Climate change was hardly spoken of during the election campaign, but it remains a vital issue. So I’m grateful to Michael Tobis for sharing this letter recently published in Science. Hope he’ll forgive me for reproducing it
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.
We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
SAW 05.07.10 at 5:42 pm
Time to reassess … taking into account:
- station drop out in rural areas exaggerating temperature rises
- temperature static or in decline for eight years
- Antarctic ice at record high levels
- Arctic ice back to the decade average
- IPCC AR4 with extensive non-peer reviewed literature
- IPCC exposed as excluding contrary peer-reviewed literature
- IPCC chiefs having conflict of interest with business interests
- Other alarmists also exposed as having conflict of interest (eg Gore)
- Prof Phil Jones accepting no significant warmth in recent years
- Prof Phil Jones accepting Mediaeval Warm Period existed
- Hockey stick (prominent on AR3) exposed as very bad science
- Climategate emails revealing manipulation of peer review process
- Climategate emails revealing loss of original data
- Climategate emails revealing “hiding the decline” trickery
- No concrete scientific evidence for climate change being
anthropogenic
- Over reliance on climate models - none of which have produced
accurate forecasts or which can explain the MWP, LIA, etc.
- Renewable energy from wind power hasn’t worked, either in
providing consistent energy supplies at reasonable cost or in
providing “green jobs”.
We need to “harass scientists” if they are declaring things to be true when either they’re not or that there’s serious disagreement. Hopefully a change of government will examine in detail the state of climate science.
Richard 05.07.10 at 6:51 pm
*sigh*
I don’t have time to address everything - it’s mealtime - but really SAW: couldn’t you come up with something a bit more original?
First, if we’re talking about science, Al Gore is irrelevant. As far as I know, he isn’t a scientist.
You’ve distorted - as many climate change ’sceptics’ have done - what Phil Jones said about recent warming. But then, outright lying has been a consistent tactic. Despite what you say, the two enquiries into the CRU that I’m aware of found no scientific impropriety.
But my tea is ready…
SAW 05.07.10 at 10:50 pm
Perhaps when you’ve finished your tea you’d care to provide actual answers. (Except the Al Gore one - you’re right, despite being influential, he’s no scientist [hence the millions of degrees comment]).
Are you saying I’m a liar, BTW?
The enquiries were, of course, whitewash set-ups.
Richard 05.07.10 at 11:38 pm
Very quickly, cos now it’s bedtime. I have to be up at 3:30 –
- station drop out in rural areas exaggerating temperature rises
Not true. two thirds of surface temp records come from the oceans. And urban records are corrected for the heat island effect.
- temperature static or in decline for eight years
Irrelevant, even if true. 8 years is too short a period. But it isn’t true. To claim decline in surface temp you have to be very selective with the data.
- Antarctic ice at record high levels
- Arctic ice back to the decade average
Please quote the source of your evidence.
- IPCC AR4 with extensive non-peer reviewed literature
- IPCC exposed as excluding contrary peer-reviewed literature
Not sure what you mean by this. But it’s important to note that there were some errors in AR4. And they were discovered by climate scientists, not ’sceptics’.
- IPCC chiefs having conflict of interest with business interests
You got me. I don’t know anything about this. Sources please?
- Other alarmists also exposed as having conflict of interest (eg Gore)
Irrelevant.
- Prof Phil Jones accepting no significant warmth in recent years
That isn’t what he said.
- Prof Phil Jones accepting Mediaeval Warm Period existed
Irrelevant. And there’s huge debate about the MWP, and whether it was indeed global.
- Hockey stick (prominent on AR3) exposed as very bad science
Good answer here
- Climategate emails revealing manipulation of peer review process
- Climategate emails revealing loss of original data
- Climategate emails revealing “hiding the decline” trickery
Recent enquiries say otherwise.
- No concrete scientific evidence for climate change being anthropogenic
Not sure what you mean. Every major national science academy, and lots of minor ones, have accepted that human activity is the most likely driver of climate change.
