Book Review of "The Whole Story of Climate" by Kirsten Peters (2012)

Someone recently recommended "The Whole Story of Climate" by Kirsten Peters (2012).

I think this section from the first chapter seems to summarise Peters' position on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming):

"Above all, we must adapt to climate. Included in that adaptation, of course, should be limiting human activities that provoke climate—like pouring greenhouse gases into the skies. But it's also true that we must be honest with ourselves, knowing that the climate of Earth will always change for fully natural reasons regardless of our energy choices. That kind of honesty should allow us to temper at least some of our climate and energy policies in light of their great costs to our economy. It behooves us, therefore, to keep our economy running as best we can so that we can afford to make the transition to a necessarily uncertain future."

Some challenging critique:

1) While recognising AGW, Peters seems to downplay the significance of AGW compared with natural climate forcings, perhaps because of the understandable main focus on geological timespans from many geologists' perspectives, and especially those who are sceptical of AGW

2) Peters conflates mitigation and adaptation, essentially calling them the same thing. They're not, and the scientific community concerned about AGW and its impacts make a clear distinction between the two - mitigation is about preventing further global warming, adaptation is about reacting to its impacts, to reduce the amount of damage and disruption caused. A subtle difference to some people, but a very important one when considering policy choices.

3) Peters suggests that tackling AGW (for example through energy transitions) should involve "temper[ing] at least some of our climate and energy policies in light of their great costs to our economy". She fails to point out the net economic benefits suggested by some from tackling AGW diligently enough. We now have, for example Ekins and Zenghelis saying, in "The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability" (2021):
https://lnkd.in/dJZQGbk

"Recent evidence suggests the short-term GDP impacts of well-designed environmental action could be positive, crowding-in rather than ‘crowding out’ the drivers of future growth. This paper provides evidence that not only makes the environmental case for action, in terms of its benefits for human health and welfare, it also shows how such action can generate economic returns in terms of productivity, jobs and income and reduce the costs of meeting any emissions and resource use targets. A cost effective low-carbon, resource-efficient transition can generate a cleaner, quieter, more secure, innovative, and productive economy for all countries at all stages of development."

Of course, Peters was writing in 2012, ten years ago, so perhaps might write differently, if given access to what is known now.



One of the few constructive suggestions Peters has is to tackle the huge number of underground coal fires. However, as the Guardian points out, it's incredibly difficult (and expensive) to extinguish these:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/apr/21/uncontrolled-coal-seam-fires-are-catastrophic-polluters

So, this just comes across as a distraction by Peters away from the need to use other methods to tackle AGW, for example reducing GHG emissions very rapidly (in geological terms).

In the next breath, Peters says:

"To be sure, global warming such as the IPCC expects will have steep costs as well as some benefits, and unfortunately many of the costs appear as if they will be more heavily borne by the world's poor. Whether the same people would also suffer greatly from limiting the use of fossil fuels through caps or taxes is a crucial question, but one best addressed by economists rather than scientists."

As I say elsewhere, economists Ekins and Zenghelis have done good work here, eg:
"The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability" (2021):
 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350100897_The_costs_and_benefits_of_environmental_sustainability

from which:
"Recent evidence suggests the short-term GDP impacts of well-designed environmental action could be positive, crowding-in rather than ‘crowding out’ the drivers of future growth. This paper provides evidence that not only makes the environmental case for action, in terms of its benefits for human health and welfare, it also shows how such action can generate economic returns in terms of productivity, jobs and income and reduce the costs of meeting any emissions and resource use targets. A cost effective low-carbon, resource-efficient transition can generate a cleaner, quieter, more secure, innovative, and productive economy for all countries at all stages of development."



Peters criticises the IPCC for not addressing some of the benefits of a warmer world, citing cold-related deaths as one of her main examples:

"Despite the tendency of the media to report deaths during heat waves in bold headlines—and link all such deaths to global warming—those statisticians who study death rates have no doubt that more people die during periods of significant cold relative to normal regional conditions than of significant heat."

