Here’s an extract from the Daily Mail’s leader column the other day
With so much at stake, therefore, it is vital the debate on global warming is examined from every angle, coolly and rationally.
For make no mistake: there is more than one side to this hugely complex argument - although anyone listening to the BBC or to any of our three main political parties might be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
Certainly, there is compelling evidence that average temperatures have been rising over recent years. But there are many respectable scientists who believe questions still remain about the causes.
Is this warming man-made or is it just part of a cycle that the Earth has been through many times before? …
Everyone who cares about our planet wants sustainable energy and a cut in emissions and pollution. But let the decisions on how we achieve that be taken on the basis of hard science and reasoned debate - not propaganda and zealotry.
That sounds fair and reasonable, doesn’t it? After all, it’s undeniable that there arescientists who don’t accept anthropogenic global warming is happening. Shouldn’t we settle the science before we act hastily?
There are a couple of flaws with this. This first is the implicit assumption that it is those who are presenting the case for AGW who are driven by propaganda and zealotry, in contrast with the ’skeptics’, whose agenda is driven purely by empiricism. That simply isn’t true.
There is a clear — and often explicitly stated — political component to the ’skeptics’ arguments, shaped by a hostility to anything which might appear to limit individual and corporate freedom. That’s a reasonable political position (though not one I share), but it has no bearing on the science. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
Furthermore, the notion that we should delay action on climate change to avoid unnecessary economic cost — “Why act if we don’t need to?” — is deeply flawed. It is true that if action is taken on AGW and it turns out to have been unneeded, there’ll be economic consequences. How bad those consequences might be is hard to guage, economics not being a very precise science. Some of the predictions are apocalyptic, though it is worth remembering that the Right’s (and we are largely talking about the Right here) track record on predicting economic consequences is not great. Remember what they said the effects of a minimum wage would be? The uncertain economic consequences of acting on climate change are, however, irrelevant to our decision-making, for one simple reason: the economic consequences of acting unnecessarily on climate change are at best contained (and probably far-surpassed) by the economic consequences of not acting.
If AGW is as uncertain as the ’skeptics’ claim, the decision on whether to take action or not has to be determined by an assessment of the risks and the consequences of making a wrong decision. Let me put it this way. Before I drive, I put on a seatbelt. The chances of my being in an accident are statistically very small, but I accept the slight inconvenience of the safety-belt because of the catastrophic consequences should events contradict the statistician’s prediction. It isn’t a perfect analogy, I know. The consequences of unnecessary action might well be worse than inconvenient.
But nothing like as bad as the economic, social and environmental fall-out that could come if necessary action is not taken.
Having said all that, the science of climate change is not so uncertain as the Daily Mail claims. Yes, you can find individual scientists with impressive looking letters after their name who dispute it. That’s true on just about everything. Looking at scientific bodies produces a completely different picture, however. Britain’s Royal Society, surely one of the world’s most prestigious science institutions, says
Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
This isn’t a group of bearded greens. Nor is it a group of climate scientists with an eye to the next research grant payment. This is a body with a reputation for academic excellence that goes back over 300 years. You think they’d wager that reputation on dodgy science? Set that alongside the fact that every other national academy of science (that I’ve been able to track down) seems to agree, and the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change begins to look rather solid.
Of course, that isn’t proof. And no one wants to accept an argument based on authority these days. But if you want an issue of science settled, where else do you go but the foremost science bodies?
And if you don’t like their conclusions, you have to do a bit better than coming up with one or two maverick opinions. Why does their opinion matter more than the Royal Society’s?
There’s a small chance that the mavericks are right, I’ll grant you.
But would you bet your grandchildren’s future on it?
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Tony Buglass 12.10.09 at 11:33 pm
It is true to say that science isn’t a democratic process - the majority are not necessarily right, just because they are the majority.
However, if we are discussing a matter of some risk, and there is a possibility that the worst case analysis (ie AGW) is right - even if there is doubt, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution?
Richard 12.11.09 at 3:00 pm
Just in case there’s any doubt, I’m certainly not suggesting that scientific questions are settled by vote. But. We all, to a greater or lesser extent depend on others to interpret the complexities of this question. That’s inevitable. What I’m not clear about is why the opinions of a few individuals carry more weight than the collective wisdom not just of one national science academy but, it seems, *every* national science academy.
Tony Buglass 12.11.09 at 3:19 pm
Just in case there’s any confusion, I was agreeing with you. If there is any possibility that AGW is true, we should be taking whatever steps we can to reduce our impact, just in case. So even if there can be shown to be doubts in the science (and as you say, the vast majority think it’s conclusive) that is no reason for not doing anything.
The root problem isn’t the science. It’s the unwillingness of comfortable modern technologically-dependent people to accept that we cannot continue as we do. Thirty years ago, the slogan was “Live simply, that others may simply live.” Every time I see an unnecessarily huge car with an unnecessarily big engine, I wonder how anyone can justify it. The salaries and bonusses issue is just one facet of an underlying issue - even when the crisis has hit, people are simply unwilling to accept it.
Until we do, there will be no solution.
Richard 12.11.09 at 6:53 pm
I thought we were pretty much on the same page with this, Tony. My clarification was as for the benefit of onlookers really.
Interesting that you mention unnecessarily big cars. I had an encounter with one of those ridiculously large 4×4’s in a tight multi-storey car park the other day. It left me seething…