Discussion > What do the GWPF think about the ASC 'Managing Climate Risks to Well-Being and the Economy' report?
By coincidence, I've recently completed some research on this very topic. I spent at week in France at latitude 44 N which I estimate gives a temperature rise larger than anything expected in Oxfordshire in this century. What that part of France does to handle its temperature ought to act as an example for us. And the result? They don't do anything much. Stay in in the heat of the day. Have a long break at lunchtime.
Richard will possibly be aware that many sceptics do not accept that extreme weather (as opposed to mere temperature means) is linked to actual warming or to warming attributed to AGW. What that means is that we should undertake physical preparations for rain, wind. floods and drought. BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN ANYWAY. There is no unprecedented weather in our recent past. There is no indication that any recent events are not entirely to be expected every so often. We ought to prepare for them, but without being daft about it. Not because of some loaded climate change alarmist propaganda nonsense full of weasel words and unwarranted confidence, but because it is sensible.
I remind readers of my null. Nothing much is happening, and if it does we can adapt.
Richard, a few thoughts prior to going through the 202 page report in depth
Although there is a high degree of confidence that the world’s climate is changing as a result of human activity, the precise impacts on the UK are still somewhat uncertain. Therefore the emphasis of adaptation to climate change has to be on increasing the nation’s resilience to a range of possible futures.
Am I correct in thinking that this defines the term 'climate change' as human induced throughout the rest of the document?
As our report highlights, there is more to be done to counter the increasing risks of severe weather that are likely to be associated with climate change. As well as making vital infrastructure services more resilient to flooding and storms, the country needs to adapt homes and other buildings so they are suitable for higher summer temperatures.
Increasing risks of severe weather that are likely to be associated with climate change.
The risk is increased as obviously we have no data to support an actual increase in severe weather.
Likely to be associated with climate change, which by implication defines climate change as only getting warmer with more energy in the system giving an increase in severe weather.
No mention of implications for homes in a cooling climate? tsk, tsk.
So, initial thoughts:
A report generated from a body dedicated to looking at adaptation to climate change recommends that we should spend tax money adapting to climate change and the a fore mentioned body will continue to monitor the adaptation to climate change and regularly produce an adaptation to climate change report to the body issuing the funding for climate change adaptation in order to justify the need to adapt to climate change.
That is as long as the adaptation is due to a warming climate induced by humans which may increase extreme weather.
Seems a bit of a circular logical way of justifying the cost to the state of employing an industry of un-required report authors.
My first question about adaptation to climate change would be:
How much did this cost?
What I would be interested in is Krebs' justification for his belief that there is an increasing risk of severe weather associated with climate change, by which he means (as he then explains) global warming.
As far as I know the physics of climate (and recent years of observations — I know what "observation" means even if Krebs doesn't!) point towards a decreasing risk of severe weather as the temperature gradient between tropics and poles decreases. The lack of hurricane activity in the North Atlantic (the last Cat 3 hurricane to make landfall on the US was in 2005!!) would seem to add wieght to this argument. In any event since there has been no warming for the last 17 years what the hell is the CCC waffling on about?
Since the recent severe weather pattern is mostly reminiscent of the 1940s/50s (when the last warming period had peaked, as has this one) if it resembles anything, Krebs appear to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
This is hardly surprising since his qualifications for pontificating on anything to do with climate change — he is a zoologist — are little better than mine.
At a guess I would say that owes his current position to (a) his father's name, and (b) his willingness to be another scientific rent-a-body willing to eke out his academic pittance (I joke, of course) with a cushy seat on any quango that will have him. (I never understood what qualified him to head the Food Standards Agency either. Another government make-work organisation to boost academic pensioners' income.)
As for the GWPF, Richard, I would have thought that Nigel Lawson is probably better placed than any zoologist to assess the likely costs and benefits associated with a minuscule rise in the temperature of the UK — always assuming that such a temperature change has any costs other than to the unfortunate taxpayer who is paying through the nose in both taxes and energy bills to keep the likes of Krebs, Deben, and the PM's father-in-law in the manner to which they have (regrettably) become accustomed.
The very real risk of storm-surge flooding in London has, of course, been known for a long time. That is why the Thames barrier was constructed well before catastrophic climate change became fashionable. Gently rising sea levels are nothing new either and the same goes for the sinking local geology of SE England. These are valid reasons to expect improved sea defences will be needed in the future.
So no need to invoke the anthropogenic climate change bogeyman. However, I'm less than hopeful that these pre-existing concerns won't be used to somehow bolster the case for climate alarmism.
