CSC „Klimaimpulse“, Hamburg, 20.12.2011

Hans von Storch:Klimadialog – Herausforderung

Skeptiker

Mostly uncontested is …

IPCC 2007

Additional ly man-made factors

Only natural factors

„observations“

Explaining global mean surface air temperature

Scenarios, not predictions

The IPCC- is needed as an impartial institution to provide relevant knowledge for decision makers.

- has documented strong consensual evidence that both the human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) as well as the air temperature in the past and foreseeable future has and will continue to increase.

- most of this warming can not be explained without the increase in GHG concentrations – with the present knowledge.

The IPCC consensus

This does not mean that „the“ science is settled but merely that „some“ science is settled.

Issues like- changing statistics of tropical storms- rise of sea level- fate of ice bears- frequency of kidney stones, and- frequency of depressions among humansare not “settled”.

Increasing level of consensus among scientists that climate change is underway (manifestation) and that it is likely a result of anthropogenic influences (attribution)

Bray

, 201

0

A „linear model“-framework of how to think about response strategies(Hasselmann, 1990)

So what that Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.Kyoto died long ago. Most of the countries that ratified Kyoto, starting with Canada, failed tomeet their greenhouse-gas reduction targets. Big polluters – the U.S., China and India – didn’t accept targets. ---

…According to a recent international poll, Canada has the highest number of citizens (22 per cent) of any economically advanced country who deny that human activity causes global warming. We can fairly presume the vast majority of this 22 per cent are in what we might loosely call the conservative world in Canada. ….The poll numbers suggest that about half of Stephen Harper’s supporters are climate-change deniers and skeptics.

Canada‘s message: The world and its climate be damnedFrom Saturday's Globe and MailPublished Saturday, Dec. 17, 2011 2:00AM EST

Increasing level of consensus among scientists that climate change is underway (manifestation) and that it is likely a result of anthropogenic influences (attribution), but increased scepticism among lay people (not only in the US)

Constructions

• Climate change is a „constructed“ issue. People hardly experience „climate change“.

• One construction is scientific, i.e. an „objective“ analysis of observations and interpretation by theories.

• The other construction is cultural, in particular maintained and transformed by the public media.

• Climate science is in a post-normal phase (where interest-led utility is a significant driver, and less so “normal” curiosity)

Postnormal scienceJerry Ravetz, Silvio Funtovicz, 1986 and earlier

State of science, when facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.

In this state, science is not done for reasons for curiosity but is asked for as support for preconceived value-based agendas.

Is scientific knowledge driving the policy process?

Lund and Stockholm

Two different construction of „climate change“ – scientific and cultural – which is more powerful?

Cultural: „Klimakatastrophe“

Scientific: man-made change is real, can be mitigated to some

extent but not completely avoided

StormsTe

mpe

ratu

re

Examples: media-reporting

Wissenschaftler beraten die Öffentlichkeit

Examples: media-reporting

How strongly do you employ the following sources of information, for deciding about issues related to climate adaptation?

Regional administrators in German Baltic Sea coastal regions.

Bray, 2011, pers. comm.

• The science-policy/public interaction is not an issue of the linear model of „knowledge speaks to power“.

• The problem is not that the public is stupid or uneducated.• Science has failed to respond to legitimate public questions

and has instead requested. “Trust us, we are scientists”. • The problem is that the scientific knowledge is confronted

on the „explanation marked“ with other forms of knowledge. Scientific knowledge does not necessarily “win” this competition.

• Non-sustainable claims-making by climate change (stealth) advocates to the public has lead to fatigue.

• Overselling goes with loss of “capital” of science, namely public trust.

Knowledge market

sehr groß groß weniger groß nicht gegeben

Die Bedrohung durch den Klimawandel halten wir für ...

0

10

20

30

40

50

%

Klimagefahren in HamburgUmfrage von Beate Ratter, HZGFe h le r: + /- 4 %

2008200920102011

November 2009

March 2010

Which alternative knowledge claims?

- skeptics- political interests (e.g., deniers, alarmists)- climatic determinism- religion- others

Need of cultural sciences for scientific analysis of „climate“

Skeptics

• Who are they?• What are skeptics skeptic about?• How did they become skeptics?• Non-representative survey on Klimazwiebel-

blog done by Rob Mariswith the help of Peter Heller

Skeptics

• There are highly visible personalities, which are unwilling to engage in an open dialogue, but are guided by preconceived politically based motifs.

• On the other hand, there is a broad groundswell of skeptical attitudes among highly educated people, who - are irritated to see scientists drawing political conclusions, and- find themselves (and their questions) not taken seriously.

