|
Sceptical about climate scepticism
We are now well into 2010, and this looks like being the year of the climate sceptic. This time last year I had thought that scepticism was on the wane, and that the pressure was building up very nicely for governments to bring in some real legislation to tackle climate change. I was wrong on both counts. The Copenhagen climate change meeting came up with a very weak resolution (1), and the climate sceptics have found renewed energy. What has happened to change the picture?
The first problem was the hacking into the University of East Anglia's computer system, and the publication online last autumn of many emails from their Climate Research Unit. It is notable that hardly anyone mentions that hacking into the system was a criminal act, and all the attention has focussed on the hacked emails. What the sceptics did was to search through hundreds of emails with a few keywords looking for anything that they could use to further their cause. They found a few sentences where the scientists involved had used colloquial language, and then took them out of context to "prove" that fiddling the data had been happening. I often think that if somebody hacked into Oxford Brookes University where I work and stole my emails they could fairly easily "prove" anything they liked about my research and publications.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigated (March 2010), and completely exonerated Prof. Phil Jones, the main scientist involved, of any malpractice. They found that much of the raw data the sceptics wanted to see was already in the public domain, but did feel that the University had not been completely transparent in letting other data be released. But the committee conclusion was: "We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is induced by human activity."
The next attack has been on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), its reports, and all those associated with it. The IPCC consists of hundreds of the world's top climate scientists. The last IPCC report in 2007 has come in for particular criticism. In three very long volumes a few mistakes have been picked on. The biggest error concerned the date by which the Himalayan glaciers will totally melt. The 2007 report said this would happen by 2035, basing the date on an inaccurate prediction in "grey literature". This was a serious mistake that should have been picked up, but does not affect the major conclusions of the IPCC. A few mistakes in thousands of pages do not justify throwing the whole report out and disbanding the IPCC.
Incidentally, the Himalayan glaciers may not all go by 2035, but most of them are melting at an alarming rate, with dire predictions for the future.(2)
The IPCC has been attacked for alarmist propaganda, and for exaggerating the dangers from climate change. However, there are many instances where the IPCC has actually been shown to be too cautious in its predictions rather than alarmist. It is, in fact, a very conservative body, and its forecasts on melting of ice caps and sea level rise have been on the low side. Oddly the sceptics rarely attack on low predictions. In an effort to label the IPCC as alarmist the sceptic lobby picked on Sir John Houghton, its former co-chair, repeatedly claiming that he had stated, "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." He had, in fact, never made this statement, but in desperation the sceptics found a similar sounding sentence from Sir John in an old newspaper article, took it out of context, and tried to pin this on him.(3)
Then the climate scientists themselves have been attacked for being on a "gravy train", hauling in large grants for their own personal benefit. The grants come in, but most of the money goes on hiring researchers to carry out the work, equipment and overheads to their institutions. Getting a grant for a senior scientist usually means taking on more work, and often the most they get out of it is funding for a trip to a conference. The truth is that hardly any scientists get rich - I should know!
So where are we now on climate scepticism? The science of human-induced global warming has, if anything, become even stronger in the years since the IPCC last reported in 2007. But the sceptical voices have increased in volume, particularly working through the blogosphere, and from certain newspapers. This has led to increased confusion amongst the general public, and several opinion polls have shown that concern over climate change has decreased in both the UK and the USA. We scientists have been doing a lot of soul searching in the last few months. How do we get across very complex science in a simple way to an increasingly sceptical public?
I will end by paraphrasing Al Gore. Of course it is a lot more convenient to be able to think that climate change is not happening, and that we can get on with life unhindered. But convenience does not equal truth.
Dr. Martin J. Hodson is an environmental scientist and is Operations Manager for the John Ray Initiative.
