By the way, I’ve just read the Monbiot piece, and it is interesting – he states that the policies proposed by Obama are basically futile and that the only thing that could save the world is “a crash programme of total energy replacement”. I don’t think this will happen, largely because countries such as China, India, Russia and Poland are evidently not going to take part. So are we all doomed? I think George has painted himself into a corner – if this crash programme doesn’t happen and the catastrophe doesn’t happen either, he will be in danger of appearing just a little bit silly; this kind of pronouncement is what they call a hostage to fortune.

Also by the way, he calls himself a “resolute optimist”. Heaven forbid if he should ever start to become pessimistic, in that case… )

“Good morning, Pooh Bear,” said Eeyore gloomily. “If it is a good morning,” he said. “Which I doubt,” said he.
“Why, what’s the matter?”
“Nothing, Pooh Bear, nothing. We can’t all, and some of us don’t. That’s all there is to it.”
“Can’t all what?” said Pooh, rubbing his nose.
“Gaiety. Song-and-dance. Here we go round the mulberry bush.”

Eeyore on the weather:

“It’s snowing still,” said Eeyore gloomily.
“So it is.”
“And freezing.”
“Is it?”
“Yes,” said Eeyore. “However,” he said, brightening up a little, “we haven’t had an earthquake lately.”

Eeyore on the worst-case scenario:

“I thought,” said Piglet earnestly, “that if Eeyore stood at the bottom of the tree, and if Pooh stood on Eeyore’s back, and if I stood on Pooh’s shoulders -”
“And if Eeyore’s back snapped suddenly, then we could all laugh. Ha Ha! Amusing in a quiet way,” said Eeyore, “but not really helpful.”
“Well,” said Piglet meekly, “I thought -”
“Would it break your back, Eeyore?” asked Pooh, very much surprised.
“That’s what would be so interesting, Pooh. Not being quite sure till afterwards.”

Eeyore on civilisation and innovation:

“I don’t hold with all the washing,” grumbled Eeyore. “This modern Behind-the-ears nonsense.”

Eeyore, optimistic as ever about the climate:

“A mostly sunny day, to some, can look a lot like partly gray.”

Eeyore on overpopulation:

‘He turned around angrily on the others and said “Everybody crowds round so in this Forest. There’s no Space. I never saw a more Spreading lot of animals in my life, and in all the wrong places.”‘

Eeyore, ruminating about the awfulness of it all:

‘The old grey donkey, Eeyore stood by himself in a thistly corner of the Forest, his front feet well apart, his head on one side, and thought about things. Sometimes he thought sadly to himself, “Why?” and sometimes he thought, “Wherefore?” and sometimes he thought, “Inasmuch as which?” and sometimes he didn’t quite know what he was thinking about.’

Many thanks for the reading list. I read Oreskes “from Chicken Little…” and Lahsen, and now feel sufficiently depressed to maybe drop the subject and go away and get a life. Lahsen at least is literate and has a theory. Her contribution to science is the assertion that her “trio” of top physicists are sceptics because they think they’re very clever and they vote Republican. And by God she has references from peer -reviewed articles to prove it.

Oreskes is weird. The middle part (presumably written by one of her minion co-authors) (look up the etymology of “minion” – it’s fun and probably libellous) is a perfectly adequate summary of the history of US government scientific advice on global warming policy. The criticism of the Nierenberg report is that the conclusion of the economists (that no action is necessary) is not logically connected to the warnings of the climate scientists (that global warming is a threat). Allowing for probable selective quotation, that seems a perfectly reasonable criticism.

The beginning and end of the article, on the other hand (presumably written by Oreskes herself) are incoherent tosh, stuffed with errors of grammar and spelling (despite having been read by eleven friends and reviewers, not counting her co-authors). She thinks too much effort is being expended on deconstructing science and not enough on deconstructing ignorance, ignorance being the opinions of scientists who disagree with her. She’s a five star fruitcake whose writings are not worth spending a second on.

So what was I proposing? Psycho-socio-historical analysis of the whole phenomenon, from the lowest amoeba writing in the Guardian recently how he was typing his article on a Remington with holey socks on his hands in his unheated house to save the planet, right up to the G8 leaders planting trees for the cameras. Complementary to the socio-political analysis on this site, I think.

Here’s the kind of thing I mean:
Scientists who get called in to form government policy must suffer two conflicting emotions; first, a tremendous power buzz at being “present at the creation”, and secondly, frustration at being the servants of the inferior intellects who govern us in a democracy.
Even if they are successful in pushing their favoured projects (nuclear power, or whatever) political constraints ensure that they will never get the 100% commitment or illimited research budgets they feel are justified. They will naturally turn to a scientific theory or research area which predicts disaster, if their expertise is not heeded. Global Warming is the asteroid in the living room. Maurice Strong has practically admitted as much.

That’s the skeleton of a socio-cultural theory of scientific policy-making every bit as good as Oreskes’ or Lahsen’s. I could flesh it out with references to peer-reviewed articles and go for a doctorate in socio-something, or sum it up as: “Climate Alarmism is the Revenge of the Nerds, a multi-decadal Charles Atlas course in how to avoid sea level rises and getting sand kicked in your face at the same time”. I’d need supporting evidence and stuff, but frankly I can’t be bothered.

Oreskes and others have already published various ad hominem attacks on selected “denialists”. They attempt to provide a psychological and even a cultural context. To see what I mean read:

From Chicken Little to Dr. Pangloss: William Nierenberg, Global arming, and the Social Deconstruction of Scientific Knowledge, Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway and Matthew Shindell

Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘‘trio’’ supporting the backlash against global warming, Myanna Lahsen

These are formal, peer-reviewed ad hominems. They essentially rely on that very simple, popular and deranged chestnut, “belief in free markets = bad person”. (See The Shock Doctrine for more)

Nierenberg’s son has been trying to defend his father’s reputation and even ‘arch warmer’ and (if you believe the hype)Wikispinmeister, William Connolley, has concluded that Oreskes is wrong on many points including those used in the recent BBC “documentary”:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/11/nierneberg_concluded_oreskes_i.php

My advice would be not to go down that route – there are plenty of invective sites accusing Gore of hypocracy, Hansen of madness etc and they don’t really add anything to the debate.

“Dr Hansen says it’s impossible to say when we will reach the point of no return.” And he’s right. It’s also impossible to say if we will reach a point of no return. And impossible to say whether there actually is a point of no return at all. There are a number of rather important questions being begged here by the good Dr H.

I’m sure there would be a point of no return for humanity if every one of us suddenly decided to spend every penny of our surplus wealth on building giant stone heads dedicated to the gods. Nowadays, I suppose that grandiose carbon reduction and sequestration projects would be an equivalent sink for money we would all otherwise spend on useful things such as food and energy production. Common sense will prevent this, because humanity is not a monoculture on a tiny remote island (not everyone will follow the UK like lemmings into draconian CO2 reduction exercises, for example, thank goodness.)

On a different note, I’m wondering whether Dr Hansen suffers from depression. His point of view does appear to be that of a severe depressive, literally unable to see anything in the future apart from gloom and limitation. Hence the tendency towards self-fulfilling prophecies, in the manner of a depressed person who goes to a job interview convinced he will fail, then guarantees that failure by his very words and actions, finally turns round and says “You see, I told you I was a failure.”