• Debate takes place in the blogosphere.• Phenomenon does not disappear, neither by “educating” nor by

insulting.• For overcoming the impasse, a dialogue needs to be established.• Also restraint on the side of the “oversellers” (alarmists) needed.• More research needed on the social phenomena of oversellers and

skeptics.

Skeptics among Lay-People?

Ad hoc surveys

ja

nein

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Frage 1: Findet derzeit ein Klimawandel statt, egal ob menschgemacht oder nicht?

%

ja

nein

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Frage 2: Würden Sie sich als "Skeptiker" bezeichnen?

%

Umfrage der ZAMG in Wien unter Besuchern am Tag der offenen Tür, 1. Oktober 2011

214 ausgefüllte Fragebogen wurden eingesammelt

http://www.zamg.ac.at/klima/Klimawandel/Aktuelles/2011/2011-10-13.php

überwiegend natürliche Faktoren (z.B. Sonnenaktivität)

überwiegend menschliche Aktiv-itäten (z.B. Emissionen von

Treibhausgasen)

beides zu gleichen Teilen

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Frage 4: Falls sich das Klima ändert, welches sind für Sie die plausibelsten Gründe?

%

http://www.zamg.ac.at/klima/Klimawandel/Aktuelles/2011/2011-10-13.php

veränderte Temperatur

mehr/stärkere Stürme in Europa

veränderter Meeresspiegel

veränderte Gesundheitsrisiken

Aussterben von Tieren und Pflanzen

mehr Klimaflüchtlinge

vermehrte Extreme

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Frage 3: Falls ein Klimawandel stattfindet, wie drückt sich dieser aus? (mehrfaches Ankreuzen möglich)

%

http://www.zamg.ac.at/klima/Klimawandel/Aktuelles/2011/2011-10-13.php

Abwarten, bis sich die Sachlage klarer darstellt

Förderung von Modernisierungen, die mit Emissionsminderungen einhergehen

Erzwingen von erheblichen Emissionsminderungen

Anpassung an Risiken und deren Veränderungen

andere Themen

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Frage 5: Zur Klimapolitik: Worauf sollte sich diese konzentrieren? (mehrfaches Ankreuzen möglich)

%

http://www.zamg.ac.at/klima/Klimawandel/Aktuelles/2011/2011-10-13.php

interessierter Bürger

berufsaktiver fachferner Akademiker

an politischen/wirtschaftlichen Entscheidungen beteiligte Person

pensionierter fachferner Akademiker

fachnaher Akademiker

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Frage 6: Zu Ihrem persönlichen Hintergrund: Sind Sie ein/e (mehrfaches Ankreuzen möglich)

%

http://www.zamg.ac.at/klima/Klimawandel/Aktuelles/2011/2011-10-13.php

Schellnhuber on 2 deg goalSPIEGEL: Do you really believe that human civilization will collapse if the

temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius?Schellnhuber: Of course the world won't end if temperatures go up by 2.01

degrees, let alone end suddenly. From today's scientific perspective, we could possibly live with a warming of two to three degrees.

SPIEGEL: Why then have you, as one of the creators of the two-degree target, imposed such a magical limit to which all countries must slavishly adhere?

Schellnhuber: Politicians like to have clear targets, and a simple number is easier to handle than a complex temperature range. Besides, it was important to introduce a quantitative orientation in the first place, which the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change managed to elegantly wangle its way out of. And let's be honest: Even if we aim for the two-degree target, we'll end up somewhat higher. Whenever there's a speed limit, most drivers tend to go a little faster.

Spiegel online, 08/17/2010

Distribution of civilizations in early 20th century

(expert map)

Climatically determined „energy“ of people

“Man lives in balance with his climate”

• The authority of climate science as a authoritative knowledge provider is damaged. Scientists find it difficult to be confronted with doubt about the authoritative knowledge claims by science and by scientists.

• In particular in the US, a frequently heard explanation is that the people are mislead by „merchants of doubt“ and by special interests.

• Concern because of overselling and loss of trust-capital by science is rarely voiced.

• A better explanation is that natural scientists fail to understand the dynamics of knowledge generation and claims making, and fail to consider their own cultural limitations when relating scientific knowledge and its utility in the public arena.

• Politics is scienticed, and science is politicized; both is questionable but unavoidable - but may be mitigated.

• Climate science operates in a post-normal set-up.• Climate science needs to deal with skeptics and alarmists, most of whom

are neither stupid or evil nor bought by special interests.