The beyond-two-degree inferno causes an inferno
The editor of Science has published an editorial "The beyond-two-degree inferno", in which she writes:
In the history of humankind, there is a dearth of examples of global threats so far-reaching in their impact, so dire in their consequences, and considered so likely to occur that they have engaged all nations in risk mitigation. But now with climate change, we face a slowly escalating but long-enduring global threat to food supplies, health, ecosystem services, and the general viability of the planet to support a population of more than 7 billion people. The projected costs of addressing the problem grow with every year that we delay confronting it. In recognition of the shared risks we face and the collective action that will be necessary, an international meeting of stakeholders will convene in Paris next week (www.commonfutureparis2015.org), ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December, to discuss solutions for both climate mitigation and adaptation.
Go to Science to read the full article.
It's got deniers up in arms. It was bad enough that the Pope framed climate change as a moral issue. Now the Editor of Science is arguing that politicians need to stop dilly-dallying and take some serious action. Of course the usual lot are trying to claim that when Dr McNutt talks about debate she is talking about scientific debate. She's not. She's referring to policy debate, as her article makes clear. It's time to act, not waste effort in debates.
The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed. The Paris-based International Energy Agency recently announced that current commitments to cut CO2 emissions [known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)] from the world's nations are insufficient to avoid warming the entire planet by an average of more than 2°C above the preindustrial level.
Judith Curry's advocacy isn't advocacy?
Judith Curry is trying to claim she (Judith) isn't an advocate, writing:
We have had many discussions on the topic of scientists who advocate for public policy. Some seem to think that I advocate for public policies (but they can’t really say which policies), although I do not regard myself to be a policy advocate.So I suppose she'd try to argue that the following aren't advocating that the world should not take action to reduce CO2 emissions, and that the science should be hidden from policy-makers and the general public, and that she supports the objectives of a denier lobby group:
- "Attempting to reduce the damages associated with extreme weather in the 21st century by reducing greenhouse gas emissions is very misguided IMO"...(link)
- "We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. " (link)
- "Does it make more sense to provide air conditioning or to limit CO2 emissions. I vote for more air conditioning in these susceptible regions" (link)
- "In the midst of all this noise I wasn’t sure what GWPF was all about. Now I have a better idea, and I certainly support their objectives" (link)
Judith's readership signifies her policy position, and so does her blogroll, which includes climate conspiracy and denier blogs like WUWT, Bishop Hill and ClimateAudit!
Silence scientists - then who will speak for the world?
As for Anthony Watts and his pact with the devil, he wrote his article under the headline: "Slime and Punishment – How AGW believers have made their own Faustian Bargain". Which suggests he doesn't "believe" that humans are warming the planet - despite his occasional protests that he does "believe" that - but only a little bit.
If scientists see from their research that we are harming the planet and they don't speak up, then who is going to do so? Certainly not the people who are intent on preventing any mitigating action, like the Judith Curry's and Anthony Watts of the world.
Are aliens causing global warming?
It's important to point out that Dr McNutt isn't advocating any particular policy. She is just urging a reduction in CO2 emissions without saying how that is to be achieved. Judith and Anthony are dead against that, from the look of things. According to Judith Curry, it's okay for Judith to advocate we don't reduce CO2 emissions but it's not okay for any other scientist to argue the opposite. Judith is even worried that an editorial about global warming will bias the scientific process. Good grief. Is Judith trying to claim that CO2 isn't warming the world? She wrote (her caps):
But my main concern is this – the editorial was published in Science and written by McNutt who is the CHIEF EDITOR for Science. I have previously raised the concern about advocacy by professional societies (e.g. AGU, APS) in terms of their policy statements about climate change. These professional societies publish journals, and such statements can bias the editorial process. So is this really a major concern? Maybe not for the APS; they publish very few climate-related papers. The AGU publishes a lot of climate papers; one can hope that at least some editors/reviewers are evaluating papers without bias (or pay no attention to AGU’s policy statement).
Perhaps she's hoping for some brilliant new cosmic ray paper. Or that someone will discover it's aliens who are causing global warming.
Judith Curry has no credibility
And there's more - Judith wrote:
Activism and advocacy by editors of scientific journals reduces the credibility of the journals, introduces biases into the science, and interferes with the policy process that is informed by science.Tell me, how does writing that we must reduce CO2 emissions if we are to limit global warming, reduce the credibility of a journal. Isn't that what science is all about? Finding solutions to societal problems. It enhances the credibility not detracts from it. (Think how much damage was caused to the reputation of the American Physical Society when it started entertaining denialist notions during its review of its climate statement.)
I wonder if Judith also thinks that medical researchers touting the benefit of vaccines is as execrable as scientists urging a reduction in CO2 emissions.
Anthony Watts begs for more time
Anthony wants more time. He's probably hoping that one of his ice age predictions will come true, if only he waits long enough. Here is what he wrote:
The question is; is the knowledge acquired worth anything? And will the power they assume they have over others due to this knowledge stand the test of time?Here is what's happened over time - over the past 135 years - just how much more time does Anthony need?
|Data source: NASA GISS|
BTW Anthony is promising a new announcement this week, writing: "In somewhat related news, I’ll have an anti-Faustian announcement this week. Stay tuned." Don't hold your breath. He's also promising a block-buster paper, writing: "I get word that there will be yet another “blockbuster” paper published this week that will attempt to explain “the pause”. From what I make of it, it is an attempt to explain the “missing heat” using “spooky action at a distance” in the oceans. Watching the entanglement will be hilarious."
Undoubtedly there will be several new papers this week, as there are every week. He might not find them all so hilarious.
The most treacherous offenders
Anthony Watts took his lead from the Science editorial. Here is the last paragraph from Science, which I'm guessing Anthony didn't like being pointed out:
In Dante's Inferno, he describes the nine circles of Hell, each dedicated to different sorts of sinners, with the outermost being occupied by those who didn't know any better, and the innermost reserved for the most treacherous offenders. I wonder where in the nine circles Dante would place all of us who are borrowing against this Earth in the name of economic growth, accumulating an environmental debt by burning fossil fuels, the consequences of which will be left for our children and grandchildren to bear? Let's act now, to save the next generations from the consequences of the beyond-two-degree inferno.
From the WUWT comments
skeohane is most grateful to Anthony that he's created a little denier bubble where people can bask in delusion:
July 6, 2015 at 6:47 am (excerpt)
Thanks for creating this island of sanity, Anthony.
JohnWho has a very warped view of science. I'd guess he never jumps out of his denier fishbowl.
July 6, 2015 at 6:55 am
It amazes me that the “Alarmists” can tell folks to ignore observations, data, and reality and believe our “scientific” models, and so many do!
pyromancer76 thinks climate science is a communist plot:
July 6, 2015 at 7:41 am
I suggest that these are ALL marxists (religiously faithful) planted at the head of used-to-be scientific journals, magazines, environmental organizations, administrations of higher education, government agencies (NASA, NOAA), papacy, and on and on — using bazillions of $. Wonder where that came from? What are their next plans?
They simply need to be fired, everyone of them. And if they fraudulently changed data or the historical record, they must be indicted and sent to prison. Thanks to the bloggers and blogging community who remain faithful to the scientific method and freedom of inquiry.
Steve Clauter is grateful for having a safe place where climate conspiracy theorists can feed off each other, with no fear that science will intrude:
July 6, 2015 at 7:54 am
Well done Anthony. We stand with you and spread WUWT’s “good news” every day!
Marcia McNutt. "The beyond-two-degree inferno" Science 3 July 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6243 p. 7 DOI: 10.1126/science.aac8698