
Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change - clarkm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html
======
aethr
It's worth noting that the IPCC is considered by some to be too conservative
in its estimates [1].

Just before they released their 2007 report, a paper was published in Science
comparing the predictions from the 2001 report with actual changes in global
temperature and sea level. [2] While the 2001 report had forecasted a rise in
temperature of 0.15C - 0.35C, the actual rise over that period was 0.33C.
Meanwhile the rise in sea level over that period exceeded the IPCC's predicted
maximums.

So while the IPCC may be "dialing back" their predictions, they do have a
known tendency to err on the side of conservatism.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Clim...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Conservative_nature_of_IPCC_reports)

[2]
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm)

~~~
specialist
I believe, but hope I'm proven wrong, that climate change has passed the
tipping point.

The earth's massive carbon sinks are now sources. Melting tundra, burning
forests, boiling oceans (acidification).

If we stopped all human CH4 and CO2 production (stop the economy), the
atmospheric levels will still increase.

I also hope that we humans are clever enough to figure out how to sequester
CO2 on a massive, industrial scale.

Many humans will certainly survive. But it'll be a bumpy ride.

------
acqq
Author: _because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two
reports, but retreat it is._

Note how unmathematical this approach is. The whole premse of the article and
the content are: "There are different numbers, some strange qualifiers in
front of them which changed but which I'll ignore, but because I compare just
the numbers, they are smaller than before so we can happily continue with
global warming."

The facts are different.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=todays-
clim...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=todays-climate-
change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years)

 _To hold the temperature increase to about 1.5 degrees, the globe would need
to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, and then have negative
emissions._

The author's article ignores the timeframes too, like it doesn't matter at
all.

------
dizzystar
I never knew what to think of the whole Climate Change thing. I consider
myself a careful skeptic, going on the assumption that the science is much too
large to put together. Although I never really questioned the idea that there
is evidence of warming or man-made warming, I always questioned the the stated
impact.

I've always felt that much of what was presented to us was exaggerated, and
I've always felt strongly that the climate scientists were too closely bound
to politics, and thus whatever truth was found was obscured by rhetoric. There
was also several solutions presented that skated well past the line of
absurdity. [1]

Here's to hoping that the climate panels have learned from the mistakes of
their past and begin to offer truly critical and balanced opinions, no longer
employing scare-tactics.

The hard-core pro-CC crowd accused me of being all sorts of things I am not,
such as a wasteful litterbox. Actually, I purchase very few things and
certainly never buy Palm Oil or other items that are environmentally
destructive. I don't use plastic bags, and I don't drive a car.

In regards to this article, I still don't know what to think. I really wish
the report itself would come out before the media jumps all over it and
destroys the meaning of this paper, as it is rather important. If the report
does say this, I would wonder what changes have occurred in the climate
thinking and world to wheel back this much.

[1][http://www.treehugger.com/culture/hose-to-the-sky-still-
spew...](http://www.treehugger.com/culture/hose-to-the-sky-still-spewing-
so2-idea-to-stop-global-warming.html)

~~~
threeseed
No offence but people such as yourself really are the worst. It's clear that
you have absolutely no scientific knowledge about the subject but yet believe
you know enough to disparage experts in the field. If you don't know about the
subject (and I don't) the only sensible position to take is an objective risk
management one:

Chance of worse case scenario (10%) x Impact of worst case scenario (Severe) =
Prepare Contingency Plans.

~~~
sseveran
Its just as valid for people outside of climatology to comment on this as it
is for people outside of finance to comment on financial issues.

~~~
mkr-hn
I try to read opinions from a variety of experts before taking a position. No
climate change denier I've met shares this habit.

~~~
sseveran
I am not sure what a "climate change denier" is. If your scientific opinion
requires you to demonize your opposition then something is definitely wrong.

~~~
mkr-hn
A climate change denier is one who denies that the climate is changing. It
says nothing of how they came to that view or the merits of their view.
There's no demonization in that.

------
quink
I'm sorry, but this is just stupid.

>
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley)
> and
> [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley)

If you want to have an idea as to his economic credentials, he's, in a
nutshell, responsible for the first bank run in the UK in about 130 years.

