In terms of the largest mistake… I’m finding it hard to identify a single mistake that I would deem larger or more significant than the others.
Having been a climate scientist since the 1980’s it’s something I’ve been involved with from the early days, long before global warming became the big issue it is today. Back then I think there was a great deal of over-confidence. It was an exciting time, people were getting involved in a relatively new branch of science and there was much to be learned and researched. There was this general assumption that we’d have ‘this climate thing’ cracked in a few decades. It soon became apparent that the climates were infinitely more complex than had first been thought and that we’d been trying to run before we could walk.
Now, this is true in many walks of life. For example, I’m sure many people would like to think that we’ll find a cure for cancer within the next 50 years, but this is what people thought 50 years ago. We’ve certainly made progress but nothing like as much as had perhaps been hoped.
It’s the same with climate science. Progress is being made but it’s not in leaps and bounds, more a case of slowly edging forward. This also extends to our understanding of global warming and related aspects.
On the surface global warming probably appears to be quite simple, but once you get involved in the science it soon becomes apparent that it’s an incredible complicated matter (this, by the way, is one of the most frustrating things about the skeptics – they know so little but think they know so much).
This then – the over-estimation of how quickly the science could be advanced – is perhaps the biggest mistake we’ve made.
Turning to something more tangible, I personally think that we’ve put too much emphasis on GCM outputs (climate models) and to some extent have over-complicated this branch of climate science; I know others would disagree. There has perhaps been too much reliance on the outputs and from some quarters there’s been a tendency to see the outputs as something that will happen in the future rather than something that may happen.
The models do of course have an important role to play but we shouldn’t overlook the inherent uncertainties nor the fact that there are climatic influences that we know nothing about and hence aren’t yet incorporated into the models.
Turning to your “the science is settled” comment. Yes, I agree in some respects that this has been a mistake but I think it depends on what a person means by “the science”. The fundamental science, the laws that dictate the existence of global warming, is very much settled. These are the same laws that dictate the existence of the universe, if we’ve got this part wrong then the universe doesn’t exist.
If someone states that “the science is settled” in the context of the full comprehension of climatic science relating to climate change and global warming, then they’re very wrong. Whilst we certainly know the basic mechanisms, there’s far more that we don’t yet know than we do already know.
Perhaps we’re being a little too pedantic. I guess what many people mean when they say that the science is settled, is that global warming has been scientifically established. This much is obviously true, but to imply that everything has been settled and we know all there is to know would be a foolish mistake to make.
Just to expand on Pegminer’s comments about Al Gore. In the US the involvement of Al Gore has turned climate science into a political subject more than anywhere else in the world. To many Americans the science is irrelevant it’s all about the politics (just look at the comments made on Answers). Unfortunately politics and science don’t mix but that doesn’t prevent many people from falling into the trap of debating a scientific issue by using politics.
This problem is uniquely American and sees the acceptance or rejection of global warming as something based on political leanings. In this respect, the involvement of Al Gore was a big mistake. Sure, he brought the subject to the attention of many people but any number of prominent individuals could have done that without the subsequent politicisation.
Great question.
The biggest mistake, I think, is the belief among the 'pro-AGW' people that those who do not share their beliefs are that way simply because they lack sufficient knowledge and/or intelligence to understand the logic of the AGW argument.
I know there are a lot of very smart people who are not convinced of AGW. These people have heard all of the same arguments for and against AGW as I have, yet they have come to a completely different conclusion than I have. And there are a lot of dumb people who barely know a thing about the topic, yet are still very passionately pro-AGW.
I think this is because opinions are only partly influenced by knowledge and intelligence. They are also very greatly influenced by past experiences, personal values, and emotional tendencies. The biggest flaw of most pro-AGW communicators is to think that knowledge and intelligence account for a far greater level of influence in people's opinions than it really does. That if only more people knew about this or that study, there wouldn't be so much denial. It's ignorance of the human component of belief.
Well, I think the science IS settled in terms of the basic physics.
CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. We DO burn fossil fuels. We DO release about 900 tonnes of the stuff into the sky every second. Examining the isotope ratios confirms most of the increase in CO2 is due to our burning fossil fuels. Other gases we produce are also observed to be increasing, such as methane. Oxygen levels have decreased in proportion to the amount of fossil fuels we burn (since we combine oxygen with carbon to burn it). The laws of thermodynamics tells us that, in the absence of a mechanism that scrubs all the CO2 instantly from the atmosphere after mixing or a cooling mechanism that exactly counteracts it, the additional CO2 MUST trap heat. QED.
Where the science isn't settled is exactly how this will impact climate on local scales. And even though I agree with the pro-AGW stance, I'm fully willing to acknowledge that there are uncertainties and errors and problems that require further research before we fully understand the impact.
I think the biggest mistake by non-experts who are 'pro-AGW' is to deny the fact that science evolves and continually refines. We don't know all the answers yet. Pretending we do is disingenuous. But that doesn't alter the fact that our actions will have an impact on the climate. The questions we should be asking is 'how do we deal with that'. Instead we're stuck in a loop where those who don't agree with AGW will never agree and those who do will follow the scientific mainstream. In that situation, arguing the 'facts' is pointless. The arbitrator of the 'facts' are scientists. That has always been the case in matters scientific and until someone comes up with a better option, we're stuck with it.
