2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index from Deloitte, 16 November 2012

Although the Index title, 

"2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index: 

CEOs see emerging nations surge 

as U.S., Germany and Japan face changing game"

is hardly a SCOOP, the press-release-summary is a quick way to pick up the essentials obtained from an in-depth analysis of survey responses from more than 550 chief executive officers (CEOs) and senior leaders at manufacturing companies around the world.

One factor which I strongly believe to be under played by Gov. Admin and CEOs is the necessity to push Global Warming GW-CC issue to the top of the agenda. following the special report from NEW SCIENTIST SPECIAL EDITION ON CLIMATE-5YEARS ON! cf quote from NS"Five years ago, we were warned that the climate change outlook was bad. In this week's cover feature, read the seven reasons why it's even worse that we thought.  and their plea for a strong commited US lead

Obama should fulfil his 2008 climate promises 

since 

                                                                    "Extreme events caused by warming are happening much sooner than we though they would. It's time for Obama to act"

The more courageous will read the full report but I have seen more readable materials. But for a starter I recommend the summary below:

"Talent continues to be key driver of manufacturing competitiveness

Washington D.C., 16 November 2012 — Over the next five years, 20th-century manufacturing stalwarts like the United States, Germany and Japan will be challenged to maintain their competitive edge to emerging nations such as China, India and Brazil, according to the 2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index report from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited’s (DTTL) Global Manufacturing Industry group and the U.S. Council on Competitiveness.

The report confirms that the landscape for competitive manufacturing is in the midst of a massive power shift – based on an in-depth analysis of survey responses from more than 550 chief executive officers (CEOs) and senior leaders at manufacturing companies around the world.

The 2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index once again ranks China as the most competitive manufacturing nation in the world both today, and five years from now. Germany and the United States round out the top three competitive manufacturing nations, but, according to the survey, both fall five years from now, with Germany ranking fourth and the United States ranking fifth, only slightly ahead of the Republic of Korea. The two other developed nations currently in the top 10 are also expected to be less competitive in five years: Canada slides from seventh to eighth place and Japan drops out of the top 10 entirely, falling to 12th place.

Further, the Index finds that Germany’s slide in competitiveness holds true for several other European nations, including the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Poland and the Czech Republic, which are all expected to experience a dramatic decrease in their ability to compete. Poland, for example, drops from 14th to 18th place on the Index, while the United Kingdom drops from 15th to 19th place.

“America and Europe have continued to watch emerging markets mature and become formidable competitors over the past decade,” said Craig Giffi, vice chairman, Deloitte United States (Deloitte LLP) and consumer and industrial products industry leader, who co-authored the report and led the research-team

Giffi points out that in five years key emerging nations are expected to vault forward in the Index: Brazil jumps from its current eight place slot to third place and India jumps from fourth to second place. China remains firmly in first place.

“While the Americas region will continue to show significant manufacturing prowess – with the United States, Brazil, Canada and Mexico all in the top 15 most competitive nations five years from now – many advantages are tilting toward Asia, which will have 10 of the top 15 most competitive nations within the decade,” Giffi said.

“Frontier markets in Asia such as Vietnam and Indonesia are on the rise,” comments Tim Hanley, DTTL Global Leader, Manufacturing. “The global CEO survey results echo the view that while China and India are still prominent in discussions, manufacturers are turning their focus to these frontier markets for growth to capture both the growing local consumer demand and to serve as strategic manufacturing hubs in the global value chain.”

Deborah L. Wince-Smith, president and CEO of the U.S. Council on Competitiveness, views the perceived decline of America and developed nations as an alarming trend requiring immediate action.

“We need to better understand the highly complex forces driving the future of manufacturing and many of the structural changes reshaping the global economy. Emerging nations are growing fast and strong. Wise policies and practices could unleash American strengths, turbo-charge our manufacturing engines, and raise technology commercialization to new heights, driving U.S. economic growth and job creation,” she said.

