…we are not that comfortable with it.

There is clearly a disconnect, between the scientists and the public on the global warming theory; the science is difficult, it is multi-threaded, it does not lend itself to a black and white picture. Think about the CFC /Ozone Layer issue – nice, easy and one dimensional. You carry on emitting these chemicals, then the Ozone thins and eventually we all die of skin cancer. Satellite pictures even showed the ‘hole’ forming over Antarctica.

Global warming and associated climate change is a very different proposition. There are still a lot of ‘ifs’, ‘buts’ and ‘maybe thens’ and the time scales are relatively long ones. The average person will not read IPCC reports, still less the scientific papers that stand behind them. Public opinion is being formed on these matters by the press and other media. As the underlying science is not easy to grasp, this leaves the field open to the popularisers and the demagogues.

In this respect, and just ahead of the Copenhagen meeting, the public opinion pendulum seems to be swinging towards those who claim the global warming theory is at worst a giant tax scam, or at best colossal stupidity on the part of Western governments. The publication of the UEA emails has lent a lot of momentum to this swing. (Link to article)

How should those working towards mitigation of the threat of global warming and climate change respond to this?

First of all, what we should not do is hit the emotive button. The situation cries out for rationality with an undertone of ethics/morality, and not vice versa or –even worse – morality with an undertone of emotion (or vice versa). The ‘situation’ is complex, and there is this disconnect between the scientists and the public, but it can be rationalized[1]. The danger of an emotive approach lies precisely in the disconnect: show a reasoned argument, and if doubts are raised then it is usually possible to return to the reasoning to resolve them; show a polar bear and its cubs ‘stranded’ on a small bit of ice, you may win your desired emotive response, but when doubts are raised there is likely going to be a backlash. People fret when a rational position they have taken, on limited understanding of the scientific details, is under threat from doubt; they are generally furious when they feel they have been conned.

What we seem to be seeing from some of the proponents of ‘action needs to be taken to prevent further global warming’, is an increasingly emotive or moral tone. From Al Gore’s latest message ‘this is a moral and therefore religious imperative’ / ‘things are so serious we have to put the science to one side’, to James Hansen’s ‘Kyoto Accord has not worked’ / ‘time has come to scrap the consensus approach and impose carbon taxes immediately’. We don’t think that these messages are very helpful (NB these were not quotes, I paraphrased very crudely). If the message is not getting across, then the answer is not to raise the volume or become ever more shrill. This is what young kids tend to do. Leading figures need to keep their calm and plough on; answer doubt with reasoned argument.

(2) since the late 19^th Century a large and increasingly sophisticated effort has been made to measure this temperature as accurately as possible;

(3) all sets of data concur, in showing that temperatures have been rising over the past 100 years;

(4) despite the dedication of vast amounts of scientific analysis and research, no logical explanation has been found for this steady rise in temperature, which is wholly ‘out of trend’ with what went before;

(5) the upward trend in temperature is consistent with measurements that show a large increase in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, directly attributable to increasing hydrocarbon fuel consumption, changing land use and growing urbanization;

(6) putting (1) and (5) together, a large majority of scientists place a high degree of probability on the proposition that our increasing consumption of hydrocarbon fuel, changing land use and growing urbanization are – taken together – causing the planet to warm;

(7) if these trends continue, then it is likely that the warming of the planet will trigger irreversible ‘feedback loops’ (melting of ice sheets, release of large methane deposits buried in tundra etc) which will simultaneously accelerate the warming process (increase in rate of greenhouse gas emitted) and severely impact our way of life (notably via rising sea levels and more erratic climate);

(8) the emergence of new economic powerhouses, such as India and China, is resulting in runaway consumption of hydrocarbon sources, changing land use and urbanisation, on a scale never seen before;

(9) this rapid consumption of hydrocarbons is bringing forward the day when annual demand for oil & gas outstrips maximum possible supply, causing steep price increases, shortage of resources and panic;

(10) within a couple of generations, we will certainly need to face up to (9), and the required response is perfectly compatible with what is needed to reduce the climate risks inherent in (7);

(11) we therefore have a clear choice: do nothing, continue to live like our parents did (plus a fat margin….) and leave the potential disaster (i.e. 7) and the for sure disaster (i.e. 9) for our children or grandchildren; or take steps to ‘get off’ our hydrocarbon addiction. This will be painful, as all addicts know, but we probably need to do it.

Tags: Al Gore, Climate Change, COP15, Copenhagen, James Hansen, Sindicatum, Sindicatum Climate Change Foundation, UEA

Back to top