text:
Note: Matt Ridley has responded – please see his reply piece here
Matt Ridley's latest column in the Times illustrates a persistent theme for those who oppose action on climate change: that cuts in carbon emissions intended to reduce the dangers of global warming are somehow code for a war against the poor. Climate sceptics use this logic to claim the moral high ground in their own war against policies to cut back on fossil fuel burning. They defend the high-carbon consumption of the rich, in other words, purportedly to assist in the development prospects of the billion people in poorer countries who still don't have access to electricity. If this sounds strange, it's because it is.
Biofuels mistake
Ridley's piece (paywalled here, free version on his website here) complains about "eco-toffs" promoting socially regressive carbon mitigation policies and maintains that "the cost of climate policies falls heavily on today's poor". Strangely, one of his key examples to justify this claim is that "subsidies for biofuels have raised food prices by diverting food into fuel, tipping millions into malnutrition and killing about 190,000 people a year".
Whoops! I don't know any green groups, however aggressively they may promote carbon cuts, that still promote subsidies for biofuels that might compete with food production on land. Greenpeace calls land-based biofuels "a dead-end path". ActionAid UK, which strongly promotes action on climate change, recently had a whole campaign called 'Food not fuel', saying: "The rush for biofuels is pushing millions into hunger. It's madness that we burn food in our cars as biofuels whilst 1 in 8 go hungry." I'm sure Ridley would agree, as would I. There is a UK-based environmental campaign group called Biofuelwatch that frequently campaigns against biomass in power stations being classed as a subsidised 'renewable' fuel. Friends of the Earth makes similar points.
Ridley maintains that "Greens think this harm is a price worth paying to stop the warming". This is clearly not the case when it comes to biofuels, not least because there is abundant evidence now that the most unsustainably harvested biofuels (such as palm oil on ex-rainforest land in Malaysia, or biomass pellets from North American clear-cuts) are many times worse than fossil fuels even in straight carbon terms. When their biodiversity and social impacts (competing against food production for humans) are factored in the case against becomes even stronger. Actually this is one of the few areas where climate sceptics and greens seem to agree – something to acknowledge and build on perhaps!
Climate paradoxes
But this is only the beginning. Unfortunately, because Ridley has convinced himself that cuts to carbon emissions will harm the world's poor, he feels the need to craft 'scientific' justifications for his clearly intuitive belief that global warming will not be so bad. (More likely, it's the other way round: he's against tackling global warming, and wants to use the world's poor as a moral justification for this.)
Let me say at the outset that I don't even think this is logical. It is quite possible (maybe even probable) for global warming to both be extremely damaging and for near-term carbon emissions cuts to have a harmful effect on the world's poor. Ridley mentions in his piece the "3.5 million deaths a year from indoor air pollution caused by cooking over open fires of wood and dung". I agree with this figure; indeed the latest estimates from the World Health Organisation (WHO) are as many as 4.3 million premature deaths a year are likely attributable to "pollution exposures among the estimated 2.9 billion people living in homes using wood, coal or dung as their primary cooking fuel".
I entirely accept that these peoples' lives would be much improved by using electric cooking in the home (or much cleaner gas) even if this electricity were to come from new coal-fired power stations in places like India and Bangladesh, thereby worsening carbon emissions and the resulting global warming. (Though one should bear in mind WHO's figure of 3.7 million annual deaths worldwide from outdoor air pollution, of which coal burning is by far the largest source.)
This is a familiar paradox, and one that has been pointed out by many people (e.g. Breakthrough Institute and Roger Pielke Jnr. There is no doubt that global energy production is going to have to double, triple or even quadruple this century in order to allow for economic development and poverty eradication worldwide. This is one of the reasons I have supported nuclear power, which along with renewables can offset the use of coal and other fossil fuels in producing this much-needed increase in energy supplies.
Wishing away global warming
What bugs me however is that Ridley resolves this paradox instead by denying the gravity of global warming. He does this by rejecting the seven-year-long effort of the IPCC to come up with a consensus position on future global warming estimates, and instead cherry-picking a couple of studies that seem to support lower warming projections to bolster his pre-determined position.
Here's Ridley's key paragraphs in the Times article:
But is greenery really quite so selfless? Take climate change. The "synthesis report" of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published yesterday, warns of an increased "likelihood" of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts if emissions continue. But when you cut through the spin, the IPCC is actually saying that there is a range of possibilities, from no net harm at all (scenario RCP 2.6) through two middling scenarios to one where gathering harm from mid-century onwards culminates in potentially dire consequences by 2100 (scenario RCP 8.5).
This latter scenario makes wildly unrealistic assumptions about population, coal use, trade, methane emissions and other things; RCP 2.6 is equally unrealistic in the other direction. So let's focus on the two middle scenarios, known as RCP 4.5 and RCP 6. In these more realistic economic projections, if you use the latest and best estimates of the climate's "sensitivity" to carbon dioxide (starkly lower than the out-of-date ones still used by the IPCC), the most probable outcome is that the world will be respectively just 0.8 and 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than today by the last decades of this century.
Most of that warming will be at night, in winter and in northern latitudes, so tropical daytime warming will be less. Again, on the best evidence available, it is unlikely that this amount of warming, especially if it is slow, will have done more harm than good. The chances are, therefore, that climate change will not cause significant harm in the lives of our children and grandchildren.
When challenged by me on Twitter Ridley did cite a couple of references:
.@mark_lynas Invents? You err and smear again! I gave links too peer revised article: http://t.co/7pRg7BjInn. also: http://t.co/7Q0AsdeKhq
— Matt Ridley (@mattwridley) November 5, 2014
Ridley's scientifically unsupportable claims
Now let's go through this and see where Ridley's ideological bias is pushing him into making scientifically unsupportable claims. Ridley rejects both the very high and very low emission scenarios of the IPCC as being "unrealistic". I agree the low-emission RCP 2.6 scenario, which sees a peak in global emissions in about 6 years from now, and then negative emissions after about 2070, is indeed unrealistic. It is very difficult to square this with rapid economic growth in developing countries and the energy consumption growth that must support it.
However, I do not see any a priori reason to reject RCP 8.5, the highest-emissions scenario considered by the IPCC, not least because that is the scenario world emissions are currently tracking slightly above, as this graph – which plots historical emissions against all the RCPs – demonstrates.
That's Ridley's first sleight of hand. But the second is far worse. Armed with the two scenarios RCP 4.5 and RCP 6 that he considers 'realistic', Ridley then ignores the IPCC's projected warming responses and substitutes his own, which just happen to be "starkly lower than the out-of-date ones still used by the IPCC". In other words, Ridley cherry-picks a couple of studies which project lower 'equilibrium climate sensitivity' (ECS), superimposes them on RCPs 4.5 and 6, and hey presto! – he has low enough figures for global warming this century in order to conclude "that climate change will not cause significant harm in the lives of our children and grandchildren".
I have to admit this drove me to sarcasm on Twitter:
@mattwridley *Your* best estimates. The IPCC has just wasted 7 yrs on a literature review when they could have just asked you!
— Mark Lynas (@mark_lynas) November 5, 2014
Consensus science
But really. What is the point of the entire 7-year IPCC process, assessing thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, assembling hundreds of experts to author chapters and then pick through them line by line, if the resulting report (and the Synthesis Report was just launched this week) can then be dismissed by right-wing newspaper columnists as merely "out of date"?
To me the value of consensus science is just that: by dint of a weighty literature review it rules out cherry-picking. I accept that Ridley has written knowledgeably about evolutionary biology and many other things in the past, but on climate change he blows away any claim to scientific credibility with this extraordinary dismissal of the vast majority of the evidence in order to bolster a pre-conceived ideological position. I believe this is called 'motivated reasoning' by psychologists.
And he doesn't even get it right. Yes, Lewis and Curry (one of Ridley's cherry-picked citations linked in his tweet above) come up with a much lower estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity, but ECS is a fairly academic value anyway – it imagines the equilibrium response of the climate system, meaning many centuries away from today. (In reality true equilibrium would never be reached as the climate is a dynamic system subject to multiple and always-changing forcings, both natural and anthropogenic.)
The temperature value that we all actually care about is called transient climate response (TCR), which is how much global warming we might expect, in Ridley's words, "in the lives of our children and grandchildren". And as has been pointed out elsewhere (including by the IPCC – see Fig TS6.2, p.84 here), Lewis and Curry's estimates for TCR are pretty much in line with everyone else's. So Ridley, blinded by his ideological fervour, has plucked the wrong cherry.
Here's the relevant graph for TCR for the various RCP scenarios. I have taken it from a 2014 Nature Geoscience paper by David Frame, Adrian Macey and Myles Allen, so it's not, er, 'out of date'. The IPCC version of this graph can be viewed in the Synthesis Report – see Figure 2.3 in this PDF – but it's rather low-resolution and difficult to read.
A killer mistake
As the IPCC makes clear, transient climate response is very much a function of cumulative carbon emissions, and actually has very little to do with whatever your idealised value is for equilibrium climate sensitivity many centuries away. If you read off the graph, RCP 4.5 gives us about 2.4C global warming by 2100 (not 0.8C as Ridley maintains), while RCP 6 takes us to about 3 degrees C (more than double Ridley's 1.2C). If we include the scenarios Ridley rejected, only the lowest, RCP 2.6, stays under 2 degrees, the internationally-agreed objective for mitigating global warming, whilst the highest, RCP 8.5, takes us well over 4 degrees C.