Talent leads the way
The report found that access to talented workers is the top indicator of a country’s competitiveness – followed by a country’s trade, financial and tax system, and then the cost of labor and materials.

“Nothing was more important to CEOs than the quality, availability and productivity of a nation’s workforce to help them drive their innovation agendas,” said Giffi. “Enhancing and growing an effective talent base remains core to competitiveness among the traditional manufacturing leaders – and increasingly among emerging market challengers as well.”

The report reveals several schisms in competitiveness between established manufacturing players and their emerging counterparts, most notably:

• 1. Traditional manufacturing stalwarts are perceived to have an advantage with respect to talent-driven innovation. More than 85 percent of global executives “strongly agree” or “agree” that the availability of quality skilled talent needed for advanced manufacturing in the United States, Germany and Japan makes those nations highly competitive – while just 58 percent say the same about China and 40 percent say it about India.
• 2. Established manufacturing nations scored far better than emerging manufacturing nations when it came to local economic, trade, financial and tax systems. More than seven in 10 global business leaders “strongly agree” or “agree” that Germany and the United States have an extreme competitiveness advantage based on this criterion, but only 43 percent say the same about India.
• 3. Superior healthcare systems will likely give established manufacturing nations a distinct advantage over emerging players, thanks to their access to quality care and regulatory policies for public health. More than seven in 10 business leaders believe that the healthcare systems in the United States, Germany and Japan make them extremely competitive, but no more than three in 10 say that about China, India and Brazil.
• 4. When looking at labour costs and availability, stalwart manufacturing nations find themselves squarely on the defensive. Almost nine in 10 global executive believe China and India are extremely competitive with respect to the local cost and availability of labor, but fewer than four in 10 believe the same about the United States, Germany and Japan.
• 5. The newest of the emerging superpowers have a long way to go when it comes to supplier networks. Five in 10 executives or fewer “strongly agree” or “agree” that India and Brazil are extremely competitive relative to their supply networks, compared to the eight in 10 or more who say the same thing about the United States, Germany and Japan.
• 6. Emerging manufacturing nations will likely struggle to be competitive in regards to their legal systems. Fewer than four in 10 global business leaders “strongly agree” or “agree” that China, India and Brazil are extremely competitive relative to their legal systems, compared to the more than eight in 10 who feel that way about the United States, Germany and Japan.
• 7. Newer manufacturing players face an uphill battle when it comes to physical infrastructure competitiveness. Fewer than a quarter of business executives “strongly agree” or “agree” that India’s infrastructure makes it extremely competitive, but almost nine in 10 say the United States, Germany and Japan have a strong infrastructure advantage.

“The emerging superpowers in manufacturing will focus on building the advanced manufacturing capabilities and economic and political infrastructures that drive rapid growth and high value jobs for their citizens, forcing 20th century manufacturing powerhouses to fend off the growing strength of more focused global competitors,” Giffi said.

Still, Giffi points out that:
 “manufacturing still matters a great deal for the economic prosperity of 20th century powerhouses – and these nations continue to have enough going for them to stay in the game and even thrive.”

The 2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index full report LINK

About the Study

The 2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index is an initiative led by The U.S. Council on Competitiveness and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited designed to determine how CEOs view the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry in different countries around the world. A global CEO survey, which generated responses from 552 CEOs and senior executives, offers perspectives on the most important factors that drive manufacturing industry competitiveness. The global survey results also helped to create a unique Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index ranking the relative manufacturing industry competiveness of countries and reflect how executives perceive this may change over the next five years. The in-depth study seeks to define excellence in manufacturing and draw out the implications for manufacturers in terms of the competencies required to develop and sustain an edge in a new competitive landscape. Participants were also asked to provide their views of the global economic conditions and government actions that can bolster competitiveness in the manufacturing industry. To learn more, visit Global Competitiveness.

