Defining denial

Saturday, 1st October 2011

Climate sceptics and warmists have plenty in common — not least a high regard for science

If the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’.

So wrote Mark Lynas, global warming believer and author of the book Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet, on his blog in June. The comment was in response to the astonishing revelation that significant parts of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on renewable energy, the conclusions of which were all over the press a few days before, had been written by Greenpeace. Not only that, but one of its campaigners, who had written the original Greenpeace material, was a lead author on the IPCC report itself. The blogosphere was abuzz with news of Lynas’s post, which wasa rare and refreshing moment of honesty in the ever more polarised and acrimonious climate debate.

Admittedly, it was a spectacular own goal by the IPCC, an organisation still struggling to regain its credibility after a number of high-profile errors were found in its last report and evidence was uncovered of its widespread use of ‘grey literature’ and propaganda from environmental advocacy groups. Yet when sceptics dare to question the validity of the science and the organisations promoting it, when they detect political or other non-scientific motives behind the scenes, they are branded ‘deniers’ — a simple and, unfortunately, very effective tactic for smearing one’s opponents and stifling open debate. But is such conduct really denial?

In fact, ‘warmists’ and ‘sceptics’ have a considerable amount of common ground. It is fairly well agreed that: (a) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that a higher concentration in the atmosphere will cause warming of the planet; (b) man-made emissions have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; (c) the planet has been warming slowly for a couple of hundred years (although there are disagreements as to the precise magnitude); and (d) a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration from pre-industrial levels would, on its own, result in warming of about one degree Celsius.

So no fewer than four fundamental tenets of global warming alarmism are accepted, at least in part, by the overwhelming majority of sceptics. However, this is where the paths diverge.

The consensus scientists contend, despite the modest one degree of warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that ‘feedbacks’ will operate to amplify that warming, so that the planet may experience an increase in temperature of between three and six degrees Celsius by 2100. They also believe that other, natural, influences, such as changes in the sun or the effects of cosmic rays, are too small to have any significant effect on the climate. Much of this is based on computer models which are incomplete, and fail to represent accurately several key components of the climate system, such as the effects of clouds.

Sceptics, on the other hand, generally consider the feedbacks to be much weaker, and may even operate to counteract any disturbance of the climate by the effect of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. They also contend that the natural drivers of climate change are more significant and have a greater effect on global temperature than the consensus scientists wish to acknowledge.

In reality, then, the area of disagreement between the consensus scientists and the majority of sceptics is actually rather small, and very specific. Is questioning this area of disagreement really denial?

Similarly, the government is introducing a carbon tax, in its words, to ‘tackle climate change’. Sceptics would argue that since Australia produces less than 1.5 per cent of global emissions, any action that Australia takes unilaterally, in the absence of global agreement (the chances of reaching such an agreement at Durban later this year are negligible), will have zero environmental benefit at a substantial and damaging cost to the economy. Furthermore, there is no evidence to indicate that other nations will meekly follow Australia’s lead, particularly China and India, both of which are far more concerned with economic growth and alleviating poverty. Recently announced Republican US Presidential candidate Rick Perry has described global warming as ‘a contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight’. With a strong possibility of a change of administration in 2012, and a dire economic situation to contend with, US action is looking less and less likely.

Again, given all of these issues, is questioning the logic of a unilateral carbon tax really denial?

Let’s return to the IPCC for a moment. The organisation was established in the 1980s to find a body of evidence to support a preconceived conclusion: namely, that carbon dioxide emissions caused by humans were dangerously affecting the climate and should be regulated. In fact, the IPCC’s principles refer specifically to investigating ‘human-induced’ climate change, so it is little wonder that it has provided the evidence it was tasked to find. Once more, is questioning the credibility and impartiality of the reports of such a politicised organisation really denial?

I would answer an emphatic ‘no’ to each of those questions. Of course, it is important to acknowledge that there is a spectrum of views on climate change. At one end, there are those who believe that climate change is caused solely by nature, and that man has no effect. They comprise a tiny minority of sceptics. In the middle ground are those who believe that man has some effect on climate, but would argue about the magnitude of that effect. This is where the majority of sceptics would position themselves. At the other end there are those who believe that man is the main or only factor in climate change. They believe that natural climate changes are insignificant by comparison.

Challenging and rigorously testing an accepted consensus is what free-thinking, impartial scientific enquiry is all about — the common goal on both sides of the debate being to advance our understanding of the climate. Legitimate challenges and questions should be addressed rather than dismissed, and those who raise them should be accepted rather than demonised. This is the very essence of the scientific process, and Mark Lynas is to be applauded to upholding its integrity so admirably.

Simon Turnill has a Masters degree in engineering and writes the blog Australian Climate Madness (www.australianclimatemadness.com).

More articles from: Simon Turnill | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comment

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit