On James Lovelock

The climate scientist who was interviewed for the Guardian piece that was the subject of the previous post has apparently walked back his stated opinion that the human population will decrease by 80% by 2100. You can read about it here. Lovelock characterizes his earlier comments (in the Guardian) as 'alarmist'. I think 'absolutely fucking terrifying' would be more accurate. He then adds, "Nothing much is really happening."

How is one supposed to react to such a dramatic change of positions? He's gone from "only a few breeding pairs [of humans] will remain in the Arctic" to "the world has not really warmed up since the millennium." Is he talking about 2000 or 1000 CE? Let's say 2000 CE. So in the previous 14 years. Here's my favourite interpretation. And here's the gist: the observed rise in global temperature is too great to have been caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The IPCC's models of the climate are too CO2 sensitive and the real cause is something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (or PDO). What's the PDO? Real the article. In case you're wondering, the author isn't some crank who works for FOX NEWS, he's a PhD in climate science, formerly with NASA, now with a University somewhere.

His best conclusion tho is on this page. He states, "The confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking cause and effect) when observing cloud behaviour has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations...suggest an IN-sensitive climate system."

A 'forcing' is an energy imbalance that produces climate change; in the short term this manifests as weather patterns and in the long term as the kind of big changes that scare the shit out of people. A 'feedback' is a result of long term change that itself causes change both in the short and long terms. A good example of a forcing is the temperature differential between the heat stored by land mass and the heat stored by the oceans. This is the most basic cause of weather. An example of a feedback is the melting of the permafrost in Siberia. As it melts, it releases methane (which is between 25 and 100 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas). The methane increases the atmospheric temperature, which melts more permafrost which releases more methane. So when he describes feedback as effect rather than cause, he is being a little disingenuous. But no more than I was when I described Lovelock's changed forecast as a 'walk back'.

I called it that because that's what it sounds like to me. The term was originally used to describe lowering something with a hoist while controlling the speed of descent by maintaining control of the ropes used to lift it. It is much more commonly used to describe the political act of distancing oneself from an earlier comment. Typically this happens when a politician or a spokesperson A) says something really stupid and has to make it seem less stupid, B) accidentally tells the truth and has to spin it, or C) both. "Yes, I did say that but what I meant was..."

Perhaps it's pure coincidence that Lovelock walked his earlier statements back during a book tour. Somehow I doubt it. But what I can't evaluate is the truth (or, more properly, the factuality) of his statements. Truth is, in this case, much less important. I don't give a shit if James Lovelock believes we are in for catastrophic climate changes in the next decade; I care if we are in for catastrophic climate changes in the next decade.

Fortunately, I didn't blow my entire life savings (pitiful as it is) on wine, women, and song based on his earlier prediction. But this is the big problem with climate change as opposed to any other issue we've encountered as a species. When a philosopher tells me there is an abyss between language and dialogue and the "I" that I use to refer to myself doesn't actually refer to myself but to something else (see Saussure on linguistics or Agamben on Saussure) I don't start losing my shit wondering who I really is and whether or not I can properly speak. I ignore them. Saying things that are completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn't a philosopher is a philosopher's job. And when some preacher in Arizona says the world is going to end and gives a precise date for the Rapture I ignore him too. Or maybe link it on Facebook so my friends can have a laugh. You aren't suppose to be able to ignore scientists (with the exception of physicists who are as incomprehensible and every bit as insane as philosophers). I heard on the radio the other day that physicists have demonstrated that a quantum flip in a single Higgs-Boson particle would instantly end the entire universe. You know how much sleep I lost over that? The same as you will.

The current state of climate science is so fucked it is impossible to make sense of without an advanced degree in climate science. And even then only a fraction of the climate science community will agree with you. I've been trying to take a measured approach to this for years - I haven't always been so completely out of my mind with panic. Ten years ago I thought as a percentage proposition and I think a lot of people still think this way. Either climate change is real, is happening, and needs to be avoided or it isn't. If we don't do anything we are placing all of our futures on a bet that it isn't happening and if it is, we're fucked. If we do something, we are costing ourselves a lot of money, some changes in our behaviour and probably a big change in our economic systems but we don't go extinct whether or not it actually is happening. If the weather forecast says there is a 60% probability of rain, you take an umbrella with you. If the weather scientists say there's a 60% probability of an apocalyptic change in our climate, we need a BIG fucking umbrella.

Now what we have is 80% of the climate scientists saying there is a 60% PoA (probability of apocalypse), 10% are saying there is a 0% PoA, and 10% say there's a 100% PoA. And you can't just go with the averages. Some of them are right, some are wrong. Even more significantly, whether it happens is much less important than when it happens. If it's coming in 10 years, we're fucked. If it's 100 years, we can stop it. Maybe. Lovelock's most dire predictions of doom still said, "If we started in 1967..." Which is only 45 years ago so that extra 90 years would make all the difference in the world (maybe). Since we have effectively done nothing in those 45 years, I really wonder whether the added time will make any difference except that there will be a judgement against us (people my age and younger) if we continue to fuck things up (and it turns out to be an issue rather than a weird climatic blip caused by the PDO).

How do people in apocalyptic religions stand this shit? How do they prepare themselves for the rapture over and over? Don't they get tired? I've only been doing this for a couple of months and I'm fucking exhausted. I almost don't care anymore. My ability to be freaked out and appalled is just about finished. And my determination to continue reading and writing about this shit is absolutely gone. I going back to long digressions about The Walking Dead.