- Over reliance on climate models - none of which have produced accurate forecasts or which can explain the MWP, LIA, etc.
See RealClimate
- Renewable energy from wind power hasn’t worked, either in providing consistent energy supplies at reasonable cost or in providing “green jobs”.
Of course there’s a huge amount of work to be done to develop adequate renewables. But when you look at how little money has been spent on this area, significant progress has been made. It’s all about will and commitment.
No, I wasn’t calling you a liar. But the ’sceptic’ case is built on oft-repeated made-up stuff. Repeated even when it has been refuted.
Off to bed…
Richard 05.08.10 at 8:18 pm
Earl commented*: When it comes to climate change, fudged facts and finagled science, the question is, “Did they or didn’t they?”
It’s a good question, and the answer is “They didn’t.”
Evidence: UK Parliament Science & Technology Committee Report: “Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.”
Oxburgh Report: “We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work
of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of
public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.”
Face it, Earl. The game’s up with name-calling the CRU.
*My apologies Earl. I accidentally deleted your comment in the process of replying (dodgy trackpad) ‘Twas a genuine error.
Richard 05.08.10 at 8:30 pm
I’ve managed to retrieve the comment by Earl that I accidentally erased. Here it is in full:
When it comes to climate change, fudged facts and finagled science, the question is, “Did they or didn’t they?” From all accounts some in the sc have sought to game the information to obtain a desired result(s). Against the backdrop of failed integrity and credibility, they must now seek to appeal to a justifiably skeptical public. They must now find a way to recover trust. It’s a little like trying to “unbreak” an egg.
Earl 05.09.10 at 12:06 am
Never occurred to me to consider that the missing comment was anything but some sort of error on my part.
If you consider that I was engaging in such action, you are confused. I did not call any names. I leave that practice to others. I stated, “When it comes to climate change, fudged facts and finagled science, the question is, “Did they or didn’t they?” As a professed believer in cc, you are satisfied with their explanation. That is fine. If you wish to put your economy in the tank, you that is your business. You will live with the consequences.
In the U.S. the current administration and its supporters in congress are about to be weighed in the balance of the ballot box. Happily signs are most encouraging that it will be found “wanting.” At present they have no interest for trying to advance cc legislation in either the senate or house. It is not likely that the survivors of Nov. 2 will have any greater enthusiasm for it.
Tony Buglass 05.09.10 at 9:12 am
“In the U.S. the current administration and its supporters in congress are about to be weighed in the balance of the ballot box. ”
Well, having just been through that process (and still going through the aftermath), and having observed a good few elections over the years, I don’t think elections say very much at all about such issues, and say a lot more about the voters. In general, voters will vote for whoever promises them lower taxes, etc. The fact that they might be failing to provide other essentials is generally Someone Else’s Problem. If you’re right, Earl, and Obama faces a conservative/reactionary backlash, it will not be becuase the electorate understand climate change science. It might be because they are afraid of tanking the economy, but they won’t have grasped that nothing will tank the economy like climatic disaster.
Earl 05.09.10 at 7:30 pm
November is shaping up to be a season of Thanksgiving as Americans prepare to use the ballot box to bring change to washington. Beginning with elections in Virginia, New Jersey and of course Mass., voters are showing no patience with the current administration or excuses offered by its supporters. More than any reaction by Conservatives and Republicans, the current administrations mounting problems stem from loss of support from moderates and independents. The current administration entered office trumpeting change, integrity, etc. What they have produced is a deficit measured in trillions of dollars, creeping socialism, and failure to make promised progress in Afghanistan. Upon first entering office many were willing to give the current administration the benefit of the doubt. Experience has demonstrated that this was a mistake. Now the majority of Americans only doubt the ability of the current administration. This November will be a referendum on the current administration. As well it will sound a death knell for the careers of many long term occupants of the senate and house. A few of that number are dealing with the consequences of dissatisfied tax payers. The larger number are finding that their less than rosy political future is the direct result of voters rejecting them and the party of which they are members.