And don't build on flood-plains.
Does this mean they've seen the folly of mitigation? I somehow doubt it, but at least there's a nod in the direction of sanity. But that's all it is a nod. For my own part I can't understand spending any money now unless we can see increases in severe weather, and we can't. What appears to be happening is that severe weather that is quite normal is being pointed to as manifestations of global warming.
Is it cynical to believe there will be a temporal side to these supposed changes in climate? Well that's what I believe. I don't believe that I'll see manifestations of severe weather next week, or the north sea lapping round my front door in the next year, so my philosophy is don't do anything, adaptation or mitigation. I don't believe we need armies of bureaucrats preparing for something that we cannot possible know the outcome of until it has happened, and I don't believe we need thousands of scientists writing reports and papers that are intended only to frighten the bejasus out of us.
The only fear I have for my grandchildren is that they will fall into the hands of the moral busybodies in the progressive movement who want to control every detail of other people's lives. Those same moral busybodies are all over the global warming thing because history shows that a frightened populace is more likely to by supine and will accept more interference and restrictions in their lives to avert the danger.
In short there will be time should we need to do anything, and planning for unforeseeable events is a waste of time and money. Money that could be spent on health, education, child care, care for the aged and a plethora of other more useful, here and now, causes. So adapt yes, should we need to, but only if it's sensible to do so in terms of cost and social effectiveness.
.
Surely this is not an attempt by Richard, as hinted by those who follow twitter, to pose a gotcha question for the GWPF?
Well, it's just policy to allow for weather events, especially precedented ones which are all we have seen so far. It isn't global warming policy. I can't see any difficulty in the GWPF answering it if they see it as their domain.
Now, if I contend that there have been NO unprecedented weather conditions in the UK or elsewhere, could I be shown to be wrong? If not, on what grounds are such events postulated?
The important point is the one more or less made by Rhoda and Michael Hart above. Take the protection measures that need taking, which are the same whether climate change is responsible or not. We know where and why heavy rain will cause flood damage. It matters not a jot whether the risk of a once-a-century event has been increased to twice or four times a century by climate change. We won't even know that in a hundred years time, since a once-a-century event will happen several times a century from time to time. It's going to happen one day, so prepare for it.
michael hart
The instigation of the Thames Barrier goes back to 1953, then subject of a report by Sir Hermann Bondi in 1967 and built and opened in the early 80s.
Action taken as a direct result of observational data/experience. If we were to spend half the resource, intellect, time and money that we do on producing unprovable model projections, on actual observations and subsequent logical upgrading of our infrastructure we would be in a considerably better state than at present.
The amount of resource spent on unfounded "what if" scenarios is mind boggling and totally out of control.
We knew what to do after 1953 and got on and did it. We will do what is needed again, and again, and again, if allowed to. At present we do not do enough because the bulk of resource is expended on the hypothetical rather than the practical.
We did not have, nor needed a computer model to understand what happened in 1953. We still got on with it. If through "climate change", irrespective of derivation, we need to improve our infrastructure then that is the priority, no computer climate model, no matter how superdooper the computer is, is going to build a flood defence.
I'm with you Rhoda, on both points you made:
1. I heard Krebbs this morning being interviewed by Humphries. He (Krebbs) was very patronising to the elderly of this country who he thinks will suffer (what? heatstroke?) from living in 20% of houses that are ill-prepared for 'climate change'.
First, it raises the question, how much of a rise in temp will be a cause for concern for the elderly? (and, conversely, what if it gets a lot cooler?)
Secondly, it makes me wonder why so many pensioners head off to the warmer environs of Spain etc. How do they survive the multiple degrees of heat increase - an increase that will be more than if CC is real?
2. Yes, Betts is trying the old 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' question. Lawson has already said that if CC is real - which he doubts, we should adapt, however, he has said that infrastructure in this country needs to be kept up to scratch for whatever nature can throw at us. Betts is being very disingenuous. And anyway, what are Krebbs's qualifications for talking climate change on the BBC? He's not a 'climate scientist'.
Finally, if Betts is so concerned that we need to adapt to nature's extremes, has he got a plan for adapting to an extended cooling phase, as some people are starting to predict is on the cards? You know, the precautionary principle.
RB:
The GWPF have also of course published their own projections of climate change.... So they expect further climate change in the future (albeit at the lower end of the IPCC ranges).
Who doesn't expect 'further climate change' I wonder? Even 'in the future'.
