one of their claims?

To equate those who challenge the idea that global warming will be rapid enough dangerous/catastrophic are equivalent to "deniers" is completely groundless. There is no scientific consensus that global warming, if current trends continue, will necessarily be dangerous. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. To trot out the "denier" claim is just pure laziness.
 
You mean those who claim global warming is dangerous actually have to defend every one of their claims?

Of course, and the evidence is right before your eyes.

Look at what has happened to the ice poles.

This in itself is not evidence of harm but it is evidence that drastic change is taking place.

And the evidence is that this drastic change is being caused by human activity.

We are changing the conditions in which we live. We have no idea how far away major catastrophe lies, where the tipping points are.

The best advise is not, full steam ahead.
 
Climate change denial is motivated by economic ideology.Follow the money. Who funded the study?
 
I don't know, there is something about messing with the ecosystem I find kind of dangerous as we have no idea how it will react. Were the two bizarre tropical events (winter time cyclone just happening near Australia, and the cyclone that caused the massive cold chill in November in the US) a sign of global warming or were they freak incidents occurring near each other... along with the warmest years in a long while?
If it is so obviouly stupid thinking, then why don't you tell us more precisely the average amount of warming per decade this recent data suggests tather than speaking in generalities? Matt Ridley suggests the warming trend is about .1 C/decade, while the dangerous scenario would require around .33 C/decade (per the IPCC's own metric of 4 degrees of warming being dangerous).
Well, if Ridley has figured out what the warming is, I suppose we must be safe then.
 
the OP said:
I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.

I read that.

The oceans becoming acidic is a major threat. The OP you quoted is an imbecile who thinks that all global warming means is that it will just be 1 degree warmer than it was. That is not true. I need say no more.
 
I read that.

The oceans becoming acidic is a major threat. The OP you quoted is an imbecile who thinks that all global warming means is that it will just be 1 degree warmer than it was. That is not true. I need say no more.

Congratulations.

Yes acidic is a major threat for now or until opportunity arises for that which operates in more acidic environment to show their stuff.

I know nothing of imbecile thinking since one needs to say more than that to define about what one is writing.

One degree warmer is one degree warmer. When things were overall about 8 degrees colder the oceans became about 400 feet lower and man was able to migrate to places like Australia and the Americas which is pretty significant to our current dominance and ability to kill off other species. So maybe we're only one eighth as destructive as we may be given there will be less fresh water and there will be more acidic oceans and rain if the oceans become 400 feet deeper

Maybe this and maybe that, but, this thread is about maybe so why not just relax and join in./kumbya
 
The right-wing argument is at worst, Humans can adapt. They don't really understand there is an entire ecosystem out there that has to attempt to adapt as well.
 
He makes some interesting points, if true. How strong is the evidence of the "dangerous climate warming" vs. the lukewarmer case?

I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.

...

I was not always a lukewarmer. When I first started writing about the threat of global warming more than 26 years ago, as science editor ofThe Economist, I thought it was a genuinely dangerous threat. Like, for instance, Margaret Thatcher, I accepted the predictions being made at the time that we would see warming of a third or a half a degree (Centigrade) a decade, perhaps more, and that this would have devastating consequences.

Gradually, however, I changed my mind. The failure of the atmosphere to warm anywhere near as rapidly as predicted was a big reason: there has been less than half a degree of global warming in four decades — and it has slowed down, not speeded up. Increases in malaria, refugees, heatwaves, storms, droughts and floods have not materialised to anything like the predicted extent, if at all. Sea level has risen but at a very slow rate — about a foot per century.

Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour; carbon dioxide is merely the primer, responsible for about a third of the predicted warming. When this penny dropped, so did my confidence in predictions of future alarm: the amplifiers are highly uncertain.

Another thing that gave me pause was that I went back and looked at the history of past predictions of ecological apocalypse from my youth – population explosion, oil exhaustion, elephant extinction, rainforest loss, acid rain, the ozone layer, desertification, nuclear winter, the running out of resources, pandemics, falling sperm counts, cancerous pesticide pollution and so forth. There was a consistent pattern of exaggeration, followed by damp squibs: in not a single case was the problem as bad as had been widely predicted by leading scientists. That does not make every new prediction of apocalypse necessarily wrong, of course, but it should encourage scepticism.

