CSC „Klimaimpulse“, Hamburg, 20.12.2011 Hans von Storch: Klimadialog – Herausforderung Skeptiker. Mostly uncontested is …. Only natural factors. Additional ly man- made factors. „observations“. Explaining global mean surface air temperature. IPCC 2007. Scenarios, not predictions.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
CSC „Klimaimpulse“, Hamburg, 20.12.2011Hans von Storch:Klimadialog – HerausforderungSkeptiker
Only natural factors
Additional ly man-
The IPCC consensus
This does not mean that „the“ science is settled but merely that „some“ science is settled.
are 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)
A „linear model“-frameworkofhowtothinkaboutresponsestrategies
So what that Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.
Kyoto died long ago. Most of the countries that ratified Kyoto, starting with Canada, failed to
meet their greenhouse-gas reduction targets. Big polluters – the U.S., China and India – didn’t accepttargets. ---
Canada‘smessage: The worldanditsclimatebedamned
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Dec. 17, 2011 2:00AM EST
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.
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)
Jerry 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?
Two different construction of „climate change“ – scientific and cultural – which is more powerful?
Scientific: man-made change is real, can be mitigated to some extent but not completely avoided
Lund and Stockholm
Wissenschaftler beraten die Öffentlichkeit
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.
Need of cultural sciences for scientific analysis of „climate“
Skeptics among Lay-People?
Ad hoc surveys
Umfrage der ZAMG in Wien unter Besuchern am Tag der offenen Tür, 1. Oktober 2011
214 ausgefüllte Fragebogen wurden eingesammelt
SPIEGEL: 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
“Man lives in balance with his climate”
Climatically determined „energy“ of people