Now, I wrote a book a few years back called Six Degrees, which looked at the likely impacts of each degree of warming. I won't prescis it here, but let me say that 2 degrees was bad, four degrees was catastrophic, and six degrees was pretty much unimaginable (though I did try). Because of this, and because I have children myself, I would be delighted if Ridley was right and global warming could be easily restrained to just 0.8C. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to achieve this by wishing away consensus science and inventing our own convenient alternative. There's a word for this: it's called 'denial'. We have to deal with the world as it is, not how we'd wish it to be.
55 Comments
If only such critical analysis was more uniformly applied.
While the above has many fairly good arguments, several of the basic epistemological criticisms you apply to Ridley re: climate change & biofuels seem applicable to your arguments regarding monoculture farming and GMO's:
– Claiming moral high ground in a war against policies to cut back on fossil fuel burning (FFB) / GMO deployment
– Opinion contradicts general consensus of green groups
– Claims that cuts to FFB / GMO will harm the world's poor
– Feeling a need to craft 'scientific' justifications for clearly intuitive beliefs
– Excluding the middle possibilty (maybe even probable) for FFB / GMO to both be extremely damaging and have near-term harmful effects on the poor
– Ignoring relevant data, in the case of GMO's this data is the consistent behavior of corporate boards to suppress open study of potential health impacts, and our level of ignorance regarding gut biomes and many other important factors.↓
>Rubbish. I'm not concerned about "general consensus of green groups" –
Whether "concerned" or not, you did choose to advance green groups consensus as evidence while criticizing some of Ridley's many errors in paragraph 3 above. You even contrast (well) your appraisal of perhaps their strongest relevant arguments against the false strawman Ridley presents – with a tone I take as generally supportive.
If we only are concerned with some consensus when it agrees with us, then we lose another potential source of learning: when it disagrees.
When GMO's, the contrast is called "rubbish". This seems cause for concern. There are many reasons my proposal that you have a blind spot here could be wrong, but what is most troubling is that when confronted with the criticism, you seem to regard providing reasons which might change my mind as inappropriate, while name-calling "rubbish" and refusing to discuss or acknowledge any validity to the objection is an acceptable response. We don't accept this from ACC deniers for very good reasons.
It runs counter to what we hope distinguishes the best of scientific reasoning, in the words of a pretty good scientist: "dealing with the world as it is, not how we'd wish it to be."
I wish I could talk to *that* scientist about things that exist, and best practices for dealing with any available evidence on important subjects.
I understand these ontological statements and their positions, but my objection is based on epistemological factors upon which these statements are based.
> The consensus that matters is the scientific one, not the Green…etc.
There is both good and bad science, and sorting them is a complex matter (see: Systematicity by Hoyningen-Huene). Sorting good from bad well takes into account scientific practices over time, covering vast ranges of activities, contexts, and differing levels of reliability, etc.
What matters from this perspective is whether a consensus is reliable and based on what we ought to consider "good" science, based on both internal and environmental factors.
Statements on GMO's you provide appear to be based on unprecedented levels of directed influence from non-scientists, lawyers, corporate control, suppression of information, political investments, scoping investigations, and so forth which ACC deniers like Ridley cannot even attempt for structural reasons.
I get no traction for such concerns when relating them to GMO's, but you ably deploy such tools to criticize positions of ACC deniers who you are certain are wrong.
What would convince me the AAAS' statement (et al) is reliable? A reasonable justification for equating absence of data indicating possible GMO adverse impacts with safety, within a context of large resources from outside. Vested interests seem to have pursued ensuring no reliable negative data can be produced by top research institutions.
What possible reason could there be for GMO license holders to invest in preventing open research if the ultimate facts are as these statements claim?
Buck, have you spent time in the fields of the world's poorest farmers?
Have you seen the devastation caused to crops by insects and disease?
Have you walked fields being degraded by excess tillage?
Have you talked to families whose nutrition health is so low they suffer from nutrient induced disease?
ALL of these scenarios could be positively impacted by GMO technology.
Science consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of the technology. And it is not correct to correlate all GMO technology with only large corporate interests.
I find it paradoxical that climate change supporters embrace science to substantiate climate change while simultaneously denying the overwhelming body of science supporting GMO's
I love the piece and don't want to detract from it Re: GMOs but I think you should know that the necessary sample size for an effective study to determine the potential for low-grade allergy and bowel irritation (as well as impacts to gut flora) resulting from wide-scale distribution of GMO crops has yet to be performed.
An analog to this type of study needed is the German KiKK study of childhood leukemia incidents near nuclear power plants. https://www.nirs.org/radiation/radhealth/kikkcommentary0709ijoeh.pdf
Before this study was performed it was (and even still is) commonly asserted hat this would be impossible. However, the results are robust. This study definitively proved a statistically significant increase (a doubling) of childhood leukemia within 2 Km of nuclear power plants in Germany. This is the primary reason for their dismantling of the nuclear industry and resultant temporary increases in GHG emissions.
And this was for an obvious disease, leukemia. To prove the risk that is potentially directly attributed to the increases in autoimmune disorders (caused by leaky gut and other factors) within the U.S. an even more comprehensive study, including universal screening, would have to be applied.
In the end, with regard to the safety of GMOs. This has yet to be proven on a long enough trial with a large enough sample size.
As far as I can tell, a number of factors you present cannot be considered by Mark and some other pro-GMO advocates for emotional reasons.
I share pro-GMO goals and aspirations, but insist they be pursued with at least the kind of rigorous safety reserved for a boner pill.
Buck, in his typically tortuous post, states:
"Statements on GMO's you provide appear to be based on unprecedented levels of directed influence from non-scientists, lawyers, corporate control, suppression of information, political investments, scoping investigations, and so forth which ACC deniers like Ridley cannot even attempt for structural reasons" – See more at: http://www.marklynas.org/2014/11/matt-ridley-climate-denial/#sthash.8KX7Ycpn.dpuf
I'm a great believer in Plain English and simple arguments, simply stated. There is an online database of studies performed on GM crops at http://genera.biofortified.org/ . Very few if any show any adverse toxicological effects from these crops.
In the past I have proposed a modest bet of £50 in this forum. It's that in five years from now, nobody will be able to demonstrate any harm, proven in a court of law, from consuming a GM crop. Buck started to take me up on it, then welshed out of it (and *I'm* allowed to use that word, being a Welshman myself).
So, it's time to put up, or shut up. Let's see if people have the courage of their anti-GMO convictions. Anybody?
A simple question for Mark or Clyde: do you agree that unprecedented involvement of corporate power, lawyers, etc. on science reports ought to be considered in assessing their reliability?
I don't clear opinion on GMOs. But I apply the same attitude as I do toward climate change. The only rational response is the precautionary principle.
We are still figuring out basic issues about climate change and that is after decades of research. GMOs are even less well-researched. If we are to be honest with ourselves, we simply don't know the impact GMOs might have.
That isn't denialism. It's being intellectually humble and honest.
Good post and I agree with you completely about Ridley's assessment of future warming. It seems obvious to me that this is really a risk assessment problem. We don't know precisely what future warming will be. There is a chance that Ridley/Lewis's projections might be right. However, what we have to consider is what is the chance that they'll be wrong (which is almost certainly greater than the chance of them being right), what are the implications of this (i.e., how much damage will this warming produce) and what are the costs/risks associated with mitigating or adapting to these potential risks. Climate policy shouldn't simply be us deciding to gamble on a single climate sensitivity.
Additionally, what I found odd about his article was this bit that you also highlight
But when you cut through the spin, the IPCC is actually saying that there is a range of possibilities, from no net harm at all (scenario RCP 2.6) through two middling scenarios to one where gathering harm from mid-century onwards culminates in potentially dire consequences by 2100 (scenario RCP 8.5).
It's as if he's suggesting that the different RCPs are somehow all equally possible; as if we could, by chance, follow a low emission pathway. We could, but that would either be because our economies have crashed and we're no longer generating energy, or because we've developed some alternative energy source without even really trying to do so. These RCPs represent possible pathways that we could choose to follow, not pathways that will simply happen by chance. If we want to minimise the risks associated with climate change, we should decide to follow one of the lower emission pathways, not hope that we will simply do so by chance.↓
"Climate policy shouldn't simply be us deciding to gamble on a single climate sensitivity." Agreed. The thing is, that's precisely what you're suggesting; that we take action based on the worst case emissions scenario and assume that the catastrophic effects modelled in cyberspace are the inevitable result in the real world.
The thing is, that's precisely what you're suggesting; that we take action based on the worst case emissions scenario and assume that the catastrophic effects modelled in cyberspace are the inevitable result in the real world.
Nope, that's not what I'm suggesting. I don't actually believe I said we should do anything. I'm suggesting that climate policy should be a balance between the risks associated with climate change and the risks/costs associated the minimising those risks. I don't really see how this is particularly controversial. Any risk analysis always involves considering the more extreme scenarios and whether or not one should take action to minimise the risk of those outcomes. It doesn't involve going "well, it might be alright".
We don't wear seatbelts because we think we'll probably have an accident. We wear them because they are a sensible thing to wear in the event of an accident. Just because we will probably not have an accident is not a good argument for not wearing them. Similarly with climate change, just because it might be alright doesn't mean we should assume that it will be alright. A caveat with climate change, though, is that if we choose to follow a high emission pathway, it will almost certainly be extremely damaging (unless you think guaranteeing almost 4 degrees of warming by 2100 is fine).
So, we have options. We could choose to try to drastically cut our emissions now to virtually guarantee that there is no risk associated with climate change. We could take some middle route where there is still a chance of a large amount of warming, but it's small enough that we can afford the risk, or we can follow a high emission pathway and hope that climate science is wrong.
To whom are you referring when you say 'we'? It's a word you use a lot: 'we have to consider … we could [do this or do that] … we should … we have options' etc.