See http://www.hodsons.org
- Copenhagen and the climate change crisis (JRI Briefing Papers– No. 19- 2010) is a detailed analysis of where we stand after the Copenhagen climate change conference by Sir John Houghton. http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php/2010/02/copenhagen-and-the-climate-change-crisis/
- For a recent update on the Himalayan glaciers see: Larmer, B. (2010) The big melt. National Geographic (April 2010, pp. 60-79) http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/04/tibetan-plateau/larmer-text
- For a good analysis of this story see: Holmes, J. (2010) Malice, misquotes and Media Watch. Feb 22nd 2010 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826604.htm?site=thedrum
|
Dr Martin Hodson, 21/04/2010 |
|
(page
1
2
3)
| | | Ruth Valerio | 23/04/2010 09:03 | I was on YouTube yesterday looking for something and noticed that it was Earth Day so they'd put up some environmental vids. Reading the comments reminded me what a battle we're in as so many of the comments were from climate sceptics who were almost vitriolic in tone.
| | | | Jean Barron (Guest) | 23/04/2010 12:13 | A very informative article
for church eco-groups to use.
| | | | cincin | 23/04/2010 12:27 | For anyone interested in more detailed arguments I've found the following web-site to be a useful resource. http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
The recent news item on this site http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/climate_scientist_sues_nationa.php shows something of the level of vitriol that Ruth mentions.
It's not really surprising when we consider the commercial interests, and what some denialists feel is an invasion of their rights.
I agree with "ecocongregation(guest)" Nowadays, I tend to get further in discussions when I focus more on peak oil, costs and also national energy security. All of which are in more immediately visable issues. Unfortuanately long term stewardship is simply not on most peoples radar, let alone the biblical justification.
Hope that helps
cin cin
ChRiS
| | | | Steve Paynter (Guest) | 26/04/2010 11:22 | The BBC has recently admitted that it has not covered Climate Science well in recent years. They used to put up a sceptic every time they reported on a climate change issue. But they now acknowledge this was misleading, givng the impression the sceptics views where as equally valid as the peer reviewed body of science widely accpeted. This has greatly increased the sceptical tendancy in society. We should all write to the BBC and ask them to produce quality science progrogrammes, by trusted presenters,which help the public understand what the science says and how it comes to these conclusions.
| | | | Pete Hawkins (Guest) | 27/04/2010 15:20 | Steve's point about the BBC coverage is an interesting one. It is good to give balance to their coverage, but where should this start and finish? I was chatting to a friend over the weekend and staggered that he was a climate change sceptic. He was very open about it and I took the chance to ask what would change his mind? He was unable to answer this, which I found intriguing, and, as the conversation continued I formed the view that, to coin a phrase, it was simply inconvenient - he didn't want it to be true because of the (seemingly) profound impact that truth would demand of his lifestyle. It all comes rather too close to home.
| | | | Elanor Whythe (Guest) | 28/04/2010 16:00 | the emails include conversations and data showing how they planned on and were manipulating data. The Hacking (or leaking) of the emails/data, was the only thing that the main stream media were covering, the contense has been seriously underplayed, McIntire showed how things like the 'Trick' really was a trick... not taken out of context or just a clever thing to do. The Hadley/jones investigation's have been a total white wash, and concluding that their concluding belief in the climate change theory does not say anything on the truth of jones professional behaviour. The truth is still the truth, regardless of an investigation saying it isn't. The IPCC is political with the purpose of finding man responsible, I agree a few errors doesn't mean its all wrong, but their is far more to the story of the criticisms of the IPCC than just a few errors or a few grey matter. In regard to grants and profits - why do you think the banks are getting involved. Its now a multi-billion soon to be trillion dollar industry... to deny the profits being made and the grants which encourage a bias in the science and politics which is currently going on just leaves me speachless. - evidence that many or most of the scientists involved still not being rich is just avoiding the issue. the importance of sketicism in science is not to make things convenient, and more often than not, it does just the oposite. Martin, I am speachless at how you have written such an article that down plays, over-simplifies and even misrepresents the true gravity of the situation. You have called an apple an orange when it clearly is still an apple. No amount of writing the oposite will it change the truth
| | | | whysue (Guest) | 28/04/2010 16:48 | For the average person, it seems to me that discussing what is causing climate change is a bit like moving deckchairs on the Titanic. Oil and coal are going to run out, the ice caps are melting. We need to change our wasteful way of living and care for the poor who are being badly impacted by changing climate. We need to take action now, not spend another ten years arguing about it.