About the U.S. Council on Competitiveness

The Council on Competitiveness is a leadership organization comprised of CEOs, university presidents and labor leaders committed to ensuring that the United States remains the world leader. The Council has one goal: to strengthen America’s competitive advantage by acting as a catalyst for innovative public policy solutions. For more information, please visit . U.S. Council on Competitiveness 

DTTL Global Manufacturing Industry group

The DTTL Global Manufacturing Industry group is comprised of around 2,000 member firm partners and over 13,000 industry professionals in over 45 countries. The group’s deep industry knowledge, service line experience, and thought leadership allows them to solve complex business issues with member firm clients in every corner of the globe. Deloitte member firms attract, develop, and retain the very best professionals and instill a set of shared values centered on integrity, value to clients, and commitment to each other and strength from diversity. Deloitte member firms provide professional services to 80 percent of the manufacturing industry companies on the Fortune Global 500®. For more information about the Global Manufacturing Industry group, please visit  www.deloitte.com/manufacturing."

Materials Science and Engineering Defined: Sustainable Materials_with both eyes open_Free to download and read or to buy as hard cover_

Materials Science and Engineering Defined: Sustainable Materials_with both eyes open_Free to download and read or to buy as hard cover_

Rich Citizens poor state _Food for thought in current times

Food for thought 

Apologies for not being able to produce more data.

Reference

The Economist "A German movement argues that the debt crisis could be solved if governments taxed private wealth more heavily" econ.st/S24Ntk

Mea Culpa_Maximizing performance, minimizing waste RightScale takes much of the risk out of choosing a cloud

It is all well criticising as in one of  my earlier posts today entitled "Setting the Example_Still a long way to go judging by the Top Cloud Computing Proponents"

Mea Culpa:
Well I was busy loging-off and closing my tabs when I discovered that the issues rightly raised by Greenpeace and echoed by Scientific American are being addressed by the innovating companies RightScale and Technology Pioneer Enphase Energy.

The reference entitled Maximizing performance, minimizing waste

RightScale takes much of the risk out of choosing a cloud computing system by offering a free edition of its myCloud platform for developing and testing private cloud infrastructures.
The open-source model is almost as revolutionary as the technology. The company makes its profit from services, once the cloud is up and running. Its specialty is fine-tuning servers to handle different types of data seamlessly while providing strategies that create as little downtime as possible.
Also
Solar power systems are not without risks too. One big problem (I trust this is not hype-seems obvious) is the “Christmas light effect”, in which a single bad light knocks out an entire string of perfectly good lights. In a similar fashion, most solar systems are connected in series to an inverter that changes the power generated into electricity in a form that can be used. When a cell loses power, it reduces the output from other cells to the lowest common denominator. Technology Pioneer Enphase Energy gets around this drawback by assigning a small micro inverter to each cell individually. The arrangement makes it possible to connect the cells in parallel and it also considerably reduces system weight and makes installing systems much easier.

Enphase’s approach draws the maximum output from each cell, and uses a computer relying on a wide area network (WAN) to coordinate the output.

This and many more innovations and innovating companies at the ref. link below:

Reference:

Technology Pioneers 2013 from The World Economic Forum (WEF) [pdf]

Why CFOs Are Skeptical About Sustainability? - Answer: They don't know about Factor 10 Institute

"To a great extent — and unfortunately — “sustainability” is a quality that exists in the mind of the beholder is the opener for David M. Katz  article in CFO webzine. David is editor-in-chief of CFO Online/Mobile.

While the complete aruement may be read in the references 1.  CFO's  I shall choose a few excerpts for the sake of argument.

"While any good finance executive will focus first on the costs and revenue opportunities in proposed energy-saving plants, the risks and benefits to company employees and external society will be squarely on his or her radar, because they potentially affect the company’s brand reputation. 

But doing good deeds is and should be the gravy (not the meat") in this discussion. The corporation, by its very nature, needs to benefit from any sustainability effort to go ahead with it and be motivated to succeed at it. Self-interest needs to be the prime driver, and the extent of self-interest needs to be benchmarked.