Do you mean mankind? But, if you do, I suggest you've overlooked the reality that 'we' (or most of 'us') have made 'our' choice: the developing world (responsible for around 70% of global GHG emissions) has opted to give economic development and (note this) the eradication of poverty priority over emission reduction.
That completely changes the terms of this discussion. It's not really about a possible trade-off between action on climate change and the development prospects of the world's poorest people. That decision has essentially been made: the world has chosen emission growth – even Bangladesh is building coal-fired power stations. No, given that reality, the question now is this: what should the developed world be doing to help the poorest people in areas where it still may have some influence – essentially in Sub-Saharan Africa?
There's little we can do that will have significant effect on global GHG emissions. But there's quite a lot we can do now to help those people: probably the most effective is to provide access to inexpensive reliable electric power. And that, I suggest, is best done by building coal and gas fired power plant.
An excellent refutation. Well argued and cogent. It will be interesting to see if Matt Ridley can reply with anything coherent. More likely, he will slope off, only to return with another "thought-provoking" comment piece about "eco-toffs raping the poor" in the Times in a few weeks time.
One further point that annoys me (that you didn't touch on) is that, whilst Ridley (and Lomborg) are happy to shoot down IPCC climate models as being alarmist and "out of date", they continue to cite economic models which foretell untold wealth in decades to come if only we can stop all these (crippling) green subsidies which (singlehandledly) seem to be about to end economic growth as we have known it. Yet these economic models are simply based on plotting the growth of wealth forwards at the trajectories we have seen during the 20th century (and have somehow been rather absent in the 21st century, at least in the West). They are subject to nothing like the same scrutiny as the climate models have received. Whilst climate science may be inherently difficult and a little chaotic, economic forecasting is nothing but guesswork.
Furthermore, they completely fail to see that climate change may in time have a devastating impact on hopes for economic growth as farming systems, water resources and sea levels change, causing all manner of economic stress. Whilst on the other hand, switching to low or non carbon energy sources, whilst undoubtedly expensive in the short term, could prove to be quite a boost to economic growth over the next three or four decades. Admittedly, this is just speculation, but it's far more plausible than the line pedalled by Ridley and Lomborg.↓
The fact that you dislike wild overstatements & idieological drives to plunge us back into the dark ages doesn't make you a denier Mark. You can believe CO2 increases radiation's absorption (hence increasing global temperatures) without believing that the world will come to an end in 2100s. Specially when the mathematical models (and that's what they are, just mathematical models) used to predict climate change have overshooted again and again.
Regarding "peer reviewed" literature: have you noticed the many "peer reviewed" papers on circulation supporting homeopathy? I guess not. It seems to me that "climate" scientists are a closed group of researchers convinced that we should repent of our eco-sins or else.↓
There is consensus among Homeopaths, as there is among "climate" scientists. Despite the fact that, as stated above, their models are clumsy to say the least. But the main problem are not the inaccurate models;the problem is the "solutions" that they propose.
The idea that this group of 'experts ' should be unquestionable be believed and those that refuse to believe should be dammed as 'deniers ' , is odd given that science should welcome challenge , as central to science is the idea of 'critical review ' While if it has 'settled ' has repeatedly claimed should have no issue dealing with these challenges. And this supposed to be science not religion with claims of absolute truths come from prophets that cannot be questioned.
And its before we get to problems of how these 'experts' have shown themselves more than willing to 'create the right results ' defame those that challenge them and to seek to manipulate the very process , that is peer review , which is supposed to give validity to these experts in the first place. And finally but by no means lest, the problem that these 'experts ' often worked at a standard that is unacceptable for any undergraduate handing in an essay claiming their dog eat their data or 'trust me its true'
People may be more inclined to offer blind support to these 'experts' that some seem to what if they actual acted has good scientists letting the data speak for itself , rather than advocates of a political outlook and their own careers , out to make the data sign the right song in the right way.
The idea that 'experts ' should be unquestionable be believed is both illogical and anti-science and that is before the reality that history tell us the scientific consensus has been proved by dead wrong by the very type of outsiders attacked and vilified by those whose strength in belief of 'the cause ' is far more important than actual facts. The need to guard against such confirmation basis is especially important in areas where much is still poorly know and some unknown as we see in climate science, this issue being at the root of way that the models have failed in application, hence the need for the 'hidden heat ' . Their presumptions where wrong because they were built on 'quick sand ' not a solid foundation.
I can't help wondering if both you and Matt Ridley are barking up the wrong tree, or at least not the best one.
Now that the dangers of global warming are more or less accepted by decision makers, what's now important is that policies chosen to reduce global emissions are not only as economically painless as possible – especially to the poor – but also successful.
But I see little or no discussion on the merits of the different economic instruments in this regard, which are:
– Command and Control – Government regulation
– Government Subsidies
– Cap and Trade – letting the market put a price on carbon, given an emissions limit
– Carbon Tax – setting a direct price on carbon, usually redistributing the revenue back to citizens.
Perhaps the worst problem with global warming is the incentive for nations to free-ride when others like Britain reduce our emissions. Why should we go through all that pain of burning less, if it leaves a glut of cheaper fuel for others to buy and burn?
And so you'd think the question of international coordination might feature prominently when choosing the best economic instrument to reduce emissions globally, wouldn't you?. No it doesn't apparently.
Whenever the word "tax" is mentioned, it seems to cause an allergic reaction in politicians, and so cap-and-trade has, to date, been the main instrument of choice.
Fortunately, a global NGO based in Washington DC, Citizens Climate Lobby, has done its homework and is advocating a simple, honest carbon pricing policy called "Fee & Dividend". This is essentially a progressive carbon tax which as such, would put a growing downward pressure on emissions throughout the entire economy. The free-riding problem is partially solved by domestic energy intensive industries being protected by the levying of "border adjustments" on trading partners not collecting a similar carbon tax.
But the genius of this policy is that all trading nations would be incentivised to impose a similar carbon price domestically: Their choice would be to either raise their own carbon tax or pay the US government border duties – a no brainer in many cases.
The "Dividend" part of the policy means 100% of the carbon fee revenue is rebated in equal measure back to legal citizens (half for children). This makes it a progressive policy, given that most low income groups spend less on energy (in absolute terms) than everyone else. So the poor would actually be better off.
It is quite close to being accepted in both US houses – 30 more Congressmen and 5 more Senators needed.
On the other hand the EU Cap-and-trade scheme is regressive, in that the only way they could get the big emitters to sign up to it was to give them lots of free permits to pollute – tantamount to printing money and giving it to rich people.
However, what's worse about cap-and-trade schemes is they are horrendously complicated (i.e. impractical) to harmonise internationally.
So even though cap-and-trade puts a price on carbon, it is unlikely to solve the problem globally, not that many environmentalists have paid much attention to that.
Instead they, perhaps unwittingly, tend to favour the least efficient instruments – government regulation and renewable subsidies.
When Chairman Mao observed that one of the things the "successful West" did was make steel, he brought tragedy on his country by insisting that China put all its energy into doing the same – just making steel. Famine ensued and millions died.
Now I fear that our over-simplified approach of dictating shopping lists of green products, in the absence of any debate about the economics, could result in climate change spiralling out of control, bringing even worse tragedy down the line – on billions.↓
Thanks Mark.
BTW perhaps I should have been clearer by saying: What's now important is that policies … painless as possible – especially to the poor – but also successful **at reducing emissions**.
Right now there appear to be many intelligent people arguing amongst themselves, whilst the fossil fuel corporatocracy continues to invest in more emissions producing plant. Once Fee & Dividend becomes a real prospect I suspect thet will try to discredit it even more vigorously than they have done so for climate change, because they know that if it becomes legislation their number will be up.
So I guess I'm urging everyone here to give up your small(ish) battles and prepare for the big one – justifying a fully redistributed carbon tax vs half baked and wasteful schemes like Europe's cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Scheme, or worse – huge "green" subsidies, like coal gasification!
"And so you'd think the question of international coordination might feature prominently when choosing the best economic instrument to reduce emissions globally, wouldn't you?"
Maybe – but the problem is that international coordination has totally failed. And it's failed because the developing economies – responsible for nearly 70% of GHGs and with no interest in being coordinated – are giving economic development and the eradication of poverty priority over emission reduction. In the light of the Ridley/Lynas debate, it's significant that these countries have opted for a policy of burning fossil fuels as their primary method of eliminating poverty. And they can hardly be described as 'the fossil fuel corporatocracy'. Nor are they likely to be interested in a carbon tax. (Note that China's harsh and successful response to the EU's attempt to impose a carbon tax on flights to and from non-EU destinations indicates that attempts to impose border duties are likely to do more harm than good.)
As you say, many intelligent people in the West are arguing amongst themselves. But, in the meantime in the real world, emissions are – for the above reason – increasing and are likely to continue to do so.
I probably shouldn't have said "corporatocracy" because it implies something negative and I don't have a problem with business or profits. Indeed if anything will save the planet I believe it will be the market economy.
What I do have a problem with is the way some wealthy firms skew the political decision making process, to the point that some senior politicians now apparently know science better than the National Academy, The Royal Society and all the world's meteorological offices, etc.
And yes, nobody wants to be "coordinated" but I think you are being rather opportunistic in that case, so let's say "incentivised".
I agree it's significant that the developing world chooses fossil fuels to grow their economies, etc., and who can blame them? So is pretty much everybody else in reality, given the paucity of effective economic plans in operation.
Regarding China's harsh response to the EU carbon tax on flights, if the dangers of climate change are to be taken seriously, then that is not a reason to give up. It may be that the EU is just too weak or handled it badly.
