Climate change. Reasonable acting towards an uncertain future? (original) (raw)

WHAT LIES BENEATH: THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTATEMENT OF CLIMATE RISKS

Human-induced climate change is an existential risk to human civilisation: an adverse outcome that would either annihilate intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential. Special precautions that go well beyond conventional risk management practice are required if the “fat tails” — the increased likelihood of very large impacts — are to be adequately dealt with. The potential consequences of these lower-probability, but higher-impact events would be devastating for human societies. The bulk of climate research has tended to underplay these risks, and exhibited a preference for conservative projections and scholarly reticence, albeit increasing numbers of scientists have spoken out in recent years on the dangers of such an approach. Climate policymaking and the public narrative are significantly informed by the important work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, IPCC reports also tend toward reticence and caution, erring on the side of “least drama”, and downplaying more extreme and more damaging outcomes. Whilst this has been understandable historically, given the pressure exerted upon the IPCC by political and vested interests, it is now becoming dangerously misleading, given the acceleration of climate impacts globally. What were lower-probability, higher-impact events are now becoming more likely. This is a particular concern with potential climatic “tipping points” — passing critical thresholds which result in step changes in the system — such as the polar ice sheets (and hence sea levels), and permafrost and other carbon stores, where the impacts of global warming are non-linear and difficult to model at present. Under-reporting on these issues contributes to the “failure of imagination” that is occurring today in our understanding of, and response to, climate change. If climate policymaking is to be soundly based, a reframing of scientific research within an existential risk-management framework is now urgently required. This must be taken up not just in the work of the IPCC, but also in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations if we are to address the real climate challenge. Current processes will not deliver either the speed or the extent of change required.

Climate change studies and the human sciences

Poul Holm, Verena Winiwarter, Climate change studies and the human sciences, In Global and Planetary Change, Volume 156, 2017, Pages 115-122, ISSN 0921-8181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.05.006\. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811630306X), 2017

Policy makers have made repeated calls for integration of human and natural sciences in the field of climate change. Serious multidisciplinary attempts began already in the 1950s. Progress has certainly been made in understanding the role of humans in the planetary system. New perspectives have clarified policy advice, and three insights are singled out in the paper: the critique of historicism, the distinction between benign and wicked problems, and the cultural critique of the ‘myths of nature’. Nevertheless, analysis of the IPCC Assessment Reports indicates that integration is skewed towards a particular dimension of human sciences (economics) and major insights from cultural theory and historical analysis have not made it into climate science. A number of relevant disciplines are almost absent in the composition of authorship. Nevertheless, selective assumptions and arguments are made about e.g. historical findings in key documents. In conclusion, we suggest to seek remedies for the lack of historical scholarship in the IPCC reports. More effort at science-policy exchange is needed, and an Integrated Platform to channel humanities and social science expertise for climate change research might be one promising way.

What Lies Beneath: The understatement of existential climate risk

Human-induced climate change is an existential risk to human civilisation: an adverse outcome that will either annihilate intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential, unless carbon emissions are rapidly reduced. Special precautions that go well beyond conventional risk management practice are required if the increased likelihood of very large climate impacts — known as “fat tails” — are to be adequately dealt with. The potential consequences of these lower-probability, but higher-impact, events would be devastating for human societies. The bulk of climate research has tended to underplay these risks, and exhibited a preference for conservative projections and scholarly reticence, although increasing numbers of scientists have spoken out in recent years on the dangers of such an approach. Climate policymaking and the public narrative are significantly informed by the important work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, IPCC reports also tend toward reticence and caution, erring on the side of “least drama”, and downplaying the more extreme and more damaging outcomes. Whilst this has been understandable historically, given the pressure exerted upon the IPCC by political and vested interests, it is now becoming dangerously misleading with the acceleration of climate impacts globally. What were lower-probability, higher-impact events are now becoming more likely. This is a particular concern with potential climatic tipping points — passing critical thresholds which result in step changes in the climate system — such as the polar ice sheets (and hence sea levels), and permafrost and other carbon stores, where the impacts of global warming are non-linear and difficult to model with current scientific knowledge. However the extreme risks to humanity which the tipping points represent, justify strong precautionary management. Under-reporting on these issues is irresponsible, contributing to the failure of imagination that is occurring today in our understanding of, and response to, climate change. If climate policymaking is to be soundly based, a reframing of scientific research within an existential risk-management framework is now urgently required. This must be taken up not just in the work of the IPCC, but also in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations if we are to address the real climate challenge. Current processes will not deliver either the speed or the scale of change required.

SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES FEED SCEPTICISM ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Thermal Science, 2015

Climate change is a complex and multi-facetted phenomenon, interpreted by an extensive body of interdisciplinary science. Although a great deal is known about the climate system, an enormous amount of uncertainty remains. Since uncertainty is usually equated with ignorance, this fact feeds scepticism on man-induced impacts on the global climate and links climate change with natural causes only. A broader concept of climate change science is presented by focusing on both early and modern scientific foundations of climate models and specific types of uncertainty usually encountered when formulating quantitative assessments of risks due to climate change. Major controversial issues of such risks and their origin is addressed with paticular attention paid to the widespread criticism for inconsistency of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, based on the assumptions found not always justified by the real scientific methods. Major inconsistencies and misleading arguments on the climate change are also discussed.

The limits of knowledge and the climate change debate

Cato Journal, 2016

Those who have knowledge don't predict. Those who do predict don't have knowledge. --Lao Tzu Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. --Voltaire The question of whether climate change is produced by anthropogenic global warming (henceforth AGW) has triggered an increasingly contentious confrontation over the conduct of science, the question of what constitutes scientific certainty, and the connection between science and policymaking. In a world in which we seek to understand complex, multifaceted phenomena such as climate (and to extract from this knowledge appropriate policy responses) the enduring epistemological question arises: What do we know? Logical inquiry might be expected to help resolve this knowledge problem (Hayek 1945) but is confounded by the assertion that the "science is settled," by condemnation of those who disagree as "deniers," and even by proposals that they be prosecuted as RICO offenders. (1) There is increasing ...