Of course, there are sweet spots where what’s good for the planet melds seamlessly with what’s good for the bottom line." he concedes.  For example, he mentions one company which by changing its energy consumption helped cut its costs. (He doesn't tell us what type of change -mean of him don't you feel? or is it a trade secret to strive to lower the energy bill, and let me add to increase material savings - The Material Productivity )

He rightly concludes (with some ignorance that all activity can be described in terms of Carbon Footprint which admittedly may be a far too global metric to put into practise and monetary value savings and gains.

  

"The reason for this is that for corporations, metrics for sustainability — in particular the environmental kind — amount to just so much greenwash. There are few environmentally based metrics to match the financial metrics most corporations run on.

For example, while measuring a company’s “carbon footprint” may be a good way to prove how good a corporate citizen it is, it addresses finance only tangentially — perhaps by increasing sales among environmentalists, or making it less a target of lawsuits. But really, what does a carbon footprint have to do with an income statement, balance sheet, or cash-flow statement?

The challenge of sustainability at the corporate level is to find a way to answer that question in hard, numeric, provable ways that take into account the self-interest so basic to our free-enterprise system. Then, if the metrics are there, the incentives needed for productive action will be too."

REF 1. Full Article CFO.com (http://s.tt/1jQsf) 

An  this is where Factor 10 Institute comes in 

The Factor10 Institute 2008

The Factor 10 Institute has been created to provide practical support for achieving significant advances in resource productivity in the production and consumption sectors through:

• The design of eco-efficient logistic systems, processes, and services;
• The development of dematerialized products, services, buildings, and infrastructures with high resource productivity;
• Appropriate marketing strategies, maintenance, recycling and disposal of goods;
• Enhancing consumer information on the environmental quality of products and services;
• The creation and performance of research and development plans;
• Offering seminars for firms, politicians and other interested people, giving practical advice for implementing the Factor 10 and the MIPS-concepts at home, in the public domain, in firms, and in governments;
• Small scale seminars for political and business leaders to identify long-term sustainable economic options;
• Forging coalitions among international initiatives for practical approaches toward sustainability, such as The Natural Step, Sweden, the Zero Emission Forum, Japan, The Environmental Footprint, USA, and the Dutch Sustainable Technology Program.

The Factor 10 Institute takes particular interest in questions relating to the increase in employment and the sustainable financing of governments. It also provides services to the international Factor 10 Club.

REFERENCE

2. The Factor 10 Institute

cf also

 Factor 10_Position Paper 08/01: “FUTURE - BEYOND CLIMATIC CHANGE” (pdf)

Setting the Example_Still a long way to go judging by the Top Cloud Computing Proponents

Following twitting my previous post "Green economies around the world ? Implications of resource use (materials in fact) for development and the environment", I found the following post due to Scientific American entitled

"How Clean Is the Energy Used by Tech Companies for Cloud Computing?"

Intro:

Quote: "This emerging trend, dubbed “cloud computing,” means that these providers have had to scale up their power consumption considerably, as they are increasingly responsible for providing more and more of the computing horsepower required by the world’s two billion Internet users. 

Savings estimated by research firm Verdanix

 "sharing such resources on centralised servers is more efficient than every individual and business running their own versions separately.  Verdantix estimates that companies off-loading data and services to cloud servers could save $12 billion off their energy bills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 85 million metric tons within the next decade. But for the greenhouse gas savings to be realised, the companies offering cloud computing services need to make the right energy choices."

 “How Green is Your Cloud?"

 "Gary Cook, a Senior Policy Analyst with Greenpeace, tells us that highly innovative and profitable companies like Apple, Amazon and Microsoft are building data centers powered by coal and acting"

Greenpeace highlights the Issue:

"Greenpeace’s report evaluates 14 major tech firms and the electricity supply chains in use across more than 80 different data centers that power cloud-based services. Some of the largest data centers are in buildings so big they are visible from space and use as much power as 250,000 European homes. 