In another example, the US only *began considering* adopting a cap-and-trade scheme in which border adjustments would have been imposed on China, and China immediately began piloting their own cap-and-trade schemes. (Not that such border adjustments wouldn't have been horrendously complicated to administer with all the offsets, free permits and volatile prices. They would be much better off with simple, direct carbon pricing in that regard.)
By professing belief in "the market" saving the Earth, I take it you have not read Adam Smith's take on destruction of the commons, especially deforestation.
If that impression is mistaken, do you have a response to his analysis?
A focus on my time in fields, etc., seems a deliberate distraction from clear and reliable analysis, which is my primary goal.
It would be false to believe I associate "all GMO tech" with large corporations.
First: Do No Harm.
The idea that an action "could" benefit anyone or everyone is only at issue if downside risk is clear. This is why we developed rigorous drug trials. It seems reasonable to expect the strongest push to prevent such testing would come from those with the deepest pockets and most to gain from sales of the drug in question.↓
There is a non-paywalled version of Ridley's article at his blog
I suggest people read it to see whether he made any "mistakes" or indulged in any "climate change denial".↓
The fact that Mark Lynas provided the same link in his own article makes your challenge somewhat redundant. I wonder whether you bothered to read Mark Lynas's article or just had a quick look at the general subject matter before making your comment. Having read both, it's clear to me that Ridley is talking nonsense.
In the United States, beginning in the1940s, large volumes of DDT were sprayed outdoors to kill mosquitoes and pests on crops. As early as the 1940s, scientists in the U.S. had begun expressing concern over possible hazards associated with DDT, and in the 1950s the government began tightening some of the regulations governing its use. However, it was only banned in 1972, after it built up in food chains, nearly wiping out bald eagles, pelicans and other birds.
The EPA then held seven months of hearings in 1971–1972, with scientists giving evidence both for and against the use of DDT. The hearings produced a 113-page decision, in which Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeney wrote: "DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for essential uses of DDT."
In 2001, more than 100 countries signed the Stockholm Convention, a United Nations treaty which sought to eliminate use of 12 persistent, toxic compounds, including DDT. Under the pact, use of the pesticide is allowed only for controlling malaria.
Use of DDT to fight malaria has been increasing since it was endorsed in 2006 by the World Health Organization and the President's Malaria Initiative, a U.S. aid program launched by former President Bush. In 2007, at least 3,950 tons of DDT was sprayed for mosquito control in Africa and Asia, according to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme. That volume is slowly increasing.
If DDT is so dangerous why is its use being promoted when there are viable alternatives?
Use of synthetic insecticides to control vector mosquitoes has caused physiological resistance and adverse environmental effects in addition to high operational cost. Insecticides of botanical origin have been reported as useful for control of mosquitoes. Azadirachta indica (Meliaceae) and its derived products have shown a variety of insecticidal properties.
Today's use of DDT differs greatly. In Africa, it is sprayed in much smaller quantities but people are directly exposed, often to a greater extent, because it is sprayed on walls inside homes and other buildings.
In 2009, environmental scientists from the US and South Africa said, "Based on recent studies, we conclude that humans are exposed to DDT and DDE, that indoor residual spraying can result in substantial exposure and that DDT may pose a risk for human populations," the scientists wrote in their consensus statement, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
The research and consequential evidence about the effects of DDT on humans is amazingly thin. The problem of persistence seems to be the main concern. However, how much of the outright ban, initially in the US in 1972, of DDT and the supposed scientific consensus that followed, was political rather than real, remains very questionable. The then available alternatives were certainly as, or more, hazardous than DDT, the primary difference being greatly reduced persistence. The alternatives were also much more costly.
There are as many accusations about the effects of DDT as there are for GMO's. Scientific consensus does seem very fragile yet self perpetuating in some respects.↓
"If DDT is so dangerous why is its use being promoted when there are viable alternatives?" – See more at: http://www.marklynas.org/2014/11/matt-ridley-climate-denial/#sthash.OdsNP43H.dpuf
It's very simple. Firstly, it's used under highly controlled circumstances: it's only sprayed on the walls of dwellings where, as a persistent organochlorine insecticide, it kills female mosquitoes resting after their blood meals. Secondly, the risks from the insecticide have been weighed up against those of catching falciparum malaria.
Likewise for GMOs like Golden Rice. the risks from this crop are negligible compared to the consequences of not using it. This argument I have been belabouring for so long now I am beginning to wonder whether I should try it out on somebody less incorrigibly stupid.
Clyde, in most of the circumstances you describe, the mosquitoes are already resistant to DDT. What I was trying to highlight in my comment was not whether or not DDT is or is not effective but that there is a scientific consensus that DDT is hazardous to human health.
The example of DDT demonstrates the misleading and variable nature of a supposed "scientific consensus" over an extended period of 60 plus years – controls on the use of DDT being initiated in the early 1950's. DDT was banned in 1972 without any real understanding of the hazards real or imagined of DDT for probably political reasons.
There are 152 signatories to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, It is an international environmental treaty, signed in 2001 and effective from May 2004, that aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) of which DDT is one. Although some critics have alleged that the treaty is responsible for the continuing death toll from malaria, in reality the treaty specifically permits the public health use of DDT for the control of mosquitoes (the malaria vector). That is despite all the evidence that the malaria vector is mostly resistant to DDT.
From a developing country perspective, a lack of data and information about the sources, releases, and environmental levels of POPs hampers negotiations on specific compounds, and indicates a strong need for research. That is made worse because there is little or no international funding for alternatives to DDT, such as Neem, that are effective.
People die, not as a consequence failing to spray or treat but as a result of the availability of funding only for the use of specific and mostly ineffective sprays that are hazardous to human health. To cite one Indian research paper: "Use of synthetic insecticides to control vector mosquitoes has caused physiological resistance and adverse environmental effects in addition to high operational cost."
From personal experience in Africa, I can confirm that people are exposed to DDT and DDE through indoor residual spraying that does result in substantial exposure that is largely ineffective against mosquitoes. Despite these known hazards, there are few or no localised risk assessments but there are conditional financial incentive requirements to verify spraying.
Mark, please drop the "denialism" epithet- it is quite unnecessary and detracts from any valid arguments you may have. If you have disagreements, you should be able to make your points without having to resort to invective labeling. I see Matt is planning a response so I will wait for that, but just to point out that the point about biofuels is that they are largely a result of, and justified by, concern over climate change and the push to find alternatives for fossil fuels, even if there are no valid alternatives currently available – I think you could concede Matt is at least half right here, whatever about the position (now) of Green groups. I also think he is largely correct that most Greens have no regard for the negative impacts on the poor wrt climate policies, any more than they do regarding GMOs.↓
> emissions are currently tracking slightly above
Is there any estimate what part of current fossil fuel emissions reflect investment in sustainable future paths, vs. investment in even more fossil fuel use?
I know big energy companies, e.g.
are investing in solar and biomass generation, for example. That's still central generation and grid distribution (I don't see them investing in distributed solar and storage, but could be).
I realize much of the big company delay is to give them time to move their investments away from stranded assets, no doubt hoping to sell them off to pension plans and suckers before their value crashes, but that's aside …
Likewise I know companies from Cree to Tesla are building more factories to build more efficient hardware.
But is this trivial compared to investment in, oh, Arctic petroleum and gas drilling and more pipelines and refineries, where the investment is further down the path toward the precipice?↓
A year ago, Typhoon Haiyan, known in the Philippines as Typhoon Yolanda, made landfall in East Samar, Philippines. Typhoon Yolanda was one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded. A year ago tomorrow, it hit the coastal strip around Tacloban, Philippines. The official death toll is now over 6,000 and over 4 million people were displaced. Nearly 500,000 homes were totally destroyed.
A number of political leaders and climatologists have connected the typhoon to the effects of climate change.
Ask any of those survivors of that typhoon, whether or not Mark Lynas or Matt Ridley is right or wrong and the likely response would be "who are they?"
The reality is that poorest in many parts of the tropics are already suffering the consequences of climate change. It is the richest billion people that use 1/2 of all fossil fuels whereas the poorest 4 billion only use negligible amounts.
Getting lost in arguments about which set of figures is right or wrong is often used as an argument for avoiding any liability for what are very real catastrophes, here and now. Those catastrophes may well be the consequence of the wanton irresponsibility of the wealthiest energy consuming nations. Alongside that, those same wealthy States are increasingly allocating blame for being poor, on the poor, by vilifying poverty.
The total aid pledged in cash and kind from around the world as a result of typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda was over US $1.6 billion. Of that US $1.6 billion and one year on, the Philippines has only received less than 24% of what was promised.↓
Mark says "The consensus that matters is the scientific one, not the Green one, the right-wing one or any other ideological one." He points to a document showing statements made by scientific academies. Unfortunately for Mark, that is not the scientific consensus.
The scientific consensus is that
—The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.
16 – No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies. —
Mark's objection is that Matt denies "the gravity of global warming". He continues,
—"[MR] does this by rejecting the seven-year-long effort of the IPCC to come up with a consensus position on future global warming estimates, and instead cherry-picking a couple of studies that seem to support lower warming projections to bolster his pre-determined position."—
But Matt's argument is not outside of the consensus position:
— "if you use the latest and best estimates of the climate's "sensitivity" to carbon dioxide (somewhat lower than the out-of-date ones still used by the IPCC), the most probable outcome is that world will be respectively just 0.8 and 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than today by the last two decades of this century.–
Mark then does away with ECS. "ECS is a fairly academic value anyway", he says, and points instead to TCR. "If you read off the graph, RCP 4.5 gives us about 2.4C global warming by 2100 (not 0.8C as Ridley maintains)".