But as far as I can tell, the GWPF does not have its own 'projections of climate change', nor does it take any position on the range of options proffered by the IPCC other than to seek to discuss their policy implications.
Here is an extract from the booklet referenced by RB in support of his suggestion that they do:
GWPF:
Views expressed in the
publications of the Global
Warming Policy Foundation
are those of the authors,
not those of the GWPF,
its Trustees, its Academic
Advisory Council members
or its Director.
If that is not enough clarity, here is an extract from the GWPF's Who We Are page
The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.
I can see the appeal for both Richard Betts, and Lord Krebs perhaps if his report is doing the same, of trying to occupy higher moral and intellectual ground by pursuing 'reasonableness'. But I think they will find it already occupied by such as the GWPF. I feel sure they will welcome the newcomers to their corner.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
I guess neither the GWPF nor the good doc do not intend to make any distinction but infrastructure developments in response to climate change will inevitably be only part of an infrastructure development programme that includes developments for other reasons. Investment required to respond to climate change will therefore firstly be dependent upon the political priority accorded to infrastructure development and renewal as a whole, and then on the priority that it achieves within the total. However, as is shown in the case of the present government's disproportionate investment in HS2, high total investment will not necessarily imply that more funds will be available for investment in respect of climate change. Perhaps the braying of green pretensions by the political parties (possibly excluding UKIP but we will see) will raise the priority of climate change infrastructure development within the total, but it will probably do no more than camouflage a low investment total the result of the trade offs and mostly disreputable you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours type deals that characterize the political process. Equally, the choice of climate change developments will be decided in much the same way. Given that the relevant decision making processes are, at least in part, the resposibilities of parliamentery (sub-) committees and their laughable witnesses and questioning, this should not be a surprise. Science and the rational assessment of competing needs will hardly figure and the sort of answer the good doc probably hopes to stimulate by his post will hardly, in actuality, be of any significance.
However, given that the science is neither settled nor likely to be in the foreseeable future, I am not sure that the displacement of rational process by politics will be important.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Near the bottom, long paragraph my last post delete 'discussion' insert 'answer'
[Amendment made as requested above. M]
John Shade,
But as far as I can tell, the GWPF does not have its own 'projections of climate change', nor does it take any position on the range of options proffered by the IPCC other than to seek to discuss their policy implications.
You may like to read this.
ATTP, opinion of the authors. Like it says up there in the comment you are replying to with a typical gotcha stupid subject-changing diversion designed only to disrupt because you haven't got anything pertinent to say?
Rhoda,
opinion of the authors.
Sure, but published as a GWPF report, or did I misread the front cover?
Like it says up there in the comment you are replying to with a typical gotcha stupid subject-changing diversion designed only to disrupt because you haven't got anything pertinent to say?
I don't know, I thought I was responding to something. Is that not allowed here? You can treat that question as rhetorical if you wish.
Rhoda
On this one I'm inclined to go with ATTP (don't worry; I don't plan to make a habit of it!).
"Opinion of the authors" has to be one of the most over-used cop-outs in existence. It may well be technically accurate but why would the GWPF — or any other organisation — go to the trouble of giving its imprimatur to something it disagreed with?
Giving alternative views a platform — as does this blog and most other sceptical sites — is one thing but publishing the sort of paper that GWPF does and them trying to hide behind "it wisnae me, guv" doesn't enhance its credibility all that much!
Mike
I think you go too far with talk of trying to hide behind cop-outs. The GWPF are quite explicit. They do not hide their view that the science is not settled, and, by publishing views contrary to widely promoted claims, they are providing support for that view.
Rhoda, Harry Passfield
It's not a 'gotcha' at all - Benny Peiser was happy to answer it almost immediately on twitter, see here.
It just struck me as interesting that some aspects of what Lords Krebs said this morning were similar to some of what Lord Lawson had already said in February, and this was particularly interesting given all the recent discussion about who the BBC will give air time to. I genuinely think it would be very interesting to see a discussion between the two of them on the issue of adaptation - there's clearly at least some common ground here, so it would potentially be more useful and informative than yet another tired old ding-dong about whether climate change is occurring or is human-induced.
I thought that was what I just said, John.
They support the view that the science is not settled; they publish papers which are broadly sceptical of what you might call the "received wisdom" on climate change and then say "nothing to do with us; it's just the author's opinion".
So what precisely is their view if not what is reflected in the papers they publish?
I think you may be missing the point about what the GWPF is setting out to do, Mike. Here is more from their 'Who We Are' page:
We have developed a distinct set of principles that set us apart from most other stakeholders in the climate debates:The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.