If the cloud were its own country, says Greenpeace, it would rank 5th in the world in electricity consumption."

Top Techies let off the hook:

"“Companies like Google, Yahoo and Facebook are beginning to lead the sector down a clean energy pathway through innovations in energy efficiency, prioritising renewable energy access when siting their data centers, and demanding better energy options from utilities and government decision-makers,” reports Greenpeace. But...

The Villains

"the majority of the industry is not marching in step. As such, Greenpeace is calling on all tech companies with cloud services to develop siting policies based on access to clean energy sources, invest in or directly purchase renewable energy, be transparent about their energy usage, share innovative solutions so the sector as a whole can improve, and demand that governments and utilities increase the percentage of clean, green power available on the grid. "

Hence my title 

'Setting the Example_Still a long way to go judging by the Top Cloud Computing Proponents'

If the savy guys are not playing by the clean rules is their any hope?

Naturally this title and underlying meanings applies well beyond techies and Computing to many if not all walks of life as underlined by the New French President, François Holland. François, please do not stop at your first "symbolic" measures but put this into practise throughout Government - Make the example the rule, the standard. (There is no ISO XXX standard for Politics or Managers) Your position as a leader can only be re-enforced. Only on such a trajectory can The CAC 40 enterprise leaders-demeanours and the negligent Techies be brought to task.

Enjoy 

 REF:

Scientific American.com "Computings-Substantial-Footprint"

Greenpeace International_Climate-Reports_"How-Clean-is-Your-Cloud/"

Verdantix

MORE for the 21st Century?

Green economies around the world? Implications of resource use for development and the environment - Zunia.org

Allow me to bring to your attention the following comprehesive free report on global materials activity.

"The report addresses three main issues:
1. Patterns of material extraction, trade, consumption and resource productivity in
different world regions and countries;
2. Connections between material use and indicators of economic and social development;
3. Links between material use and selected major environmental problems, such as
carbon emissions, land use change and water use."

This work is fittingly classed in the MILLENIUM category of issues for Global consideration

REFERENCE:

The Report entitled Green Economies Around the World (pdf) 

More from ZUNIA
Green economies around the world? Implications of resource use for development and the environment - Zunia.org

Jared Diamon reviews and recommends the book_ "Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty"

Two hundred years ago Adam Smith wrote his pioneering work "The Wealth of Nations", 

Jared Diamond authored two now famous books at the beginning of the new century 2000  " 1.Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, 

and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the widely acclaimed 

2. Guns, Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies, which also is the winner of Britain's 1998 Rhone-Poulenc Science Book Prize. 

  

Here, Jared Diamond reviews for us:  
"Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty" 
by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson 


Diamond's overall assessment of Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson’s argument is that inclusive institutions, while not the overwhelming determinant of prosperity that they claim, are an important factor. Perhaps they provide 50 percent of the explanation for national differences in prosperity. That’s enough to establish such institutions as one of the major forces in the modern world. Why Nations Fail offers an excellent way for any interested reader to learn about them and their consequences. Whereas most writing by academic economists is incomprehensible to the lay public, Acemoglu and Robinson have written this book so that it can be understood and enjoyed by all of us who aren’t economists.


Why Nations Fail should be required reading for politicians and anyone concerned with economic development. The authors’ discussions of what can and can’t be done today to improve conditions in poor countries are thought-provoking and will stimulate debate. Donors and international agencies try to “engineer prosperity” either by foreign aid or by urging poor countries to adopt good economic policies. But there is widespread disappointment with the results of these well-intentioned efforts. Acemoglu and Robinson pithily diagnose the cause of these disappointing outcomes in their final chapter: “Attempting to engineer prosperity without confronting the root cause of the problems—extractive institutions and the politics that keeps them in place—is unlikely to bear fruit.”