But in fact, the graph shows that TCR may be as little as Matt says – around just over 1 degree. Mark incorrectly reads Matt as saying 0.8 degree rise over the baseline, rather than a 0.8 degree rise over today's temperature. After all, having no best estimate for ECS means having no best estimate for TCS.
What I think is going on here is that Mark is tying himself up in knots trying to defend the binary notion of consensus and extra-consensus arguments, to avoid admitting any nuance to the consensus position and its consequences. But in the end, this causes him to depart from the scientific consensus.↓
For the umpteenth time. Since when was science decided by a majority vote? I'll use the word with great reluctance – consensus.
Martin Reed,
The irony of your post is, I hope, not lost on you? 🙂
Unfortunately you place your beliefs above reason which of course is the path all zealots take.
Fact: Global warming has ceased for eighteen years despite increasing amounts of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Fact: Antarctica sea ice is at a thirty year high.
Fact: Artic sea ice has recovered and it is no less than in 1922 or 1817
Fact: The oceans are alkaline and are not getting more acidic
Fact: Consensus in science is used by those who wish to suppress debate.
Fact: Hurrican intensity is not increasing.
Fact: Climate related disasters are at an all time low.
Fact: The Climategate emails are a reality.
You really are in denial Mr Lynas but at least I am polite emough not to call you a denier.
Have a good weekend.↓
Fact: Global Warming is the entire globe, including the oceans, the oceans have warmed enough in the last 10 years that if that heat went into the atmosphere it would be 35 degrees Fahrenheit warmer all over the world 24/7.
Fact: WINTER Antarctic sea ice coverage is higher, due to winds pushing the layers further outward and cooling coming from CONTINUED ice loss from the land-based ice. SUMMER Antarctic sea ice continues to decline.
Fact: the oceans are getting more acidic, this means that the PH value is moving LOWER. (moving toward the acid region).
Fact: Consensus in science is a way to ensure that no extreme position is taken and the best information is derived from multiple sources. In this way, consensus in science always leads to incremental change, even if the newer evidence shows faster rates than previous ones.
Fact: Hurricane intensity is dependent on sea surface temperatures, sea surface temperatures are increasing and so are the intensity of hurricanes that form near them. However, climate predictions state that other factors (like wind shear) will lead to reduced NUMBERS of hurricanes in many locations.
Fact: climate related droughts are at an all time high and leading to critical groundwater depletion in agricultural areas. The cost of weather related disasters continue to increase well beyond economic growth on a decadal scale. The U.S. Pentagon has instructed all military branches to include climate change assessments in their analysis of CURRENT national security threats.
Fact: climategate emails (the ones that you have seen) are cut and paste mischaracterizations specifically promoted by PR agencies, paid by the oil and coal industries in vicious propaganda. Multiple later investigations showed no wrongdoing and the Michael Mann hockey stick graph has been verified by multiple sources using over 11 different methods and sources to determine paleoclimate records including but not limited to lake bed samples, sea floor samples, ice core samples, tree ring analysis, coral reef samples, speleotherm samples as well as many many others.
Fact: Stacey, you ARE a denier, and your abject denial, in the face of your lingering ignorance and pathetic confirmation bias is helping to lead your own children to an early death (along with over 1 billion human beings in the next 50 years) if we do not dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
you should be horribly ashamed of yourself.
You make a lot of claims as FACT but back none of them up with source links.
But just to play devil's advocate let's look at your first one: "Fact: Global Warming is the entire globe, including the oceans, the oceans have warmed enough in the last 10 years that if that heat went into the atmosphere it would be 35 degrees Fahrenheit warmer all over the world 24/7."
According to Ncar/Ucar (https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/what-average-global-temperature-now) the average temp of the planet was around 57.2 from 1961-1990. In 2013 it was 1.12F higher. 10 years ago would be about 2005, about 2/3 of the way between the two so lets take 66% of that anomaly and say that in 2005 the average global temp was .74F higher. That'll be close enough for the point I want to make. So 57.2 + .74 = 57.94 F is the approx starting temp in 2005 and 35 deg F higher would be 92.94 F.
Converting to celcius then we're looking at an equivalent increase of from 14.41C to 33.85 or 19.44 deg C.
So your effective claim is that enough heat has entered the ocean in the last 10 years to raise atmospheric temp by over 19 Deg C, had the heat landed there instead.
The most dire model projections have the atmosphere warming by 6 deg or so by 2100, 85 years from now, which averages out to about 0.7 deg C per decade.
According to your claim, then, heat is accumulating at 27 times the rate projected by the most extreme model.
Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, or your source (whatever it is) is wrong, but I do suspect as much.
What's even more interesting, though, is if you're right.
In that case, this is one of the strongest cases I've seen to (1) throw out the models, (2) bolster the skeptical viewpoint and (3) do nothing about curbing CO2.
For if the planet is warming 27 times faster than the most dire models project then it has to be natural and there is no amount of CO2 reduction that will make enough of a difference to justify the sacrifice.
I think you misunderstand what Jai is trying to say. If you look up how much energy has gone into the oceans in the last decade (Google – Ocean Heat Content) you'll discover that it is around 10^23 Joules. The mass of the atmosphere is around 5 x 10^18kg and has a specific heat capacity of 1000 J/kg/K (therefore 5 x10^21 J would increase the atmospheric temperature by 1 degree C). Therefore if all the energy that went into the oceans had warmed the atmosphere instead, the atmospheric temperature would have gone up by many degrees (you can do the calculation yourself if you wish).
This isn't an indication that the models have failed because the models all include that the oceans absorb a significant fraction of the excess energy. By excess energy I mean the difference between the amount that comes in and the amount that goes out. That the Ocean Heat Content has been increasing, tells us that global warming is happening. Additionally, that the oceans absorb such a big fraction of the excess energy (about 93%) small changes in this can have a big effect on how the surface and atmosphere warms.
If anything, this is an argument as to why we should be cautious about claiming that the models have failed simply because the last decade has warmed slower than we were expecting. It could simply be a consequence of internal variability that has meant more energy going into the oceans and less heating the land and atmosphere. Of course, if it were to continue for many more years, then it might indicate a significant mismatch. If, however, we continue to increase our emission of GHGs, I wouldn't bank on that. An ever increasing energy imbalance that didn't lead to increased surface warming would be physically implausible.
Thanks for the civil clarification.
I assume ocean heat content is determined from the Argo units. Yet these have only provided reasonable coverage for a bit over ten years. Prior to that there were instruments measuring ocean tempurate and other stats but they were very sparce in comparison to Argo, correct?
If so, would it be unreasonable to conclude that, with nothing to compare it to, we don't know whether the increased heat content over the last ten years is typical or atypical? And if it's atypical, is it the result of increased CO2, or natural, due to any of the numerous known ocean cycles or even increased underwater volcanic activity.
And if this is not an unreasonable conclusion, then while that fact may be interesting and sound scary, it is not evidence of AGW.
And yet thats exactly what is happening…emissions maybe increasing BUT temperatures are not. There is certainly no concrete evidence that the supposed heat is disappearing in to the deep ocean either AND that is a travesty, to quote one of your friends in context 🙂
The simple fact is none of the claims made by any consensus scientist have come true or will come true (given their track record of failure) and continuing down our current path of economic destruction will only cause more problems than it will ever solve.
The sooner labour, the conservatives and their retarded child the lib dems are voted out next year the sooner we can return to a sane energy policy where production, security and cost reduction are prioritised over ground unicorn horn and fairies.
What do you mean "temperatures are not increasing"? Yes, they are. Sure, you could choose a very short time interval or select one dataset and ignore all the others, but the evidence suggests that temperatures are rising. Disputing this is nonsensical. Additionally – as I pointed out above – the Ocean Heat Content is increasing. That is fundamentally what AGW is all about – the role of GHGs in trapping outgoing long-wavelength radiation and producing an energy imbalance (more energy coming in than going out).
Maybe you want policy to be decided by those who are scientifically illiterate. Me, I'd rather that those who decided our policy did so based on actual scientific evidence rather than from the mis-information coming from sites like Bishop-Hill and the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Of course, it is a democracy and so everyone has a right to promote their own view of how we should proceed, so if your view is based on cherry-picks and ignorance, that's fine. Don't expect everyone else to agree though.
Perhaps someone should come up with a model that predicts how long Heartland-style funded deniers will continue to argue against the overwhelming evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change vs parameters such as fossil fuel profits, predicted loss of income, etc. My guess is that these people will keep going, including claiming unfair treatment such as "bullying by scientists" along with occasional death threats *to* scientists, essentially as long as there's a buck to be made from burning fossil fuel. i.e. essentially forever.
Unfortunately they know that by keeping the phoney public debate on climate science going, they starve the airtime of the much needed economic debate. We've seen them argue against the hockey stick, against the link with CO2, for a link with solar activity etc. Now it's the 18 year hiatus. (But the temperature peaked in 1998, so shouldn't that be 16 years?) And now that Argo-floats have measured most new heat uptake going into the oceans their new port of call may be moving onto doubt about climate sensitivity.
But even oil companies such as Exxon now recognise the reality of global warming and are sensibly recommending a carbon price floor as the best way to reduce emissions.
I argued above for careful selection of economic instruments to most efficiently reduce CO2 emissions. But I'm reminded of a theory once put to me by a veteran of the corporate world. He suggested the airtime given for discussions is proportional to the amount of knowledge people have. His anecdote was a 1 hour meeting they had around 30 years ago where two decisions were taken – whether or not to: 1. Spend £1 million on a new mainframe computer, 2. renew the contract with the company that cut the grass outside the office. One of the decisions took 55mins, the other around 5mins. Guess which way round they were?