What sealed my apostasy from climate alarm was the extraordinary history of the famous “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show that today’s temperatures were higher and changing faster than at any time in the past thousand years. That graph genuinely shocked me when I first saw it and, briefly in the early 2000s, it persuaded me to abandon my growing doubts about dangerous climate change and return to the “alarmed” camp.

Then I began to read the work of two Canadian researchers, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They and others have shown, as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, that the hockey stick graph, and others like it, are heavily reliant on dubious sets of tree rings and use inappropriate statistical filters that exaggerate any 20th-century upturns.

What shocked me more was the scientific establishment’s reaction to this: it tried to pretend that nothing was wrong. And then a flood of emails was leaked in 2009 showing some climate scientists apparently scheming to withhold data, prevent papers being published, get journal editors sacked and evade freedom-of-information requests, much as sceptics had been alleging. That was when I began to re-examine everything I had been told about climate change and, the more I looked, the flakier the prediction of rapid warming seemed.

I am especially unimpressed by the claim that a prediction of rapid and dangerous warming is “settled science”, as firm as evolution or gravity. How could it be? It is a prediction! No prediction, let alone in a multi-causal, chaotic and poorly understood system like the global climate, should ever be treated as gospel. With the exception of eclipses, there is virtually nothing scientists can say with certainty about the future. It is absurd to argue that one cannot disagree with a forecast. Is the Bank of England’s inflation forecast infallible?

Incidentally, my current view is still consistent with the “consensus” among scientists, as represented by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The consensus is that climate change is happening, not that it is going to be dangerous. The latest IPCC report gives a range of estimates of future warming, from harmless to terrifying. My best guess would be about one degree of warming during this century, which is well within the IPCC’s range of possible outcomes.

Yet most politicians go straight to the top of the IPCC’s range and call climate change things like “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction” (John Kerry), requiring the expenditure of trillions of dollars. I think that is verging on grotesque in a world full of war, hunger, disease and poverty. It also means that environmental efforts get diverted from more urgent priorities, like habitat loss and invasive species.

The policies being proposed to combat climate change, far from being a modest insurance policy, are proving ineffective, expensive, harmful to poor people and actually bad for the environment: we are tearing down rainforests to grow biofuels and ripping up peat bogs to install windmills that still need fossil-fuel back-up. These policies are failing to buy any comfort for our wealthy grandchildren and are doing so on the backs of today’s poor. Some insurance policy.

To begin with, after I came out as a lukewarmer, I would get genuine critiques from scientists who disagreed with me and wanted to exchange views. I had long and time-consuming email exchanges or conversations with several such scientists.

Yet I grew steadily more sceptical as, one by one, they failed to answer my doubts. They often resorted to meta-arguments, especially the argument from authority: if the Royal Society says it is alarmed, then you should be alarmed. If I want argument from authority, I replied, I will join the Catholic Church. “These are just standard denialist talking points” scoffed another prominent scientist, unpersuasively, when I raised objections — as if that answered them.

My experience with sceptical scientists, many of them distinguished climatologists at leading universities, was different. The more I probed, the better their data seemed. They did not resort to the argument from authority. Sometimes I disagreed with them or thought they went too far. I have yet to be convinced, for example, that changes in the output of the sun caused the warming of the 1980s and 1990s — an idea that some espouse. So for the most part, I found myself persuaded by the middle-of-the-road, “lukewarm” argument – that CO2-induced warming is likely but it won’t be large, fast or damaging.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/my-life-as-a-climate-lukewarmer.aspx

Aw, he's kind of like an old Earth creationist. Still anti-science, but not as anti-science as the others.

Yes, there are looney celebrities and idiots in the media who vastly overstate the case, but it very much is a serious problem despite what ideologues like this say.
 
the OP said:
I am a climate lukewarmer. That means I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue but I no longer think it is likely to be dangerous and I think its slow and erratic progress so far is what we should expect in the future. That last year was the warmest yet, in some data sets, but only by a smidgen more than 2005, is precisely in line with such lukewarm thinking.