That line of argument has been used by the likes of Bjorn Lomborg, (who she actually cites in the same chapter) and have been debunked. Eg see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

On page 193, Peters cites the Wegman report, debunked here:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wegman_Report

She appears to use the Wegman report as her main piece of evidence for criticising the work of the IPCC:

"To sum up, some observers in the geologic community think the hockey stick saga undercuts our ability to place deep levels of trust in the IPCC. That's not to say that we “deny” the stark reality that climate changes. Nor do we dismiss the notion that our greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming. But citizens here and abroad can simply not afford worldwide publicity given to announcements that don't stand up to review from independent intellectuals."

It seems that, in contrast to what she suggests about the IPCC and Michael Mann etc, it is the very evidence she presents in support of her criticisms of the IPCC that "[doesn't] stand up to review from independent intellectuals."
 
Also in chapter 11 (page 189) Peters cites the work of Steven McIntryre, (adding a reference to Ross McKitrick on page 192), challenging the "Hockey Stick", and Peters says:

"McIntyre is a longtime mining geologist. So, just at a gut level, he suspected that the hockey stick had been created in some manner that was less than fully aboveboard. It was a manipulation, he suspected..."

However, McIntryre's work on this has been rebutted. Eg see:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=30

from which:
"Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."

On page 193, she cites the Wegman report, debunked here:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wegman_Report


Note that, in chapter 11 (page 180), Peters cites the work of Richard Muller, on lags between CO2 and temperature.

She writes:
"His conversion from global-warming skeptic to accepting the basic idea of human-made increases in temperature has given many a skeptic pause, as well it should."

See also, from July 2012:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/best-the-science-behind-richard-mullers-conversion/
“To be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide.”



In the final pages of the book, Peters puts out what has since then become a clarion call for those defending the fossil fuel industry. She sets out how much fossil fuels have achieved for us. Then she states:

"I simply cannot wish we lived as we did in 1720".

This is similar to the much more modern works of Alex Epstein.

One of the best counters to those arguments is to point out that it is cheap, available energy that has generated the cited benefits for humanity, and we can continue to achieve those advantages going forward, but with decarbonised energy instead of GHG-emitting energy.

It's disappointing that a book that, for the largest number of pages, seems to set out so much comment about past geological history as context for modern discussions of AGW (which is acknowledged by the author), strays in the later chapters into being quite strongly skeptical of the world's responses to AGW, and in particular strongly attacks the IPCC in an unsubstantiated way.
 
​
Peters also uses an anti-alarmist trope:

"It's understandable, therefore, that the American public thinks that the only climate change worth being concerned about is global warming, that all climate change is due to humans, and that the whole planet may be uninhabitable by 2100. But, of course, all of that is far from the truth."

without providing a substantiated argument to support it.

In fact, she spends a lot of page space talking about reasons why the earth's climate can be switched into very different states in the space of 'a decade or two' or 'within a human lifetime', which provides ample evidence of the possibility of trigger points being reached (because of human activities, including GHG emissions) and the Earth tipping over into a climate very inhospitable to large human populations by 2100.
 
 
Peters does say:
"... we humans are not off the hook with respect to recent climate change. To confound us all, the facts do not—I repeat, do not—mean that on the short timescale of industrialization we are not increasing temperatures through our production of greenhouse gases. As just mentioned, the increase in carbon dioxide since industrialization began is calculated to have brought about a temperature increase of at least 1 degree Fahrenheit. Add other greenhouse gases to the picture, plus the fact that we are producing all of them at increasing rates, and the situation is one that understandably concerns both scientists and laypersons alike."
 
However, it’s unfortunate that she includes quite a lot of false sceptic-centric arguments and misleading misinformation in the book, alongside some otherwise sound geological context that would stand well on its own without such outlier views alongside them, giving the overall impression of a book that (with insufficiently supported arguments) contradicts the work of the scientific, policy-making and academic communities in some important respects.