Economists don't seem to agree as closely as climate scientists, but as regards emissions reduction, apart from the obvious reduction of subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and for deforestation they are generally more in favour of taxing carbon (and redistributing the revenue directly back to people) than for subsidising green energy.
Fossil fuels are so pervasive throughout modern economies that simply bolting on renewables is unlikely to save us. What's needed is more of a filtration process (if you will), in which money keeps cycling round the economy, gradually eroding GHG emissions activity as it goes, by putting a rising price on such activity. Each time it cycles round, spare money is available for the purchase of low carbon energy, which naturally attracts appropriate private investment.
Such a scheme has been significantly reducing emissions in British Columbia, Canada for around 6 years – and the British Columbians are generally in favour of it!
It seems too many people today, in the absence of any visible solution, prefer not to even think about climate change creeping up on us. So I urge those of you with the presence of mind, and time and inclination, to start learning a little about the economics, so you can talk about it. Two very good reads I recommend are: The Carbon Crunch by Prof Dieter Helm and The Case For A Carbon Tax by Prof Shi-Ling Hsu.
" the value of consensus science"
There is no such thing as consensus science, only science. Science is stuff you have evidential proof of, not what everyone agrees on in its absence.
I'm reminded of a few lines of R.L.Stevensons "Kidnapped",
""O!" says I, "I ken ye bear a king's name. But you are to remember, since I have been in the Highlands, I have seen a good many of those that bear it; and the best I can say of them is this, that they would be none the worse of washing.""
And, in this case, for those in support of consensus science, "they would be none the worse for an education"↓
Regarding biofuels, you are letting the environmental NGOs off the hook too easily. See for instans the 2012 Greenpeace energy revolution report. On page 40, in the section praising Germany's nuclear exit, there is not a single bad word about the fact that 30% of the 'renewable' electricity generation is from biomass (most of it energy crops) and 100% of the renewable non-electricity generation is also from biomass. Not a single word about Germany's coal problem either.
The section also contains a picture of the biomass village Juehnde http://fes-baltic.lv/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Jhnde.pdf, where 20% of the farmland (250 ha) and 10% of the woodland (80ha) used for the electricity and heating needs of 800 inhabitants.
Also, according to table 12.9, they want biomass in electricity generation to grow from 284TWh in 210 to 2690 TWh in 2050. So their renewable energy fantasies still have a very large biomass component.↓
@John Mitchell (KiKK study) The main problem with that study still is that its results are physically completely implausible, because the radiation doses are by a factor of 1000 to small to explain the observed effect. If the study showed a genuine radiation effect, we would observe a 1000 fold increase in leukemia in high natural background regions or around chernobyl, or for children who received high medical radiation doses. None of this is observed.
See the opinion of the expert comission that evaluated the study here:
Before asserting that the experts were all bribed by the all powerful nuclear industry, consider how much the coal and gas industries have to gain from discrediting nuclear power. And those industries have a lot more money and political influence and ruthlessness.↓
Not to mention difficulties replicating it: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/press-release/2013-09-13-nuclear-power-plants-do-not-raise-risk-of-leukaemia-in-children
"Now do you understand?"
I can recognize an appeal to authority when I see one, and I am no more interested in the length of your institutional line-up than the number of signatures on the Oregon Petition- please leave the P-R moves to Matt's cohort, lest we recall the artistic license of your own cover designer.↓
Mark, your positions are well reasoned, but rest on 2 pillars that lack the strength needed to justify the certainty of your conclusions.
1) Peer review: University publishing requirements, government funding and human nature have all converged to greatly diminish the objectivity of peer review in many branches of science. This is discussed with numerous examples in this piece by Jonah Lehrer in The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off (archived here http://www.webcitation.org/6SgCvSc3w). While the piece never mentions climate science, one would need to be delusional to believe climate science is not subject to the same forces.
2). The IPCC: You seem to consider them a neutral body of objective scientists that objectively review the literature. Donna Laframboise and many others have documented innumerable examples of the IPCC's failure to be neutral and objective, to cherry-pick Lead Authors, to be influenced by NGO Green Activists, not to mention being led Pachauri, who himself is a green activist. If this is all news to you I suggest you do some due-diligence. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/ is a good place to start. If Donna claims it, it is backed up with source material references. Or you can google "IPCC Criticisms" or the like. If this isn't news to you then how do you reconcile the obvious agenda of the IPCC with anything resembling the true state of climate science.
It doesn't take belief in a conspiracy to be a climate skeptic. All that is required is to be aware that the two pillars on which many alarmists rest their conclusions, more closely resemble pillars of salt than pillars of concrete.↓
"Whoops! I don't know any green groups, however aggressively they may promote carbon cuts, that still promote subsidies for biofuels that might compete with food production on land."
But the current programs were touted by green groups. Ending a government subsidy is simply very difficult once it has been established. The green groups have simply moved on to other government subsidies that have their own unintended consequences.↓
I am always surprized when scientists resort to ad hominem attacks amongst themselves. A most unscientific article.↓


text:
From testosterone news to featherweight controversy to big questions for the UFC's biggest fighters, there's so much to get to in this edition of the Twitter Mailbag, I feel guilty wasting your time with the usual preamble.
I'm on Twitter. You know where to find me (@BenFowlkesMMA).
Now let's dispense with the formalities and get busy.
* * * *
@benfowlkesmma hey ben, how can it make sense that Belfort who has been popped 4 roids is given an excemption for TRT? #whatsupwiththat
— Daniel Barrett (@Daniel_levi) February 6, 2013
When screening therapeutic-use-exemption applicants, most state athletic commissions ask if they've ever tested positive for any banned substances. Nevada includes that question as part of its criteria, but, according to NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer, answering yes does not necessarily disqualify an applicant. As Kizer told me via email this week, "The burden on the applicant would be even higher," but that application could possibly still be approved.
This is where we get into a major problem with the whole testosterone-replacement therapy issue. Vitor Belfort is a great example. We know he's tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in the past. We also know that abusing certain performance-enhancing drugs can damage a person's endocrine system. So even if we accept Belfort's claim that now, as a 35-year-old man, he does suffer from abnormally low testosterone levels, how do we know he didn't do it to himself? And if he did do it to himself, why should we give him permission to inject testosterone now to erase the consequences of his own decisions? How is that fair to other fighters who have never used PEDs?
That's a question that's not being adequately addressed right now. When we're talking about whether to allow professional fighters to inject themselves with steroids – and please, before you try to argue that synthetic testosterone isn't a steroid, go look at the World Anti-Doping Agency's list of prohibited substances, right there under part B of "Anabolic Androgenic Steroids" – the cause has to matter. We all saw Belfort when he was in his early 20s. No way that was a guy who suffered from naturally occurring hypogonadism. It would take a damn miracle for a man with abnormally low testosterone to get that big and strong, not to mention compete at that level as a professional athlete. So if we accept that he didn't have the condition then, but does have it now, what caused it? Age? His lifestyle? Past drug use? Years of weight-cutting and hard training and sustaining blows to the head? I don't see why any of those potential causes should be reason enough to allow him to fight other men for a living while under the influence of synthetic testosterone.
Getting too old to compete clean? Retire. Taken too many hits to the head? Retire yesterday, and go see a doctor. Messed up your own hormone production with drug use? Either make do with what you got, or else retire and go give talks to high school athletes about why they shouldn't do what you did. All of those seem like better options for our sport and its fighters than sanctioned performance-enhancing drug use.
@benfowlkesmma is this a situation where Bisping should do trt in order to beat all the other guys on it?
— MikeMcLeod (@MikeMcLeod1825) February 6, 2013
Thank you, Mike, for bringing up the other problem with TRT use in MMA. Just as Belfort is a great example of the issues with users, Michael Bisping is an example of the issues for non-users. If we look back at Bisping's UFC career, we see three losses in three middleweight contender fights. The first was to Dan Henderson, the second was to Chael Sonnen, and the third was to Belfort. What do they all have in common? TRT, of course.
Say you're Bisping right now. Say you've never used performance-enhancing drugs in your life, whether with permission or without. You've followed all the rules, competed clean your whole career, and yet you keep getting knocked back (and sometimes out) by opponents who have been granted permission to increase their levels of an androgenic steroid hormone. How are you supposed to feel right now? How are you not supposed to feel like you should get on this stuff too, even if you don't want to? That's one of the really pernicious aspects of performance-enhancing drug use (and if TRT wasn't performance-enhancing, do you think guys like Belfort would be willing to take such a public thrashing in order to use it?) – it encourages non-users to become users, if only to level the playing field. It makes people who would rather compete clean feel like they can't.
That's just depressing. It's also dangerous, both for the guy who's getting his brain rattled by the TRT user, and for the guy who is getting on TRT and shutting down his natural hormone production just to keep up with the Belforts. These are all reasons not to allow this madness in our sport, and they are far more compelling than any of the reasons to let it continue.
@benfowlkesmma now that we have Pettis vs Aldo, is Lamas vs Korean Zombie pretty much a lock for #1 contender?
— Nate (@BurgersMMA) February 6, 2013
Seems like a great idea to me. Both Ricardo Lamas and Chan Sung Jung have looked impressive lately, but I don't know that either has made an unshakeable case for a title shot yet. You throw them in the cage together and you get a) probably a really great fight, and b) a contender who can't be ignored. The UFC's featherweight division could use that right about now.
@benfowlkesmma Problems with the UFC HoF aside, if Frankie Edgar never wears another belt again is he a HoFer in your book? #tmb
— Matt Pack (@mattpack) February 5, 2013
That's tough, because I'm not sure what defines a hall of famer in MMA. This is a sport that currently has no real hall of fame and thus no real criteria for who gets in. As my podcast co-host Chad Dundas likes to say, it depends on what kind of hall of fame we want to have. Do we want an elite club for only the all-time greats, or do we want to fling open the doors to every tough fighter and generally awesome dude who entertained us in the cage?