Here are just the effects of the state I live in:
[http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-
scien...](http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-
science/climate-change-impacts/queensland)

~~~
AndrewKemendo
This is a great example two fallacies in one post.

The first is a fine ad hominem example: "This is just stupid" -> Links to the
author -> He is not qualified. Does not refute his claims

The second is the Hasty Generalization fallacy: Referencing a single instance
as indicative of all areas

~~~
quink
> Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from
> preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage.
> Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the
> range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50
> chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the
> harm.

He caused a bank run, which is all about balancing predictions with risks.
It's all about evaluating economic impacts. He is entirely unqualified to make
the statement above from that single data point alone.

About the hasty generalisation, I didn't mean to indicate that these would be
the effects across the world, and I though that much was obvious. Most of the
world doesn't even have coral reefs, for example. It's just that a global
perspective might be in order, and most people here aren't likely to live in
Queensland.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
>He caused a bank run, which is all about balancing predictions with risks.
It's all about evaluating economic impacts. He is entirely unqualified to make
the statement above from that single data point alone.

Oh I won't refute that, perhaps he is unqualified. That doesn't however refute
his argument. It only states that you'll have to look at the argument that
much more carefully because he is not likely to be a great source.

What is common with folks justifying the ad hominem is that it is really just
a short hand for the argument from authority fallacy. It is implicitly
advancing the idea that the merits of the argument rest on the person giving
them as though if it were someone else it would be more correct, which of
course is wrong.

I think it is reasonable to assume that most people look at the person making
an argument and if they are confident in the person, they will take the
argument as a truthful assessment. To me though this is lazy and essentially
delegates reason, so IMO it is always worth identifying.

------
threeseed
To say that the benefits of increased vegetation outweighs the rise in sea
levels and summer temperatures is breathtaking in its stupidity and cruelty.
The people who are the most affected by climate change are the poorest and
least able to relocate. In which way does humanity benefit if millions die in
Africa and South East Asia whilst wealthy industrialists get to farm further
north than previously.

It's also bizarre to be thinking so short term. So we benefit if there is a
1.2 degree increase in the next 70 years. What about the 70 years after that,
and after that ?

~~~
refurb
Why would millions die? Rising sea levels won't come as a tsunami, it's a
slow,gradual rise in sea levels. Of course this will cause havoc for the
world's poor, but it's not like we can't plan for it.

~~~
threeseed
Because millions are dying today as a result of preventable malnutrition or
disease. What makes you think the world is going to act to save poor people in
SE Asia or Africa ?

And slow changes to climate don't instantly cause millions of deaths it is
gradual as well.

------
chrismealy
Matt Ridley should stick to blowing up banks and leave the climate alone.

[http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/the-man-who-wants-to-
north...](http://www.monbiot.com/2010/06/01/the-man-who-wants-to-northern-
rock-the-planet/)

------
gavanwoolery
I'm not really a scientist, so I can't take any sides here, but I would like
to point out a few things (make your own rational judgments). I do know the
true principles of science, if little about its practice. Real science is
unbiased. Everyone in these threads seems to get so heated that their "side"
is right (I've been guilty of it as well, its an easy trap to fall into).
Well, real science does not care about sides, it cares about boiling down a
system of variables into a probable hypothesis. Even the most likely
hypotheses have been shattered - I'm not saying that is the case, but
sometimes climatology feels more like faith than science. Real science aims to
prove its results wrong, not to prove them right.

Climatology/meteorology/etc are actually very difficult types of science
because you cannot simple put the earth in a confined test area where you can
tweak the variables on a small level. Yes, we all know that increase in CO2 =
increase in greenhouse effect, that is child's science and not a real
question. The real question is how much impact do human beings really have on
the atmosphere, and to what degree should we change our behavior (if at all)
based on that? There are so many variables that are difficult to predict (or
even determine in realtime) - the sun's energy output, how much CO2 gets
processed by trees, how much CO2 gets trapped in the upper atmosphere (it
happens, despite it being heavier than other types of atmosphere), underwater
volcanic activity, and so forth. That, and try doing a thermodynamic
simulation at earth's scale - the best we can do is very crudely rough it.
That said, there is no reason we should trash our environment just because we
don't know what is going on - there are a million reasons to gravitate towards
clean energy (in particular, sustainable energy).

All I can say is, if you are a real scientist, constantly question your own
beliefs, don't fight for them.

------
lisper
Given that the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, I would recommend taking
anything it says about climate change with a giant hunk o' sodium chloride.

~~~
shin_lao
Have you found something wrong in the article? This would be a more
constructive comment.