Diamond's full two page review of  Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson 's work, is published in The New York Review of Books at the following link: 


Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty



A MUST READ FOR ALL IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CLIMATE.

The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

An easy access link to The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis(IIASA) has been added to my list of  Forsight-Hindsight Institutes and Videos.  The IIASA, is an international research organization that conducts policy-oriented research  into problems that are too large or too complex to be solved by a single country or academic discipline.

IIASA research investigates the critical issues of global environmental, economic, technological, and social change that we face in the twenty-first century. The researchers, some 200 mathematicians, social scientists, natural scientists, economists, and engineers, develop assessment and decision-support methodologies, global databases, and analytical tools to study the issues. IIASA concentrates its research efforts within three core research themes:

• Energy and Climate Change;
• Food and Water;
• Poverty and Equity.

Please do not hesitate to visit the website and read their publications. LINK

GET MOTIVATED: HOW I FORMED, MOTIVATE and MAINTAIN MY INVOLVEMENT IN GW-CC ISSUES

HOW I FORMED, MOTIVATE & MAINTAIN MY INVOLVEMENT IN GW-CC ISSUES 


I must admit that as a non-expert in Climatology and much else, I have been an early convert to the mainstream view, impressed by the weight, competence of the professionals,not to mention the abundant peer reviewed publications and the International recognition of the importance of these issues (IPCC) , on par with the International Energy Agencies IEA-AEI(Fr)   IEA-GW-CC section, Let me add it appeared to me that:

1. On such a scale of possible consequences (mostly dire) that it would be better to play it safe and do something about it, preferably something sensible, rather than the "lets waitt and see" people.
(cf. RealClimate article below)
2. As a professional R and D scientist and engineer, experienced both in the Lab. and in industry (the latter a bit grimy), I know for a fact, that it is easier, but not necessarily better, to pollute than not pollute. (Scientists have an explanation for our collective incompetence it is called Entropy).
3. I feel that I would be better for me (and my colleagues retired or otherwise employed) to concentrate on what  as a professionals in metallurgy (great recyclers) materials science, labs or industrialists to put our expert knowledge to use in our discipline. To do so one must have a good grasp of  the GW-CC issues.
4. As Scientists, the scientific mind requires that we remain informed and inquisitive, if not skeptical, of inevitable evolution in this fairly new (at least to the general public) and highly complex field by its shear dimension, and possible consequences.
5. We have ample experience success in all sorts of pollution activity (natural and easy) but little of pollution avoidance and depollution (needs much energy, invention and innovation)

6. An early road map was drawn up by Socolow and Pacala  Wedge Approaches with lead to the creation of The Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton Uni.

RealClimate: The high cost of inaction

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/.../the-cost-of-inaction...

Block all www.realclimate.org results

14 Oct 2011 – “Unfortunately, the original wedges approach greatly underestimates needed reductions. In part, that is because Pacala and Socolow built their ...

Hope you enjoy reading me,

Cheers.  

Global surface temperature rise interrupted between 1998 to 2008 cited by Skeptics confuses general public on Global Warming - Climate Change best previsions-senarios. My View and Commitment cf. next post

 My View and Commitment next post - read on below

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008 by Robert K. Kaufmann a,1 , Heikki Kauppi b , Michael L. Mann a , and James H. Stock c

a Department of Geography and Environment, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue (Room 457), Boston, MA 02215;  b Department of Economics, University of Turku, FI-20014, Turku, Finland; and c Department of Economics,Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 Edited by Robert E. Dickinson, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, and approved June 2, 2011 (received for review February 16, 2011) PNAS

Supplementary information [pdf]

As an informed member of the public I recommend the above referenced paper which I would hope responds to the still highly vocal sceptic specialists  often poor criticism or deliberate mention of facts out of context and biased (bribed?) media and leading to a misinformed sceptic public. cf previous post. 


"Famous last words" ? 