| | | | Martin Hodson (Guest) | 29/04/2010 19:12 | Thanks for all your comments on my article. Of course I totally disagree with Elanor, who I met at the first "Hope for Planet Earth" meeting of last year. JRI personnel have had discussions with her already on these matters. This whole area is a complex one where science, economics, politics, psychology (even theology!) and a whole lot more interact. Yes, the media are a major factor in the whole debate. At times they have been helpful, and at other times have not, and they have certainly misled and confused people. The blogosphere is even worse! I think there are quite a lot of people like Pete's friend who are sceptic because they don't want to face the problems. But there are probably a lot more that are just apathetic. There are still very few definite sceptics, and hardly any scientists amongst them. I was interested to see that several people mentioned Peak Oil. I almost put that in myself, but Ruth had asked for a 1000 words on climate scepticism, and I decided to stick to the brief.
A few points to consider:
1) At present we are releasing the equivalent of about a million years worth of stored photosynthetic product (coal, oil and gas) into the atmosphere every year. Carbon dioxide is increasing at around 2-3 ppm per year in the atmosphere. That has NEVER happened before. At the very least we are conducting a massive uncontrolled experiment on the Earth's atmosphere.
2) If the vast majority of scientists are correct, we need to move off carbon emissions very fast. If we do that and we avoid total disaster, then I think everyone would applaud.
3) If the scientists are wrong (I am sure they are not!), and we cut carbon emissions now, then it is still a good idea as we have Peak Oil (and Peak Gas and Peak Coal) to contend with. Plus, in the UK, we have all the problems of fuel security- can we really rely on getting our energy supplies from abroad indefinitely?
4) If the climate sceptics are wrong, and we do nothing because of them, then we have a global disaster. And do not forget that many are already suffering the effects of climate change. As whysue says "We need to change our wasteful way of living and care for the poor who are being badly impacted by changing climate."
| | | | Elanor (Guest) | 01/05/2010 16:09 | Oil and gas is running out - and never before in history has human kind released so much CO2... these are points that are not part of the debate... the debate is about whether the CO2 being released by man is the main cause or atleast a substancial enough part to be causing dangerous degrees of warming. No studies have found CO2 the main cause of recent changes [or even any changes] which are WELL within natural (maybe even expected) ranges anyway.
Its all theoretically predicted by models. Peak oil and other side issues of pollution, recycling, care for the environment are fallacious arguments that may have truth and should be done anyway, but cannot constitute as evidence that we are the cause of climate change. Sure we should do everything we can to look after this beautiful planet and not exploit it... this is not in dispute. Making out that anyone who disagrees with the Anthroprogenic Global Warming theory as not caring about the world does make it seem unquestionable by anyone with morrals but thats re-writing the scientific method. Scientific enquiry has been forgotton, silenced and ridiculed, that should ring alarm bells for any scientist worth his salt. Any degree of skeptical investigation into the science shows the theory should have been ditched years ago, since many alternative explanations hold more scientific merit in accounting for recent changes. Making the theory morrally unquestionable and its environmental and political drive is the only thing keeping the theory alive... not its own scientific merit. All the good, positive and morrally right things connected to the theory can and should be applied regardless. Using them to justify or encourage belief in CO2 causing harm is an illogical argument. But the truth is, if the theory didn't exist or at some point got accepted as being untrue... motivation for all the good things connected to it would be lost or atleast greatly reduced... Thats what representatives at 'Hope For Planet Earth' told me... I quote ''Does it matter if its not true? - the fact is its helping all these good causes''.
The science has long been irrelevant.
| | | | Elanor (Guest) | 01/05/2010 16:22 | The theory is needed, required and it is considered irrespossible to be found not true... scientific method not longer wanted.
P.s. caring for the poor and the environment - is not throwing money, time and effort away on a non-existant problem... there are too many real problems in the world. There is no evidence that anyone has died prematurely from man made climate change... there is hundreds of thousands that have died as a result of climate policy... Hello? I think your logic got lost somewhere
|
(page
1
2
3)
|
|
|