~~~
lisper
I would have thought it to be self-evident, but since you ask...

It's an opinion piece written by a notorious climate-change denialist. Its
main source is a document that hasn't been released yet. It is full of
breathless hyperbolic speculation, e.g.: "Like a returning comet, it will be
taken to portend ominous happenings." It puts the emphasis on the "facts"
(because there are precious few actual facts) that support Murdoch's political
position and downplays the facts that undermine that position, e.g.
"Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is
not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is." and "...there is a
better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will
still outweigh the harm." i.e. because things might not be getting quite as
bad quite as fast as was predicted, that everything is therefore going to be
hunky-dory and we should all stop worrying and just carry on burning fossil
fuels with abandon, because, hey, we have a 50-50 shot that it will all turn
out to be a net win.

I could go on, but life is too short to spend too much time debunking
creationists, truthers, and denialists. If you want more, start with this:

[http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2265541/breaking...](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2265541/breaking-
bad-matt-ridley-exits-wall-street-journal-column-as-a-climate-science-denier-
of-the-third-kind/)

------
rxp
Politicians like Matt Ridley can say what they like. I'll believe that things
have changed when experts in the field begin to say so, and not a moment
sooner.

~~~
khawkins
Your stubborn stance on the issue sounds like the type of response a religious
fundamentalist would give when questioned about their beliefs. The "experts in
the field" have been shown to make excessive predictions in recent years,
perhaps we should keep an open mind about who to trust?

~~~
rxp
Keeping an open mind is one thing, but if you ever take what any politician
says at face value, then you're nuts.

------
znowi
Climate Change (rebranded Global Warming) is such a heated and controversial
topic, including in academia, that turns decent people into crazed maniacs
(think of Apple or sport team fans). I suggest to stay away from it until
something conclusive emerges from the study.

------
ryguytilidie
Here is my thought on climate change, and something each party overlooks while
paying scientists to do research that supports their point. Lets just pretend
that hypothetically, we are 100% sure global warming is not caused by human-
manufactured pollution. With that being the case, what do we do? Take off
pollution controls? Turn every city into a place where you need to wear a mask
to breathe? If you've ever been to Shanghai or even Los Angeles it is pretty
obvious there are problems with pollution beyond damaging the ozone.
Personally, I think that millions of people being able to actually breathe is
more important than chemical company x stock price going up because they
didn't have to "waste" money on proper disposal and soot filters...

The fact that we get bogged down in a discussion of whether the ozone is being
damaged and overlook whether our lungs are being damaged just blows my mind.

~~~
seandhi
CO2 does not damage the Ozone layer. CO2 is not soot. CO2 does not damage our
lungs. Even though it has recently been added to the EPA's list of pollutants
(because of the climate change debate), CO2 is not even what people would
readily identify as "pollution" \- like chemicals that irritate eyes, lungs or
sinuses.

The debate is how much - if any - negative impact is being done to our climate
by a chemical that is an inevitable byproduct of the combustion of carbon-
based fuels (which, outside of nuclear and hydro, offer the cheapest source of
energy), and is combatting the risk of negative impact worth the economic
impact to our economy.

I am not making a statement about climate change. I am only saying,
respectfully, that you deeply misunderstand the debate.

------
spinlock
I just wanted to point out that the author is a politician and not a
scientist. Also, the globe has warmed by 6-8 degrees F since the last ice age.
The temperature difference that the author considers "beneficial" is the
difference between Manhattan being a vibrant city and being buried under a
mile of ice.

~~~
valar_m
You are mistaken. He is, in actual fact, a scientist. Ridley has a DPhil
degree in zoology from Oxford, and he's a foreign honorary member of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley)

~~~
spinlock
I stand corrected. The author is a politician and a terrible scientist.

------
thesis
It must be because of all of those carbon credits people purchase.

~~~
retrogradeorbit
and now we can solve water shortage crisis with water credits.

------
brohoolio
Anyone else think it's weird how when you click on the WSJ link it drops you
three links deep into WSJ?

I imagine most folks use new tabs, but this was kind of weird trying to back
button out of the WSJ site.

------
ris
I invite people to read a bit of background information on Matt Ridley before
they read this article.

~~~
valar_m
Why? Did the author make an argument based on a claim of subject matter
expertise?