I shall return in following posts to argue my own view as a still convinced GW-CC non-specialist, non-expert educated senior member of the public.

Climate Change Convinced Experts vs Skeptics Part II_The Fight to discredit THE GROUP OF 98

Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide

Eos, Vol. 92, No. 24, 14 June 2011

When I discovered the paper Expert credibility in climate change [pdf] basis for my previous post, I though that the Global Warming-Climate Change (GW-CC) debate had taken an important step towards even stronger concerted action (much effort has been taken despite recognised uncertainties and the out-right Skeptics. We all know of the inertia to get human society into progressive motion let alone global action, but little did I realise just just how much intellectual, media manipulation, industrial and financial interest were not only dragging their heal but fighting viciously to discredit THE 98%  mainstream climatologists.  

My first reaction was that communication could be at fault. Therefore a strong tangible comparison to touch the public imagination could help. Such a case could be the comparison between volcano vs human generated CO2. Naturally the Climate Scientists, from the Group of 98 have done this work.

Ultrashort summary: In order to emit CO2 at the same rate as humans, we would need Mt. St Helens to erupt violently every 2.5 hrs. 

Thanks for the reminder from Fight Entropy blog together with comments and further peer reviewed references.

a) RealClimate  peer reviewed paper in EOS[pdf] C on RealClimate blog add further peer reviewed references.

Unfortunately there is still apparently unfair opposition to the Pro GW-CC and the action this calls for
and another blog post appears necessary. 

Expert credibility in climate change_Convinced-CE (98%) vs Skeptics UE (2%)_ Can THE 98% be mistaken or corrupt?

Like my young blog colleague, student at a leading Univ in Climate Change research, writing in his blog Fight Entropy, I came across this gem of a paper in the most read articles in PNAS

 To my mind, this is a paper which, for all intents and purposes, removes much of the uncertainty which has arisen in the interminable debates on the credibility of anthropogenic (human generated) origin of  climate change (ACC).   The paper is entitled "Expert credibility in climate change" by   William R. L. Anderegg,  James W. Prall,  Jacob Harold, and  Stephen H. Schneider, and is Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. [pdf] Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

This date is important in the light of the Incident known to a wide public as Climate Gate which originated in November 2009 cf. TIME LINE in WIKIPEDIA 

Returning to the paper  "Expert credibility in climate change" 

The Discrepancy between the convinced experts (CE) [98%] and the rise in scepticism in the general public fired by the unconvinced experts (UE) [2%] led my young colleague climate scientist, at in his blog Fight Entropy to comment  "we are the 98% joke." 

 - Quick Summary of "Expert credibility in climate change" 

"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC.

A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers (UE) relative to agreeing researchers (CE), and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive data set of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.


  - Research Ranking 



" The authors provide a broad assessment of the relative credibility of researchers convinced by the evidence (CE) of ACC and those unconvinced by the evidence (UE) of ACC." They claim that:

"consideration of UE researchers differs from previous work on climate change sceptics and contrarians in that the authors primarily focus on researchers that have published extensively in the climate field, although we consider all skeptics/contrarians that have signed prominent statements concerning ACC (6–8). Such expert analysis can illuminate public and policy discussions about ACC and the extent of consensus in the expert scientific community.


 - Results and Discussion Summarised (Numbers in brackets below refer to references in the full paper)



"We (the authors) provide a large-scale quantitative assessment of the relative level of agreement, expertise, and prominence in the climate researcher community. We show that the expertise and prominence,two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians. This divide is even starker when considering the top researchers in each group. Despite media tendencies to present both sides in ACC debates (9), which can contribute to continued public misunderstanding regarding ACC (7, 11, 12, 14), not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the climate system. This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change." 

