It has become not only easy, but almost de rigueur for climate alarmists to retreat to false classification–almost objectification–of their opponents, especially when they cannot respond satisfactorily to arguments made against them. But the classifications are getting more discrete, if not discreet. Where before the hate speech term ‘denier’ was almost enough to serve their needs, now we read of things like ‘Breakthrough-ism’ or ‘Pielke-ism.’ These are dismissive terms for people who are on board with the science but who, like me, will not sign on to the policy proposals trumpeted by the Konsensus, a group of lobbyists, bloggers and a few scientists who are trying to step in front of the very real consensus of scientists regarding climate change.
As is so often the case, my comment at a consensus weblog is in the holy state of perpetual moderation. In this case, the blog is the NewSpeakingly named ‘Open Mind,’ and the post is more aptly titled ‘Talking Points.’
My comment was:
“I’m a lukewarmer who often ends up closer to the skeptical side of arguments than I do the consensus.
Your post fairly accurately captures why. I am in complete agreement with the science that shows the earth to be warming and am entirely comfortable with attributing half or more of the warming since 1978 to anthropogenic contributions.
However, almost all of what I have read (and I have read a lot) regarding the danger from anthropogenic climate change has turned out to be speculative and not closely tied to evidence.
Obviously if atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is 3C or higher, there will be consequences. But that possibility seems to be receding. And while global warming of 2C this century seems very possible, it does not seem dangerous.
It will be expensive to adapt and efforts to mitigate this rise even more so. The consequences will be real and we will certainly regret not having done more in advance.
But dangerous? The scientific papers and public discussion I have read do not show danger. Indeed, forecasting by people like Nicholas Stern take as an assumption that population will continue to rise, as will broad measures of wealth (GDP, energy consumption).
In 2014 the IPCC published Working Group 2’s contribution to the Summary for Policy Makers for AR5. It is here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf
That summary is far closer in its forecasting to my perceptions of what is coming and is far from what I would term ‘dangerous’.
I am happy to discuss. However, for those ready to term this line of argument ‘Pielke-ism,’ ‘Breakthrough-ism’, etc., let me try and forestall you. It is in fact ‘IPCC’ ism, for good or ill.”
In fact, more and more we see that people who rely on, cite, or otherwise focus on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are the new objects of derision and spite from the Konsensus. That’s simply because the IPCC is not scary enough.
For those who read the various publications of the IPCC–and we are not large in number, due to the length of those publications–it has become very clear that what the IPCC is telling us is very different from the Konsensus. It has been a quick transition.
A case in point is the recent lawsuit brought by various municipalities and organizations in San Francisco against the major oil companies, charging that their not-so-benign neglect of the climate issue in their strategic planning and corporate communications was criminal in intent and consequences.
The successful defence used by the energy companies involved blanket reliance on the writings of the IPCC, which admits of greater uncertainty than Konsensus doctrine allows. The IPCC didn’t single out human emissions of greenhouse gases as a partial culprit for the current warming until relatively late in the game–and neither, say the energy companies, did they.
This has led the most apoplectic (not to say apocalyptic) of the climate brigade to start disparaging the IPCC, a prospect which should delight ye skeptics as much as we lukewarmers. It is a sign of the great splintering of the Konsensus, whereby the publication which served as the Bible of all the climate concerned will now be dissected and disputed by different groups with differing aims.
So no matter how often we are targeted with disparaging ‘isms,’ it will be as nothing compared to the coming climate schisms.
But that’s what happens with religions.