I don't think it's helped that Al Gore has championed the cause. Many conservatives have a preternatural hatred of him, and will automatically take the opposite "side" of whatever he says. Without a doubt he gave AGW the visibility that it has now, but if 47% of the population are automatically alienated, that's not a good thing for getting anything done.
Assuming that governments would be capable of cooperating successfully in changing the economics of the largest industry in the world.
Believing it is possible to have a debate with denialists
It's like playing chess with pigeons, they don't know the rules, they knock over the pieces, crap over the board, then fly away claiming victory
The 2nd mistake is believing denialists matter at all.
They can safely be ignored as little more than a minor annoyance, like gnats
A lie is always a big mistake. Which lie was the biggest? I think the corrupted data of East Anglia.
Climate researchers not archiving their work during the 1990s when they couldn't even get the public's attention. Now the universities have hired bureaucrats to manage the archiving and FOI requests. At the time there were no staffs for the administrative stuff.
The never ending list of things caused by AGW, and the new belief that bad weather is being caused by our actions and the implication that we can put an end to hurricanes droughts floods etc... by fining people for using fossil fuels, and the belief that you can make alternative energy viable by throwing money at it.
It definitely is not having Al Gore as the messenger. Utterly ridiculous to claim people disagree because they don't like Al Gore and even more ridiculous to claim that his message is even loosely based on reality.
I'm not really sure. I think they have done a very good job of spreading fear and paranoia myself. They keep repeating the same lies over and over and over and over and over until most people actually believer their lies are true. I guess the biggest mistake they have made is that they forgot that reality will always win out in the end. Sadly, we will have spent billions upon billions of dollars on the biggest hoax in history.
When I say "pro-AGW" movement in mean the mainstream presentation of AGW as a problem from the IPCC to national science academies to the majority (?) of climate scientists.
For me, the main mistake was sticking to the credo that the "science is settled". This painted them into a corner of having to defend all of the science and that I think will ultimately be their undoing.
The frustration of trying to explain extreme weather events related to AGW . Or any weather event for that matter. Yeah that's to much, but why all the hype without proof?
I'd love a sense of scaling @ least from a academic point of view. Any attempt made isn't any better then anyone else's.
There's nothing positive in their presentation.
CO2 is a villain. I love this :
George at Y/A :
"A good district attorney determines first that there is a crime committed before attempting to indict.
A fraction of a degree increase in nearly two centuries does not equate to a murder of the climate, especially when it was good that it warmed that fraction. Climate continues its normal business. There is no victim. There is no crime.
Trials nowadays defer heavily to expert witness because the judicial system is for sale. However, if we were to revert to the days of justice (like on Perry Mason) a preponderance of Global Warming evidence would depend on "hard" evidence or on the confession of a tormented conscience. There is a shortage of conscience ("experts" will say anything, depending on the price), and carbon dioxide has nothing to confess. It is a victim, itself, of association with natural forces. It is little more than a member of a crowd at their legitimate work, accused of mob action.
Where are the rising temperatures in the mid-troposphere that can be traced directly to the violent action of carbon dioxide? And, where carbon dioxide was sequestered, the dead bodies (slight warming) continues, or does it? Ozone and methane, those vile accomplices, would show up at the tipping point and create a mass murder. If I was on the jury: not guilty. The judge should dismiss the case for lack of evidence, no commission of a crime even."
Nothing changes in the message just as it doesn't change here at Y/A.
Temperatures are not cooperating with climate models.
Climate science is too arrogant and makes bold predictions based on their lack of knowledge of the climate system.
---------------------------------------...
Elizabeth - You make it sound as if the exchange of CO2 and oxygen is drastic. That's why you are an alarmist. A 0.012% change in the atmosphere has caused the planet to become more green. Biomass has increased by 5% to 10% just between 1982 and 2010. Peer-reviewed study too. This is why you are not on the cover of Science Daily. Same old song and dance that means absolutely nothing! You're right though. The science is settled. Additional CO2 didn't destroy anything and seams to have enhanced quite a bit of foliage.
---------------------------------------...
Gary F - You cry like ****** when you don't like something that goes against your belief system. Maybe you two should hook up and get a room and really get in touch with your feminine sides. You talk about the far right yet current administration follies are a daily occurrence. I don't think the Obama Administration know what truth means and these are the people that you admire and depend on to promote your cause? I think we should start making lists of which side tells the biggest whoppers of lies or who is ringing the biggest alarm bells with the least evidence.
Their biggest mistake was underestimating the stupidity and overestimating the honesty of the political far right.
A common Kindergarten ploy is to lie by accusing the person you disagree with of lying.
Here is the REAL science you paranoidly deny 24-7 here:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
Here is what it means in practical terms to real conservatives and sensible business people:
When I heard in the mid-60s that "runaway greenhouse gasses" could overheat the Earth, like Venus is,the scientist who told me assured me that this would not happen until my grandchildren's old age.
The toll of the global warming is already happening on earth now, loud and clear.
The scientists underestimated the huge increase in fossil fuel burning and underestimated the impact. This was their worst mistake.
Assuming the warming trend from the late 70s to the early 2000s was going to continue, and that it was caused by CO2.
The blunder is a classic (and very expensive) example of 'correlation is not causation'.
Australia has been ruined by a carbon tax and pro-AGW propaganda and a new conservative government is set to be elected in a landslide in September.
Probably that few "warmers" have embraced uncertainty. What makes global warming dangerous isn't what we do know, but what we don't know.
It was all the lies, too numerous to enumerate tonight, that the warmies tried to feed a gullible public in order to get their point across.
