Climate Sceptics having a field day

The climate change sceptics have been having a very successful spell recently. In light of the scientific consensus, the high profile support from heads of state, scientific academies and public acceptance of the reality of climate change, this shouldn’t be so. So why is it?

There are many reasons but the main ones are:

1. Skeptics are very tenacious, dedicated and competent at what they do.
2. Skeptics are very well funded.
3. The public is very ignorant of how science actually works.

1. Climate change sceptics are quite ideologically driven and many strongly believe what the current Canadian Prime Minister said before being elected (and probably regrets):  That the whole climate change hypothesis is a socialist hoax with the ultimate objective of redistributing wealth and establishing a European style welfare state. They are very able to exploit the many assumptions, postulates and extrapolations of climate theory and use them to make it appear that the entire concept is bogus. A great many – particularly those taking the lead – are former public relations professionals having considerable expertise in the “Art of Persuasion”.  Indeed, many of the most prominent were involved in the very successful tobacco-cancer denial project – until the truth became undisputable.  
2. The sceptics are very well funded, although very reluctant to disclose exactly where that funding comes from. It has not been difficult, and with only minor efforts at investigation, to find that their cash comes primarily from oil and gas, coal and other sundry fossil fuel dependant industries. They have the tacit support of the political class who recognize that these powerful entities can be very adept in persuading the voting public. One spectacular funding trick that was uncovered involved a U of Calgary prof who used the good name of that august institution to establish an anti-climate change fund. The scam was eventually discovered and shut down, but not before making a tidy amount for the Calgary based Friends of Science.
3. People generally, and many of the educated also, have a very poor understanding of the nature of the scientific method. The general belief is that when a “discovery” is made it reveals some immutable truth, which in turn adds to the sum of human understanding. Another popular misconception is that science will eventually reveal everything, given time. Almost anyone involved in science will tell you that each new discovery produces a dozen more questions. The belief is also prevalent that theory and fact (if such truly exists) are one and the same – i.e. unless every postulate and model is without flaw, and predicts every event without error, then the entire theory is invalid. The basic scientific truism that there are no such things as ultimate truths and everything is open to interpretation and invalidation, is not widely understood. Science works on the assumption that the hypothesis is accepted until a new theory comes along to supersede it.

Below are what were just three of the most prominent, generally accepted and long lived, ideas from the history of science that now reside in the landfill of historic hypothesis:

• Aristotle speculated that the universe revolved around the Earth, until such luminaries as Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo showed otherwise. In fact, it is now known that we are but a tiny planet in an insignificant galaxy in a universe made up of billions of other galaxies. This great philosopher and intellect also concluded that everything was made up of four basic elements: earth, air, fire and water.  Would the early geniuses of chemical science (alchemists) have accepted the atomic theory of matter and the Table of Elements?
• Darwin further dispelled the myth of the human-centered universe by showing that life evolved over aeons and not the 6,500 years as interpreted from biblical interpolation. Like the theory of climate change, evolution is still widely disputed by those whose world view is somehow violated by being proclaimed the progeny of monkeys and that God’s hand in creation cannot be perceived.
• Newton and scientists of his time, “showed” that the particles of matter act in a totally predictable manner, that light travels through a medium called the luminiferous ether and that time is a fixed entity. The discovery of relativity and quantum physics put the lid on all that stuff and, as mentioned before, opened up a multitude of more puzzling and counter intuitive questions.

From these prominent examples of scientific advancement that were later found to be somewhat flawed it should be clear that most scientific hypotheses are eventually found to be lacking. Climate change theory is no exception to this rule but the basic foundational principles remain – certain gases absorb infra-red radiation and those gases are at historically high levels in our atmosphere. The sceptics have made great issue with a relative few anomalies whilst ignoring the rest of the evidence. Unfortunately the public accepts the spin and is led to believe that the entire edifice has collapsed.

There is blame to be laid at the doorstep of some climate change scientists. However great the problem is thought to be for future generations one should never resort to unsupported evidence that will inevitably undermine credibility. The great fear of the climate change community is one of “tipping points”: levels of greenhouse gases that, if exceeded, will create a runaway effect and take the entire issue out of our hands. Many eminent scientists accept the concept of positive feedback but are not sure what the required levels are that will cause them to kick in. A wise approach would be to studiously avoid the chance of ever getting there at all.

The aggressiveness of the sceptics and their willingness to distort the level of uncertainty has created a battlefield of the entire climate issue. A few of the scientists, aware of the implications of unchecked greenhouse gas growth, circled the wagons and compromised their fundamental principle of veracity, openness and absolute free exchange of ideas.

Nothing fundamental in the science of climate change has changed. Only the matter of a small number of incriminating hacked e-mails taken from about 40,000 from the Hadley Center in Britain indicated that the scientists were fighting back and have been used as fodder for the denial mill. Even scientists are human and do not all resort to turning the other cheek when faced with concerted and well funded opposition. Who can blame them, burdened as they are with the understanding of potential futures under a business as usual scenario?

The implications of it all are that concerted climate change actions will be stalled, but this does not take into account how society is addressing the issue currently. To be realistic, governments were always the most unlikely candidates to elicit radical change anyway. Real change has always come from a society pushed to it’s limits of tolerance. We may have a way to go before we see street riots for climate action, at least in the west. But, as journalist Gwyn Dyer has stated, once the third world starts to really suffer the effects of droughts, floods and weather extremes, watch out. They will no longer be satisfied with the crumbs we offer them when they cannot even grow enough to support their already meagre existence.