I read that.

The oceans becoming acidic is a major threat. The OP you quoted is an imbecile who thinks that all global warming means is that it will just be 1 degree warmer than it was. That is not true. I need say no more.

Can you post your sources that demonstrate at what estimated amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to this dangerous level of acidification of the ocean?

- - - Updated - - -

You mean those who claim global warming is dangerous actually have to defend every one of their claims?

Of course, and the evidence is right before your eyes.

Look at what has happened to the ice poles.

This in itself is not evidence of harm but it is evidence that drastic change is taking place.

And the evidence is that this drastic change is being caused by human activity.

We are changing the conditions in which we live. We have no idea how far away major catastrophe lies, where the tipping points are.

The best advise is not, full steam ahead.

Evidence of drastic change doesn't mean dangerous or catastrophic change. The IPCC defines the dangerous/catastrophic level at ~4C or more global average temperature increase.

The question at hand is whether current trends of "full steam ahead" is closer to 1 degree of warming (Matt Riddley's view) or 4 degrees of warming in 100 years. What are the most likely scenarios? What does the most up to date data and models suggest?
 
I don't know, there is something about messing with the ecosystem I find kind of dangerous as we have no idea how it will react. Were the two bizarre tropical events (winter time cyclone just happening near Australia, and the cyclone that caused the massive cold chill in November in the US) a sign of global warming or were they freak incidents occurring near each other... along with the warmest years in a long while?
If it is so obviouly stupid thinking, then why don't you tell us more precisely the average amount of warming per decade this recent data suggests tather than speaking in generalities? Matt Ridley suggests the warming trend is about .1 C/decade, while the dangerous scenario would require around .33 C/decade (per the IPCC's own metric of 4 degrees of warming being dangerous).
Well, if Ridley has figured out what the warming is, I suppose we must be safe then.

I'm not saying I agree with him. I'm not saying I disagree with him either. I'm not saying he is the most qualified person to make these claims. I'm trying to find the strongest evidence that challenges his claims that current global warming trends will not lead to the 4 degree average warming over 100 years, the level that the IPCC defines as a dangerous amount.

- - - Updated - - -

I read that.

The oceans becoming acidic is a major threat. The OP you quoted is an imbecile who thinks that all global warming means is that it will just be 1 degree warmer than it was. That is not true. I need say no more.

Congratulations.

Yes acidic is a major threat for now or until opportunity arises for that which operates in more acidic environment to show their stuff.

I know nothing of imbecile thinking since one needs to say more than that to define about what one is writing.

One degree warmer is one degree warmer. When things were overall about 8 degrees colder the oceans became about 400 feet lower and man was able to migrate to places like Australia and the Americas which is pretty significant to our current dominance and ability to kill off other species. So maybe we're only one eighth as destructive as we may be given there will be less fresh water and there will be more acidic oceans and rain if the oceans become 400 feet deeper

Maybe this and maybe that, but, this thread is about maybe so why not just relax and join in./kumbya

One degree warmer does not equal dangerous amount of warming. Even the IPCC, the gold standard of the scientific consensus, doesn't make such a claim.

- - - Updated - - -

The right-wing argument is at worst, Humans can adapt. They don't really understand there is an entire ecosystem out there that has to attempt to adapt as well.

I agree that 4 degrees of average warming has far more negatives than positives. We can almost certainly survive, but the adaption will be painful and costly.

Right now, I'm trying to determine the likelihood of 4 degrees of warming vs. 1 degree of warming.

