Global warming: Interview with Dr. Judith Curry, Part IV

Dr. Judith Curry has replied to more of my additional questions here. Read the first three parts of the interview here, here and here. Dr. Curry is an established scientist with impeccable credentials who has been creating a bit of a stir in the blogosphere recently. She is Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, was a member of NASA's Climate Research Committee for three years and NOAA's Climate Working Group.

Examiner. The conversation regarding climate change is starting to have a post-mortem quality to it, as if everyone's exhausted and the 'fight' has been settled, except for last gasper commenters determined to go down with both ships, if needed. And yet neither the science nor the politics has changed dramatically over the past few months. Do you think anything has been resolved by the publicity regarding the various climate 'gates,' and if so, what... and third, well, who 'won?'

J.C. The indirect impact of climategate(s) have been extensive and far reaching, perhaps not fully understood or appreciated yet. In 2007, the IPCC 4th Assessment Report was released, and the IPCC and Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. The mainstream media pretty much supported the consensus, and even most of the oil companies stopped fighting this. Three years later, and largely owing to the climategate catalyst, the science has changed in the sense that many people view the uncertainties as greater. The politics has changed in that the UNFCCC no longer seems to be a compelling force for climate policy. So while the risk of climate change hasn’t really changed, the policy framework has changed and people are developing a more realistic sense of the magnitude of the challenge. There is also less of a sense of “alarm” in terms of doing something quickly. I am probably one of the few climate researchers that views the current situation as a healthier one for both climate science and policy than the situation ca. 2007.

Climategate losers:
• scientists that have declared this to be “settled science” and who expect to be trusted because they are the experts;
• advocacy groups, scientists, and politicians that have aggressively tried to link global energy policy to climate change;
• the IPCC.

There aren’t yet any climategate “winners” (other than perhaps authors of books such as the CruTape Letters). Potential winners include:
• Climate science, if efforts are made by the institutions that support science to increase transparency and the public availability of data and to encourage and embrace scientific debate and skepticism
• Climate blogs, if they can transcend their tribal boundaries and generate some genuine debate
• The IPCC if it can tighten up its procedures and increase its relevance beyond the UNFCCC
• Public policy if climate change/variability issues can be rationally integrated into energy policy and other policies to increase our resiliency and sustainability.

Examiner. If we are in a 'post-conflict' situation, or truce by exhaustion, what can we do to improve communications between the major camps? I would be willing to buy Joe Romm some flowers, if you think that would help... Seriously, as your comments earlier today to Steve McIntyre point out, there is an automatic assumption of ill-will right now that
has to go away. (Dr. Curry commented on Climate Audit earlier on 7 June about Steve McIntyre's reaction to Lonnie Thompson's statement that he hadn't archived glacial data--and he was scathing. Dr. Curry
provided some very useful perspective.)

J.C. From a personal perspective, both sides are pretty much giving me a hard time, but I have to say that it is easier to maintain a civil dialogue with the skeptical blogs (at least the main technical ones such as ClimateAudit, the Blackboard) and the climate policy blogs (such as Roger Pielke, Die Klimazwiebal, Bart Verheggan) than at some of the warmist blogs. Moderation is always a challenge, in terms of trying to lose the noise while maintaining the signals. Maybe we should try a “blog of bloggers” whereby the blog owners from across the spectrum participate in a dialogue, perhaps with a few invited guests, and then the dialogue can be continued also at the individual blogs with the commenters. The polarization will be difficult to overcome, but I think with the waning of climategate that the blogging community is looking for something new, maybe this is a fertile time for cross-camp communications.

Examiner. What is the most appropriate mechanism for communicating about science with non-scientists? TV seems too ephemeral and perhaps creates an immediate context shaped by what's on the next channel. People don't read books, don't remember blogs... It actually seems as though the most effective messages have been delivered via film.

J.C. There is a significant segment of the population that just doesn’t care about science, or is actively distrustful of science, not clear what if anything we can do about these people. The people that we really need to reach are people with some college education that are in decision making or leadership positions, either in their community, company, church, etc. and of course in government. Engagement is the key. The blogosphere is a good mechanism, also seminars and community engagement. Movies can certainly have an impact (e.g. Inconvenient Truth), but the impact is magnified many times by discussing in the blogosphere, community meetings, etc. Engagement is also important for building and maintaining trust between scientists and the public.

Examiner. I am telling my clients that the major unresolved issues regarding climate change are atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of concentrations of CO2, the role of the ocean as an active (as opposed to passive) participant in the exchange of heat and CO2, and the net effect of cloud formation, composition and configuration. I also tell my clients that it will be 30 years before we have definitive answers to the questions posed by these phenomena. Should my clients ask for their money back?

J.C. Well I have to say that I think you are too optimistic, I don’t think that we will have definitive answers in 30 years. Yes, climate models will be better and we will have 30 more years of data. But given the time scales of natural variability and the unknown unknowns that we are facing in the climate system, I think your statement is too optimistic. The fields of risk management and decision making under uncertainty provide a host of strategies for making decisions under uncertainty. I do not personally support the precautionary principle for policies of this magnitude with such high costs. But there are other strategies that can be effective at managing an uncertain risk. In the short term, we should focus on no regrets policy options, keeping our policies flexible to accommodate an increasing knowledge base, investing in clean green energy technologies, and investing in geoengineering and carbon sequestration research for just-in-case things end up much worse than we anticipated. Personally I think that tying energy policy to climate change was a mistake. Climate change and other environmental factors should play a role in assessing energy policies, but only in a broad context that also considers national and international security, economic development, and broad sustainability issues. So there are no silver bullets for the climate problem, but there is a broad range of reasons for supporting clean, green energy.