Endogeneity

The Authors are of course well aware of the imperfections of  their research credibility indicators  from reviewing the literature (cf? their references 21 to 29) 


"Publication and citation analyses are not perfect indicators of researcher credibility, but they have been widely used in the natural sciences for comparing research productivity, quality, and prominence (21–24). Furthermore, these methods tend to correlate highly with other estimates of research quality, expertise, and  prominence  (21–26).  These  standard  publication  and  citation metrics are often used in many academic fields to inform decisions regarding hiring and tenure..."

and again

"Regarding the influence of citation patterns, we acknowledge that it is difficult to quantify potential biases of self-citation or clique citation in the analysis presented here. However, citation analysis research suggests that the potential of these patterns to in fluence results is likely to decline as sample size of researchers, possible cliques, and papers analysed for citations considered increases (22, 25–28)."

Largely absent from my blogs in 2011,(a hectic year of much change in our personal lives) I thought such a paper would bring some serenity to such a crucial issue and united effort to such a global Issue.  Reading the literature opened by studying the current paper "Expert credibility in climate change"_ I was surprised to see that resistance to the required freely consented united stance and accompanying measures to alleviate " best-worst scenario prevision - designed to alleviate unwanted greenhouse gas and global warming (GW).

The subject is still a downer in any conversation among friends ie. if you wish to keep them especially if they have readily available coal at hand. GW-CC appears to be the subject to be avoided in our Presidential candidates here in France. Like the situation of EU anthropogenic debt there is no magic wand at hand.


MORE...


Anderegg et al's reply to Aarstad: Risk management versus “truth”


Anderegg et al's reply to Bodenstein: Contextual data about the relative scale of opposing scientific communities. 


Anderegg et al's Reply to O’Neill and Boykoff: Objective classification of climate experts

Supporting Information Anderegg et al. 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 

I will return to the GW theme in the light of my rapid update in order to write this log. Many of these peer reviewed papers are well worth reading and deserve as strong an echo as possible.

CHEERS Anderegg et al

RELATED POSTS
One of my oldest posts in my First of  Seven Blogs:

           Conversations-on-Innovations   

WHOSE FOCUS IS ON 

Innovation, Systems Approaches, EBE-Environmentally Benign Engineering Approaches, Metallurgy, Materials Science & Advanced Processes Dedicated

Climate Change-Motor for Innovation-My J.K.Rowlings,H. Potter, Penseive 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2006 IN 

CARBON NEUTRAL & THE HOTTEST FROM THE "AGE-DOT" 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2006.

Photosynthesis - The Endothermic PhysChem Reaction-In Reality "A System - Nature at her Best". (Wedge a War on Deforestation) 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007.

OCDE Forum 2008 : Climate Change, Growth , Stability: Prime Innovation Motivation Conversation 2-4 June 2008?  

SUNDAY, JUNE 01, 2008

Climate Change 3 part series from FT-Financial Times-"No getting away from it" Follow-up from OCDE Forum 2008? 

THURSDAY, JUNE 05, 2008.

"Companies Underestimate Climate Related Risks"; according to KPMG-Sustainability, NL. "the Front-line, Dutch Wing" of KPMG. 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008

Guns, gems and steel: The Fate(s) of Human Societies 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2008

Recession and The Environment I – Climate Change -Root Causes and Solutions 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2008.

Recession and The Environment II – Climate Change: Root Causes and Solutions  

SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2008.

G8 University Summit conference focused on Global Sustainability, Concrete measures to take, International Co-operation by Academia in this "War"   

MONDAY, JANUARY 05, 2009.

Climate 2008_Important Repository of Conf Papers_ Intuition - Foresight-Hindsight: Virtual Labs, Conferences Networks 

SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 2009.

Climate change solution innovators_EU nations commit $3.6 billion to climate fund  

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2009.

THIS BLOG_

This-Above-All

Roadmap - The Most Urgent Issue Facing Mankind - Climate Change and Energy from The Financial Times

MORE & MORE: The above list are blogs Tagged "Climate Change" and can be found either via the blog search or by perusing my list of Tags.  More reports-logs may be found on my site 

Materials Science and Engineering Defined