1 degree of additional warming from here is not considered a dangerous amount. In fact, there are several positives of 1 degree of warming that very well may balance out the negatives:

-More CO2 means more plant growth
-Warmer temperatures mean land closer to the poles becomes viable for farming
-Warmer temperatures means more rainfall, which will tend to increase farm yields in such areas and also contribute to more plant growth
-Those areas in the world that have the most rainfall are the most biodiverse and vibrant areas on the planet (rainforests) - therefore, more rainfall is conducive to greater amount of areas containing such vibrant ecosystems

I do however accept the IPCC scientific consensus that at 4 degrees of average warming, the negatives vastly overwhelm any positives. It is the level that needs to be avoided. I also accept their claims that ~2 degrees of warming is when the negatives overwhelm any positives, so we should limit any warming to no more than 2 degrees.
 
He makes some interesting points, if true. How strong is the evidence of the "dangerous climate warming" vs. the lukewarmer case?



http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/my-life-as-a-climate-lukewarmer.aspx

Aw, he's kind of like an old Earth creationist. Still anti-science, but not as anti-science as the others.

Yes, there are looney celebrities and idiots in the media who vastly overstate the case, but it very much is a serious problem despite what ideologues like this say.

Can you post the science that best challenges his claims of .1 degree of warming per decade being a far more likely warming scenario compared to .33 degrees of warming per decade with current CO2 emissions trends (the level at which leads to a dangerous amount of warming)? There is a reason I posted this in the science forum and not the politics forum.
 
Here is some of the data/reasoning on why Matt Ridley is in the lukewarmer camp:

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012.

Scientists have struggled to explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The latest theory says that a naturally occurring 30-year cycle in the Atlantic Ocean is behind the slowdown.

...

More than a dozen theories have been put forward on the cause of this pause in temperature growth that occurred while emissions of carbon dioxide were at record highs.
These ideas include the impact of pollution such as soot particles that have reflected back some of the Sun's heat into space.
Increased volcanic activity since 2000 has also been blamed, as have variations in solar activity.
The most recent perspectives have looked to the oceans as the locations of the missing heat.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988

In other words, the amount of warming that will occur in the future is _not_ settled science. There is legitimate debate to be had about the likelihood of various warming scenarios/predictions and the amount of problems/negatives such warming will create vs. any positives. To say that anyone taking the position that the warming will be slower than originally thought and/or that it will be very unlikely to be rapid enough to be dangerous/catastrophic is akin to denialism seems to be a groundless accusation.
 
Last edited:
-More CO2 means more plant growth

Depends on the availability of water and other nutrients in order to be a benefit. No guarantee that this is a net positive.

-Warmer temperatures mean land closer to the poles becomes viable for farming

Offset by loss of ocean productivity and loss of land in hot marginally dry places. Benefits countries on the northern edge of growing zones. Hurt the tropics.

-Warmer temperatures means more rainfall, which will tend to increase farm yields in such areas and also contribute to more plant growth

Only increases yields if the additional rain falls where and when you needs it. Warm air hold more moisture but that doesn't guarantee more rain in a uniform way. It can mean that more moisture gets advected to higher latitudes so that storm events become more intense and wetter. That does not benefit agriculture in the lower-middle latitudes and it makes the rain events more sporadic and 'flashy'.
 
Aw, he's kind of like an old Earth creationist. Still anti-science, but not as anti-science as the others.

I've enjoyed his books on evolution. We read "The Red Queen" in school as part of unit studying arms races.

But he's been blinkered by his economic religion for decades. His list of calamities that never were leads me to dismiss his opinion on environmental matters all together.

He made out like acid rain was some dire prediction that just fizzled. His background as a science editor for an economics periodical should mean that he has extensive knowledge of the degree of regulation that has gone into reducing sulfur emissions, especially the cap and trade program in the United States. His background as a scientist, even as a biologist, should mean that he understands the chemistry of acid rain. His dismissal of acid rain as failed scientific prediction belies either deliberate dishonesty or cognitive dissonance of some sort.
 
I agree that 4 degrees of average warming has far more negatives than positives. We can almost certainly survive, but the adaption will be painful and costly.

Right now, I'm trying to determine the likelihood of 4 degrees of warming vs. 1 degree of warming.
By reading material from a person completely unqualified to talk on the subject?

1 degree of additional warming from here is not considered a dangerous amount. In fact, there are several positives of 1 degree of warming that very well may balance out the negatives:
Odd, the amount of warming isn't settled science, but all the changes from an arbitrary number increase in warming are settled?

