A critique of criticism

First of all; introductions. This blog will be a combination of (hopefully) intellectual analysis, personal comments, musings, and probably involve a certain level of frustration-venting when I come across perspectives I feel touch on misinformed, right through to those which are eye-wateringly flawed. I will aim to keep the topics within the realm of ‘renewable energy’, although dependent on topical issues, this may be extended slightly. This topic is vast, but my main interests are in the impacts of implementing renewable energy, the reasons for its apparent necessity, and the policy effectiveness (or lack of)  associated with renewables.

The most recent IPCC report was published at the end of September from Working Group 1 (the physical science analyses group). This report upgraded the likelihood that humans are the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20^th century to ‘very likely’ – meaning with a confidence of 90% (Roberts, 2013). Some other conclusions that the IPCC reported included predictions for sea level rise; between 26-82cm rise by the end of the century. These estimates are based on four simulations with varying degrees of mitigating action – and a 26cm sea level rise could happen despite extreme cut in emissions come 2020, which has given rise to commentary to the tune of ‘current policy and actions aren’t working’. However, what was also highlighted was the role of the ocean which is a huge buffer to both heat and CO₂, as the oceans have absorbed 90% of the heat trapped by GHG’s since the 1970’s (Roberts, 2013). Based on this, we may predict that the rate of absorption will eventually decrease until a possible saturation is reached, which could lead to exponential warming correlated to the decreased effectiveness of the ocean buffer.

The other key finding which is always a good headline is the predicted warming set to occur by the end of the century; which is curiously the exact same prediction as the very first estimation in 1979 (Kerr, 2013), but the certainty of this prediction has certainly improved. The figure of 1.5 – 4.5 °C warming by 2100 is based on the same four simulations as before, with the most likely warming to be in the range of 1.5 – 2 °C.

Despite the global cooperation of the IPCC and the simulations taking into account multiple tests from multiple institutions, criticisms still occur. One such remark was that the IPCC reports are just political artefacts (Brooker, 2013), which I feel is a moot point, as the possible political implications don’t detract from the truth or the validity of the study. The most common criticism of the IPCC, is that they are seen as ‘scaremongering’, however the language represents the facts, and therefore the seemingly ‘dramatic’ wording is purely used to reflect the gravity of the situation, and not intended to make people run for the hills.

A curious criticism is that from James Delingpole (2013) where he claimed the IPCC 5^th assessment report is “the biggest pseudo-scientific scam in history”, whereas somehow I fail to see how 600 raving lefties (scientists) and 50 users of taxpayers’ money (editors) from 32 countries were actually all privy to an international scheme to trick (inform) politicians into making the publics’ lives more difficult and expensive (sustainable, safer, healthier and less expensive). I think it far more likely that this is an exceedingly rigorous scientific process with positive international collaboration, with no political leanings, with respected and reliable scientists aiming to assess the reality of the global situation and make impartial policy suggestions based on the facts.