On climate science, our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism.
Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.
We regard observational evidence and understanding the present as more important and more reliable than computer modelling or predicting the distant future.
Above all we seek to inform the media, politicians and the public, in a newsworthy way, on the subject in general and on the misinformation to which they are all too frequently being subjected at the present time.
If one assigns motives to a person's activities it can all go pear shaped very quickly. I don't believe Richard has any other motive than to engage with the GWPF on the issues raised in this report. He's put is opinions out there, I don't agree with any of them, particularly the one that assumes if you don't want to take any action it implicitly means you don't believe there's warming, but disagreeing with someone has never, in my book at least, meant that they had other than honest motives in their actions.
For me it is really simple, if we had taken action on every forecast made by scientists with the certainties we see in Dame Slingo and co. we'd be skint by now. Anyone want to buy £0.5Bn of Tamilflu?
If it was not a gotcha, what was the point? We need to adapt to whatever happens. A truism, because that's what adapting is. We need to do what is sensible but not impoverish ourselves. How about not wasting seawater-proof concrete on offshore wind but on sea walls? The gotcha is the assumption that there is warming coming. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but there will be floods, drought, rain, snow, every sort of weather. Because that's the way it has always been and we ought to take sensible measures to minimise the harm.
But they do manage in southern France in a climate we might expect if it got a little warmer. And in other places, hotter still. It really is not a big deal, and no amount of alarmist imputation (yes, that is what this is) makes any difference. There just is no policy action needed in any degree of haste.
(And the more debate about what the GWPF 'believes' the more it seems that this is indeed a gotcha.)
I note that my point of no recent weather event having been unprecedented went unanswered. It is crucial.
rhoda,
If it was not a gotcha, what was the point?
If you're referring to me, it wasn't meant to be a gotcha as such. John said something that appeared not to be a fair reflection of the GWPF's mission and I was simply trying to illustrate why what he'd claimed didn't appear consistent with what I'd seen,
But they do manage in southern France in a climate we might expect if it got a little warmer.
Have you considered that they've already adapted to this weather. Just because they've already done so, doesn't mean we don't have to do anything.
I note that my point of no recent weather event having been unprecedented went unanswered. It is crucial.
It's not really crucial. The point about extreme weather is not whether or not we'll get weather events that we've never before experienced. It's about whether or not we'll start to experience extreme events more often in the future than we have in the past. It's typically about the intensity and frequency of events, not about whether or not they're entirely unprecedented.
Peasant provincial France, already adapted? What, with medieval air conditioning? They have thicker walls and smaller windows. That's all that can be observed. Maybe different daytime routines. No big deal. And that's the crux of it, there IS no big deal. If we prepare for the kind of weather we know there has been, we'll be OK most of the time. For the once-in-a-century event, we'll probably not be as well prepared as we might, but if they start occurring more frequently, we'll do a little more. I really can't see what the problem is.
About the GWPF and its contradictory stance, if that's what you perceive it is, well, my opinions are my own, and I don't speak for them. Or think much of their tactics, come to that.
A report 'Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy' has just been published by the Adaptation Sub-Committee (ASC) of the Committee on Climate Change. Recognising the uncertainties in how the climate of the UK may change, the report pushes for increase resilience to a range of conditions:
Lord Krebs (chair of the ASC) is quoted as saying:
I'd be very interested to hear the response of the Global Warming Policy Foundation to this report. Lord Lawson has previously spoken of the need for adaptation, eg. when he was on the Today Programme with Prof Sir Brian Hoskins in February:
The GWPF have also published a report on adaptation and been supportive of the Thames Estuary 2100 study by the Environment Agency and others (including the Met Office) which recommended a flexible approach to dealing with potential upgrades to London's flood defences (as opposed to rushing ahead and spending billions on a new Thames Barrier for example). One of the GWPF adaptation report co-authors said of TE2100:
The GWPF have also of course published their own projections of climate change, based on looking at past warming and an estimate of the overall strength of the human-induced climate forcing, projecting a range of global warming of 1.0 to 2.9 degrees C by 2100 relative to pre-industrial or 0.2 to 2.1 degrees C relative to 2012. So they expect further climate change in the future (albeit at the lower end of the IPCC ranges).
Given this apparent agreement that some further climate change is in the pipeline, and acknowledgement on all sides that this is uncertain, and that improving resilience to extreme weather, flooding etc is a good idea, what is the response of the GWPF to the ASC report?
I'd also be interested to hear Bishop Hill readers' responses too.