Edgar defeated B.J. Penn twice and Gray Maynard once. He successfully defended the UFC lightweight title twice over a period of about a year and a half. As it stands right now, those are his greatest accomplishments as a fighter. Is that a hall of fame resume? Maybe. It's definitely really, really good. It just depends on whether we want to allow the really, really good into our purely hypothetical hall, or if it's only for the greats.
@benfowlkesmma Would the UFC ever let a fighter hold two belts in two weight classes? #TMB
— Dale (@daleantonius) February 6, 2013
Look how much trouble it is to line up regular title defenses when there's one champ (occasionally two) for every weight class. If, say, Anderson Silva had to defend belts in two divisions, it would really slow things down. If it ever came to that, my guess is the UFC would let the champ keep whichever title he wanted to stick around and defend, and offer the other up as a vacant belt to be fought over by the top contenders. If there was ever a situation that called for a grand prix-style tournament, that would be it.
@benfowlkesmma If Pride Never Die, and WEC Never Forget, what does Strikeforce Never Do?
— Pat Samson (@samsonmma) February 6, 2013
@benfowlkesmma Is it a possibility we'll be watching the Reem vs Dos Santos sooner than previously expected? Who's next for Bigfoot? #TMB
— Joe(@mach616) February 6, 2013
Why not? Junior dos Santos seemed like he wanted to fight Alistair Overeem as much for personal as professional reasons back when he was the heavyweight champ. Now that JDS and "The Reem" are both coming off losses, it makes sense to match them up together and let them figure this thing out for themselves. The winner of that fight is immediately back in the title picture Plus who doesn't love a good heavyweight grudge match? As for Antonio "Bigfoot" Silva, the time has come to stop putting him in fights where the goal is to make the other guy look good. Give him a top contender, and then give the man a title shot if he wins. It's just a shame the UFC hasn't been able to come to terms with Josh Barnett – because he'd be perfect for this job.
@benfowlkesmma Are we so affixed on Reem that, with 1 big win (over Cigano?), all is forgotten/forgiven? Fans have short term memory… #tmb
— Baltasar Shepard (@BaltasarShepard) February 6, 2013
Here's the problem for Overeem right now: He failed a drug test, returned to action with a physique that looked noticeably less superhuman after nearly a year under the athletic commission microscope, and then lost. Immediately that makes people wonder if his success was a direct result of performance-enhancing drugs. Now if he shows up for a fight with dos Santos or anyone else looking like an action figure again, and he wins, what are we supposed to think? Weirdly, the best thing for his reputation right now might be to show up at his next weigh-in looking fat and soft and totally out of shape, then win anyway. That might actually prove something.
Overeem said he doesn't care about changing anyone's minds when it comes to PED suspicions, but that was before Silva knocked him out. I don't know if he can afford that luxury now. He needs to prove that he can fight clean and win clean, because at the moment he's going to be considered guilty until proven innocent by a lot of fans and media.
@benfowlkesmma say Anthony Pettis does the unthinkable and dethrones Jose Aldo, then who would challenge Henderson/Gil winner?
— Terence Parton (@ELcujorino) February 6, 2013
A win for Pettis over Aldo is far from unthinkable, if you ask me. With his size and power, I could definitely see him beating Aldo, assuming the weight cut doesn't take too much out of him. If he does win, the move down to featherweight is a pretty savvy financial move for Pettis because it sets up a potential (real) superfight with the UFC lightweight champ. Especially if Benson Henderson retains his title against Gilbert Melendez, and I suspect he will, the Henderson-Pettis throwdown becomes a fight that sells itself, and one in which both fighters would make some serious coin.
@benfowlkesmma Do you think Greg Jackson will be punished by the UFC in some way for being on Fight Master?
— Darcy LeDrew(@DarcyLeDrew) February 6, 2013
How would the UFC punish a trainer who doesn't work for the company in any capacity? It's not like fighters are seeking him out because he comes so highly recommended by Dana White as it is. If I were a fighter in the Jackson-Winkeljohn camp right now, I'd be less concerned about repercussions from UFC management than with the possibility that this new reality TV role will spread Jackson too thin. He already trains half the fighters in MMA (not really, but it feels like it sometimes). He's out of town seemingly every weekend offering his disturbingly calm advice in some fighter's corner. This is one more thing to add to an already frantic schedule. I know his gym is far from the one-man operation we sometimes make it out to be, but even Jackson can only do so much for so many.
@benfowlkesmma What do u think of "everyone" hoping for Carmouche to lose to Rousey? Is women MMA that weak at this point?
— Alex Kay (@KayOrder) February 6, 2013
Is everyone hoping for that? Or, as Amy Hempel might say, are you putting quotes around "everyone" the same way you would send traffic fines to the Hall of "Justice?" Liz Carmouche has a solid core of fans – the Lizbos, as she likes to call them – who are no doubt rooting for her to pull off the upset. And any time there's a huge favorite in an MMA fight, there will always be people who pull for the underdog just because.
In addition to all that, a Carmouche victory would be a true test of the UFC's commitment to women's MMA. If Carmouche knocks some of the shine off Ronda Rousey, will the UFC still be into this idea? Will it be anywhere near as eager to promote a women's title fight if there's no beautiful blond media magnet involved? I have my doubts, but it would be interesting to find out.
@benfowlkesmma Do you honestly think that MMA will be ever cleansed of PED's? #TMB
— Jukka Moilanen (@JukkaMoilanen) February 6, 2013
No way, but that's not a good reason to stop trying. Every sport is going to have cheaters. Even the Olympics, which does more on the drug testing front than virtually any major pro sport, will still have cheaters. The important thing is that we take every reasonable step to root them out and punish them, even if we acknowledge that it will always be a problem we have to deal with. Because what's the alternative? Just giving up? Declaring the problem too difficult to solve? We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We owe it to the fighters who are competing clean to do our best to make sure that we're not sending them into a fight with an unfair and dangerous disadvantage.
@benfowlkesmma #tmb question: How do you feel if a fighter takes exception to one of your articles or comments about them?Do you care?
— MMA Dude (@mmaduder) February 1, 2013
I can't say I don't care, because hey, I don't like making people unhappy. Who does? But my hope is that I don't care enough to do anything differently with my writing because of it. That's what I owe you, right? That's why you take the time to read my columns and my Twitter Mailbags, because you believe that I'm going to give you an honest take rather than one designed not to piss anybody off. I mean, I'm not sitting here trying to piss off people. I'm trying to write about this sport in a way that's honest and fair and entertaining and maybe even occasionally insightful, when I'm lucky. I can't do that if I'm worried that the person I'm writing about is going to get mad.
Like The Hold Steady said, you can't tell people what they want to hear if you also want to tell the truth. And if I'm telling the truth, giving my honest and unvarnished view on this weird world and everyone in it, sometimes other people won't like it. But if I'm not doing that, why should you waste your time reading it?
Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie.com and USA TODAY's MMA columnist. Follow him on Twitter at @BenFowlkesMMA. Twitter Mailbag appears every Thursday on MMAjunkie.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Houston Dynamo defender Kofi Sarkodie has been named to the United States roster for the 2012 CONCACAF Olympic Qualifying Tournament, U.S. Soccer announced today. The tournament begins on Thursday in Nashville, Tenn.
Sarkodie is currently participating in the U.S. U-23 training camp, which began in Nashville on March 13. The second-year defender has been a fixture of the U-23 men's national team since Caleb Porter took over as head coach last October. Sarkodie started and played 90 minutes in a 2-0 friendly win over Mexico on Feb. 29.
The defender was drafted by the Dynamo with the No. 7 overall pick in the 2011 MLS SuperDraft and appeared in seven matches for Houston in his rookie season.
The eight-team tournament will determine the region's two participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London. Eight nations have been divided into two groups of four, with group games set for March 22-27. The U.S. is in Group A along with Canada, Cuba and El Salvador. All Group A matches will be held at LP Field in Nashville. The top two teams from each group will meet in a semifinal knockout stage on March 31 before the winners meet in the April 2 final. The two finalists will advance to the 2012 Olympic Tournament.
Group A Schedule
|Kickoff (CT)
|March 22
|El Salvador vs. Canada
|5:30 p.m.
|LP Field -- Nashville, Tenn.
|March 22
|USA vs. Cuba
|8 p.m.
|LP Field -- Nashville, Tenn.
|March 24
|El Salvador vs. Cuba
|3:30 p.m
|LP Field -- Nashville, Tenn.
|March 24
|USA vs. Canada
|6 p.m.
|LP Field -- Nashville, Tenn.
|March 26
|Canada vs. Cuba
|5:30 p.m.
|LP Field -- Nashville, Tenn.
|March 26
|USA vs. El Salvador
|8 p.m.
|LP Field -- Nashville, Tenn.
U.S. U-23 MNT Roster By Position
GOALKEEPERS (2): Bill Hamid (D.C. United; Annandale, Va.), Sean Johnson (Chicago Fire; Lilburn, Ga.)
DEFENDERS (6): Perry Kitchen (D.C. United; Indianapolis, Ind.), Ike Opara (San Jose Earthquakes; Durham, N.C.), Kofi Sarkodie (Houston Dynamo; Huber Heights, Ohio), Zarek Valentin (Montreal Impact; Lancaster, Pa.), Jorge Villafaña (Chivas USA; Anaheim, Calif.), Sheanon Williams (Philadelphia Union; Boston, Mass.)