-More CO2 means more plant growth
In the deforested areas?
-Warmer temperatures mean land closer to the poles becomes viable for farming
-Warmer temperatures means more rainfall, which will tend to increase farm yields in such areas and also contribute to more plant growth
I heard a report on NPR yesterday about the likelihood of lower crop yields because of the recent very wet weather locally because it is making the soil too saturated. I remember a few seasons ago, the spring was so wet, the planting of crops was terribly delayed leading to lower yields. But you know, as long as you think more rainfall simply equals greater crop yields, who am I to stop you?
-Those areas in the world that have the most rainfall are the most biodiverse and vibrant areas on the planet (rainforests) - therefore, more rainfall is conducive to greater amount of areas containing such vibrant ecosystems
That is perhaps one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard. Do you think areas can adapt that quickly?!

You seem to be forgetting that if the planet does get warmer, the climate can shift, leading to unexpected changes in the environment. Changes to the ocean could be catastrophic. If the ecosystem can't adapt, we are in serious trouble.

I do however accept the IPCC scientific consensus that at 4 degrees of average warming, the negatives vastly overwhelm any positives. It is the level that needs to be avoided. I also accept their claims that ~2 degrees of warming is when the negatives overwhelm any positives, so we should limit any warming to no more than 2 degrees.
We should limit man made warming to as low a number as possible. Our ecosystem can adapt over long periods of time, but to require sharp adjustments is absolute folly.
 
Of course, and the evidence is right before your eyes.

Look at what has happened to the ice poles.

This in itself is not evidence of harm but it is evidence that drastic change is taking place.

And the evidence is that this drastic change is being caused by human activity.

We are changing the conditions in which we live. We have no idea how far away major catastrophe lies, where the tipping points are.

The best advise is not, full steam ahead.

Evidence of drastic change doesn't mean dangerous or catastrophic change.

No need to repeat what I just said.

The IPCC defines the dangerous/catastrophic level at ~4C or more global average temperature increase.

The question at hand is whether current trends of "full steam ahead" is closer to 1 degree of warming (Matt Riddley's view) or 4 degrees of warming in 100 years. What are the most likely scenarios? What does the most up to date data and models suggest?

What exactly are Riddley's credentials to make any predictions?

We are driving as fast as we can towards a cliff. Where that cliff is is unknown. All we know is we are driving towards it as fast as we can.

I say driving towards a cliff as fast as you can is not a good idea.
 
Evidence of drastic change doesn't mean dangerous or catastrophic change.

No need to repeat what I just said.

The IPCC defines the dangerous/catastrophic level at ~4C or more global average temperature increase.

The question at hand is whether current trends of "full steam ahead" is closer to 1 degree of warming (Matt Riddley's view) or 4 degrees of warming in 100 years. What are the most likely scenarios? What does the most up to date data and models suggest?

What exactly are Riddley's credentials to make any predictions?

We are driving as fast as we can towards a cliff. Where that cliff is is unknown. All we know is we are driving towards it as fast as we can.

I say driving towards a cliff as fast as you can is not a good idea.

I liked driving Dead Mans Cure on Mulholland drive against competition on Friday nights back in the day. Again. Ideas are what they are.
 
No need to repeat what I just said.

The IPCC defines the dangerous/catastrophic level at ~4C or more global average temperature increase.

The question at hand is whether current trends of "full steam ahead" is closer to 1 degree of warming (Matt Riddley's view) or 4 degrees of warming in 100 years. What are the most likely scenarios? What does the most up to date data and models suggest?

What exactly are Riddley's credentials to make any predictions?

We are driving as fast as we can towards a cliff. Where that cliff is is unknown. All we know is we are driving towards it as fast as we can.

I say driving towards a cliff as fast as you can is not a good idea.

I liked driving Dead Mans Cure on Mulholland drive against competition on Friday nights back in the day. Again. Ideas are what they are.

Imagine if you couldn't see where the cliffs are.

The fun wouldn't last as long.
 
Back
Top Bottom