MIDFIELDERS (6): Freddy Adu (Philadelphia Union; Potomac, Md.), Joe Corona (Club Tijuana; Chula Vista, Calif.), Mix Diskerud (Gent; Oslo, Norway), Jared Jeffrey (Mainz; Richardson, Texas), Amobi Okugo (Philadelphia Union; Sacramento, Calif.), Michael Stephens (LA Galaxy; Naperville, Ill.)
FORWARDS (6): Juan Agudelo (New York Red Bulls; Barnegat, N.J.), Terrence Boyd (Borussia Dortmund; Berlin, Germany), Teal Bunbury (Sporting Kansas City; Prior Lake, Minn.), Joe Gyau (Hoffenheim: Silver Spring, Md.), Brek Shea (FC Dallas; Bryan, Texas), Tony Taylor (Estoril Praia, Jacksonville, Fla.)


text:
East inflatables Company is a leading worldwide manufacturer of Inflatable Game and other inflatables. We have Europe largest market of Inflatable Game and other inflatables. We comply with the European standard and come certified with the EN14960 safety norm. We have assisted thousands of Inflatable Game companies in the UK and abroad set up in business, take a look at the products and services we offer and you will see for yourself that we are second to none!
Inflatable Game For Sale> Bouncy Castle > Inflatable Slides > Inflatable Obstacle Course > Inflatable Games
Are you looking for the cheapest price of Inflatable Game for sale ? We are produce high quality commercial Inflatable Game to hire clients in UK, Ireland and Scotland who have buy Inflatable Game from us and they are very pleased with their purchases! From East Inflatables Manufacturer.
Copyright 2002-2020 East-Inflatables.co.uk Limited. All rights reserved.


text:
First, I am trying to enlarge the font on this blog. My eyes are having trouble with the tiny font it normally shows, so I am working on making it user friendly.
I fell in love with Got Milk: Margaret and Helen during the election. Helen, and somewhat Margaret too, but more Helen is an outspoken lady who 'tells it like it is.' She was asked, by the La Leche league, to do a blog on breast feeding. I'm not sure they have ever read her blog before, because I think they got more than they were bargaining for.
Helen's main point was: "Breastfeeding is fine by me. But putting it out there for everyone to see is like chewing with your mouth open. It's just not polite."
Having spent the day with mother yesterday, got me thinking about all the differences in generations. Mom complains about all the exposed parts of this generation.
She does not like girls midriff's showing. I guess she objects to belly buttons. But, her biggest complaint is breasts hanging out, and I'm not just talking about Janet Jackson's either. Cleavage isn't just cleavage anymore, it's designing a dress with band aids.
I'm not sure why anyone would really think that I want to see their thong either. I'm not talking about the shoe type here. One girl had her thong so high and her pants so low that she put plumbers everywhere to shame.
Dating myself, but when I went to school we were occasionally forced to kneel on a chair on our way into school to prove that our skirt was long enough. (The way around this was to leave home with your skirt worn normal, kneel on the chair, then go into the bathroom and roll up the waistband. We all had abnormally thick wastes but cute legs showing.) And, just think, we would not have seen Brittany's "all" if she had to kneel on a chair before she left the house.
Another side of this is that I grew up when you had teachers with chairs in the school entryway, as opposed to metal detectors. But, that is another discussion.
Seeing a bit of a man's boxer shorts above their pants doesn't bother me, it's when he has to walk like he has a load in his pants, in an effort to show off the seat of his boxer's that it is disgusting. And, don't get me started on a relative of mine who I had not seen since he was little. He was at one of this summer's weddings and I took him around to introduce to other relatives. After the third introduction, I quit. It was either that or tell him that he was not black, and we were not in the hood, and none of the relatives wanted to watch him grab his penis, nor shake hands with him after he did.
I know! I know! He grabbed it through his pants. It's just the idea of the whole thing. There are things fine between lovers and not between aunts and nephews.
I am a baby boomer and I have not heard a term used yet for this generation yet, but my vote goes to the name, generation "overexposed."


text:
- 3 cups old-fashioned oats
- 1 cup coarsely chopped pecans
- 1/2 cup unsweetened shredded coconut
- 3 tablespoons (packed) brown sugar
- 3/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon
- 1/2 teaspoon ground ginger
- 1/4 teaspoon (generous) salt
- 1/3 cup honey
- 2 tablespoons vegetable oil
- 1 cup assorted dried fruit
Recipe Preparation
Preheat oven to 300°F. Line rimmed baking sheet with parchment. Mix first 7 ingredients in large bowl. Stir honey and oil in saucepan over medium-low heat until smooth. Pour honey mixture over oat mixture; toss. Spread on prepared sheet. Bake until golden, stirring every 10 minutes, about 40 minutes. Place sheet on rack. Stir granola; cool. Mix in fruit. DO AHEAD Can be made 1 week ahead. Store airtight.


text:
For anyone that's ever felt the walls closing in while exploring the underwater Art Deco dystopia of Rapture, Robertson's quote speaks volumes. BioShock snuck up on fans and critics alike when it arrived to universal acclaim in 2007, instantly earning a spot among numerous 'Best of All Time' lists. This time around, the element of surprise is lost. Whatever game Irrational took on next, everyone in the studio knew it would be measured in comparison to BioShock. The bar has been set, and the Irrational team is working its collective ass off to top it.
The Meaning of BioShock
After three years of leaving the world in the dark about its latest project, Irrational finally took the wraps off of its new game on August 11 at a press-only event at the Plaza Hotel in New York City. Creative Director Ken Levine took the stage and world premiered the trailer for BioShock Infinite like a proud poppa showing off footage of a child's first steps.
The trailer, featuring Infinite's already famous cloud city of Columbia, wowed, but the immediate question for many of the journalists in attendance was, Why another BioShock? Robertson, a ringer for "Lost" writer and executive producer Damon Lindelof, explained:
"BioShock was always much bigger than the city of Rapture. When we finished with the original, we realized we still had stories to tell. It didn't take us long at all to decide we were going to do another BioShock game."
But if we're not talking about Rapture, Big Daddy, and Little Sisters, what exactly does "BioShock" mean? According to Robertson, it's all the elements that made the original such a landmark game: the dream-like, mysterious world; the memorable characters; the moral choices; the first-person gameplay mix of weapons and powers; the twisting storyline; and the extremist ideology. That's what BioShock means, and it's what fans can expect to find in Infinite.
Columbia's Style
Not a sequel or a prequel, BioShock Infinite is set during the early 1900s, a time when America was beginning to find its footing on the global stage. A wealthy group decides to bring the budding nation's technology, art, culture, and politics to the world in style via the floating city of Columbia.
And then something goes horribly wrong, and Columbia transforms from a floating world's fair into a Death Star. The city ends up disappearing without a trace. And then one day, a stranger appears on the doorstep of the game's protagonist, Booker DeWitt. The former Pinkerton Agent turned gumshoe is offered a job: Find a girl trapped on Columbia and get her out. The stranger knows where Columbia is and how to get there. DeWitt accepts, and BioShock Infinite is off and running.
So how did Irrational go about creating the overall look and feel of the cloud city players will explore as DeWitt? It was a long process of starts and stops, Robertson said. Art Nouveau was the creative team's first focused effort, but given the mix of styles prevalent during the game's historical time frame, it didn't quite fit.
The team turned to research, leaning heavily on photographs of San Francisco taken before and after the devastating earthquake of 1906. Old Sears Roebuck catalogs became mandatory reading, and images and art from Chicago's famed White City built for the 1893 World's Fair proved the perfect match for Columbia.
"There's no stamp on style like Art Deco in Rapture," Robertson said. "Columbia has more of a basis in history, and it's meant to evoke turn of the century America."
From Objectivism to Jingoism
In Rapture, the city's objectivist population turned on itself, turning Ayn Rand's dream into a nightmare. In Columbia, residents have once again become consumed and transformed by an extremist ideology: American jingoism.
Levine said the concept comes from a quote attributed to the 25th President of the United States, William McKinley. After the Spanish-American War, Spain sold its rights to the Philippines to the U.S., leaving McKinley with the question of what to do with the island nation. McKinley reportedly detailed how he came about making his decision in his diary, a passage Levine said was instrumental in creating BioShock Infinite:
I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed to Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way; I don't know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain; that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France or Germany; our commercial rivals in the Orient; that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves; they were unfit for self-government; and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly.Putting that ideology into play in the look and feel of Columbia was difficult, Robertson said, until the creative team focused in on a storied symbol of Americana, the gazebo. The simple structure helped the design team transform Columbia into a floating city in the sky perpetually celebrating the Fourth of July.
And then we have the propaganda. Throughout Columbia, players find posters and slogans pushing American Exceptionalism. The controversial words and images were difficult to create, Robertson admitted, because they fully embrace a racist, sexist, extremist point of view.
One such propaganda piece features a sanctified George Washington standing with the Liberty Bell in one hand and the Ten Commandments in the other. Cowering at his feet are hideous caricatures of all the other races, religions, and nationalities of the world.
"That one made us all uncomfortable," Robertson said. "But it's a powerful image, and it gets to the heart of Columbia."
Work to be Done
All the elements Robertson described -- the BioShock themes, the turn-of-the-century architecture, and the propaganda, are found in the first trailer for the game. And as much as it provides a brief thrill for fans of the franchise, its conclusion leads to a bit of a shoulder slump: a 2012 release date.
Robertson conceded the five-year development cycle for the game is lengthy, but promised it's being put to good use. After all, Irrational is trying to outdo itself, and that means beating one of the most critically and commercially successful games of all time.
"The same team that worked on BioShock is working on Infinite," he said. "Having that game under our belt gives us more trust in one another and our abilities. And it means we're even more willing to go big. We know what's expected, and we're pushing ourselves to deliver."